Conservatives are always wrong.

[Bak]

I figured I'd make a ridiculous topic to contrast Aileron's. Unlike Aileron, however, I won't ragequit my own topic and may even follow up! Taken from here (maybe).

 

 

 

“Conservatives are always wrong.”

 

That’s all that liberal politicians should really say when it comes to contentious issues. Conservatives are always wrong. Throughout the entire history of the United States of America, the conservatives have always been wrong.

 

Conservatives stood for the status quo as Loyalists, willing to be subjects to an unelected King. They were wrong.

 

Liberal Framers like John Adams and Ben Franklin tried to write the declaration of a new nation that would consider all men free. Conservatives from the South fought (and won) for the exclusion of this language, and ensured that blacks would be enslaved for another 89 years. They were wrong.

 

Pro-business conservatives tried to block child labor laws. They were wrong.

 

Conservatives fought against women’s right to vote. They were wrong.

 

Conservatives banned alcohol. They were disastrously wrong.

 

Conservatives fought to keep interracial marriage illegal. They were wrong.

 

Conservatives stood for integrated schools and against the Civil Rights Act. They were wrong. They jailed Rosa Parks, which was wrong, but convenient, and a great act of IRL trolling.

 

Conservatives thought it was okay for employers to deny employment on the basis of race, sex, or religion. They were wrong. They thought blacks needed to use separate drinking fountains, which is both wrong and ridiculous.

 

Conservatives fought to keep homosexuality illegal. They were wrong.

 

Conservatives prosecuted John Scopes for teaching evolution. They were wrong.

 

Conservatives tried to stop the creation of Social Security for our elderly citizens. They were wrong.

 

Note here how many of these instances deal with conservatives siding with Big Business. In fact, it is an inevitability that when conservatives side with big business on the issue of social change, they are wrong. History ALWAYS records the conservatives as being on the wrong side; this is not because history writers are liberal, but because CONSERVATIVES ARE ALWAYS WRONG.

[Dr Brain]

You can't be taken seriously when you make up definitions for words. Conservative is not the same as supporting the status-quo. If you believe that, then you've missed the entire point of conservatism. I'd never make the mistake of thinking liberalism is about changing things for change's sake. Please show the same courtesy.

[Simulacrum]

Paradoxically, where your argument falls apart is the historical instability of conservatism. Most of the views which you ascribe to the conservatives of the past would never be held by the conservatives today, because the very definition of conservatism is dependent upon the current position of ever-changing facts of society. If conservatism is truly always wrong, the logical conclusion is that we should never resist change. This can't be a good idea; we should never use such a general rule in place of considering ideas on their merits, or else we will never settle on the best ideas.

 

Granted, you hedge your bet by saying that this is a "ridiculous" post. Very well; I think that you are right. But I wonder what you hope to accomplish by sinking to Aileron's level.

 

Edit for Dr. Brain: I think that conservative does mean supporting the status quo, but only because, at any particular historical moment, the word "conservative" is used to describe that support. This doesn't mean that conservatives have no principles; it just means that the principles that we describe as "conservative" (and as "liberal") will probably change down the line when different issues come to the fore.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Simulacrum

[LiDDiS]

• <----- The point
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:V/< <----- Dr Brain

[Simulacrum]

As someone who disagrees with Dr. Brain about pretty much everything, I think that he's just about on point. Bak's using "conservative" in a way that's far too flexible to build anything out of, so in the end he ends up saying nothing at all.

[Dr Brain]

I am a conservative and, like all conservatives, I want huge sweeping changes in the *current* the US political system. By that narrow definition of conservatism (supporting the status quo) that would be contradictory.

[Simulacrum]

I am a conservative and, like all conservatives, I want huge sweeping changes in the *current* the US political system. By that narrow definition of conservatism (supporting the status quo) that would be contradictory.

Fair, but surely you realize that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have not always referred to the same principles, and continue to refer to different sets of principles in different places.

[Dr Brain]

Of course I realize that. However, I refuse to have a debate using antiquated terminology. Might as well debate using the terms Torrys and Whigs. If you want to rip on southern secessionists, that's fine, but don't call them conservatives and don't pretend they share any commonalities with modern conservatives (since they don't).

 

Also, minor note: prohibitionists weren't conservatives by Bak's definition, they were liberals. The anti-prohibitionists were the "conservatives" (please note the quotes, I don't make Bak's mistake of thinking they have anything to do with modern conservatives). Also, loyalists weren't strictly conservatives, since they supported the changing policies of the Empire, while the rest of the colonists rejected the changing policies (the tea tax springs to mind). Of course the topics aren't cut and dry, but that's my whole point. Antiquated terminology has no bearing on modern debates.

[LiDDiS]

No, the point is this thread like ailron's is a troll topic, so replying with anything approaching serious discussion is a waste of time for everyone.

[SeVeR]

I am a conservative and, like all conservatives, I want huge sweeping changes in the *current* the US political system. By that narrow definition of conservatism (supporting the status quo) that would be contradictory.

Perhaps the only change you want is the change from a regime that changes things a lot to a regime that never changes a single thing other than reversing the previous regime's changes. In which case you want to reinstate the status quo, and your denial of that is simply word-play. Edited December 30, 2009 by SeVeR

[»D1st0rt]

This was like a really stupid conversation that was going on in pub chat in Hyperspace a few days ago where some (I'm assuming younger) people were saying that the terms conservative and liberal were applied to the opposite group that they should have been because its the democrats that typically want conservation and the republicans are more interested in liberation.

 

Was really frustrating to watch.

[Simulacrum]

I'd have banned them on principle.

[BDwinsAlt]

Well I laughed hard when I read BaK's post. All those things he said were wrong, don't seem so wrong to some people here. Anyway, conservatives banned marijuana to deport immigrants, but liberals feed the poor too much and don't make them earn things as much. Don't get me wrong, I was recently laid off to make room for a Hindu lady to get 80s hrs a week because the family that bought the company is taking over. I cannot draw unemployment either. I have a loan and bills to pay. I saved some money for this very reason, but I'm still looking for a job and the funds won't last much longer. The people who need the help, don't always get it. I am 19 and live on my own, I am not a full-time student, but according to Alabama state law, I am ineligible for unemployment. So, I really hate paying all these taxes and helping all these people who sometimes don't really need help, and then when I need help temporarily, I can't get anything.

 

The "point". At least with conservatives we have fewer people leech off the government, but at the same time, liberals need to find a way to help the majority who need help, not just focus on the minority.

 

Do you ever see someone pay with food stamps and have 2 buggies full of name brand items, and drive a brand new cadailac with spinners and jammin all through the parking lot, I do. Yet I'm struggling to get by right now. It is very depressing and really sometimes I don't think I can handle it and really just want to go ahead and die so I won't have to worry about anything. That may be extreme, but I'm really scared right now.

 

Stay moderate.