• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Should Conservatives be Allowed to Hold Government Office?

Should Conservatives be Allowed to Hold Government Office?

  • Total voters
    68
dudalb said:
TO a degree yes, since Dems probably supported a lot of the excessively restritctive Zoning laws which are the main cause of the criris.
Click to expand...

It's the lack of property tax primarily to blame for the high housing costs, I think, but maybe this is a better subject for the economics forum.
 
Darat said:
It's not just your personal view, it's the meaning of the words and political ideologies!
Click to expand...

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
MEANINGLESS WORDS
Click to expand...

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
Click to expand...

I understand what Orwell is saying, but I disagree. We know what Fascists are -- they were a political party headed by Mussolini. So, a fascist would be a member of the Fascists, and I suppose someone whose beliefs can't be differentiated from Fascist beliefs. Just because someone calls me a "steaming pile..." doesn't mean the definition of "steaming pile..." has changed, even if everyone in the country is yelling it at the same time. We all know what Nazis are, and they aren't Trump supporters, no matter how many times it is repeated. It is simply a lie. It's also a logical fallacy, but I don't recall its designation.
 
Conservative people? Certainly. American style "conservatives"? No because most of them appear to have an increadibly unreasonable mindset completely lacking in pragmaticism. This is clearly demonstrated by their complete disregard for facts and science on just about any subject.
 
theprestige said:
Why or why not?

This is a more general question about the kind of society we'd like to have. That's why it's in SI&CE, not one of the politics subforums.
Click to expand...

How do you think this question and the poll responses address the society we'd like to have?
 
BrooklynBaby said:
I understand what Orwell is saying, but I disagree. We know what Fascists are -- they were a political party headed by Mussolini. So, a fascist would be a member of the Fascists, and I suppose someone whose beliefs can't be differentiated from Fascist beliefs. Just because someone calls me a "steaming pile..." doesn't mean the definition of "steaming pile..." has changed, even if everyone in the country is yelling it at the same time. We all know what Nazis are, and they aren't Trump supporters, no matter how many times it is repeated. It is simply a lie. It's also a logical fallacy, but I don't recall its designation.
Click to expand...

Word actually just mean whatever the person using the word means for it to mean. LOL The meaning of words change over time, and new, additional definitions/"meanings" gain prominence.

That came out all convoluted, so I'm just going to quote Webster's here:

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
Word actually just mean whatever the person using the word means for it to mean. LOL The meaning of words change over time, and new, additional definitions/"meanings" gain prominence.

That came out all convoluted, so I'm just going to quote Webster's here:
Click to expand...

Did the BrooklynBaby just blurt out the excuse that "we can't be Fascists and Nazis because those ended in the 1940s"? That is a very common excuse from contemporary Nazis and not persuasive at all. The only thing it indicates is the political leanings of the person who uttered the excuse.
 
Conservatives, sure no problem.

Even Republicans should be allowed to if a majority of people vote for them. It speaks to major underlying issues within society if people do vote for them in their current incarnation, but the solution isn’t to deny them the right to hold office.
 
This brings up back to a question that's been asked in various ways... in a Democracy what, if anything, does it mean for a voter, either individual or as a group, be wrong.

If X number of people vote for Y and Y is wrong (ignoring all definitions of "wrong" and who gets to define "wrong" and all that jazz for the moment) what does that means and what, if anything can we do about it.
 
The point of a democracy is the possibility of relatively fast and bloodless transition of power: electing the wrong person from time to time is inevitable, but luckily it is easy to get rid of them again. Hopefully, voters learn from their mistakes - but that would require admitting to themselves that they had picked the wrong candidate.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This brings up back to a question that's been asked in various ways... in a Democracy what, if anything, does it mean for a voter, either individual or as a group, be wrong.

If X number of people vote for Y and Y is wrong (ignoring all definitions of "wrong" and who gets to define "wrong" and all that jazz for the moment) what does that means and what, if anything can we do about it.
Click to expand...

I think if we ignore who gets to define it, then it's impossible to say what it means and what can be done about it.
 
kellyb said:
What's the purpose of this thread?
Click to expand...
To start/continue a fight with a blatantly dishonest premise, namely the implication that liberals/progressives would want to make it legally impossible for conservatives to hold public office.

The inherent dishonesty is highlighted in the OP with the lie that this isn't a political question.
 
The question in the OP is both authoritarian and fascist.

Please don't impose your personal wishes on ordinary people. Keep it in your ever-shrinking circle of friends.


Harte
 
Harte said:
The question in the OP is both authoritarian and fascist.
Click to expand...
Good point. It's a transparent attempt at showing Democrats/liberals as the *real* fascists who will use the law and/or force to steamroll over the poor, helpless, innocent Republicans/conservatives while the opposite is shown in reality time and time again.
 
Sanders was a fiscal conservative, he ran. Hillary is a Regan fiscal conservative, she ran. What the hell does the question even mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom