|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 10, 2009 16:11:01 GMT -5
This is something I have been wondering for awhile, could a conservative poster on this site gain respect, or acceptance from the general community?
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 10, 2009 16:12:46 GMT -5
This is something I have been wondering for awhile, could a conservative poster on this site gain respect, or acceptance from the general community? Do Rookie and I count?
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on Mar 10, 2009 16:13:54 GMT -5
Can you put up with Skyfire?
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 10, 2009 16:17:16 GMT -5
Define conservative. its just the idiot bible-thumping creationist gay-hating backwards flag-waving theocrat warmongers I think should be beat with the stupid stick. Sadly they've become so numerous and loud their synonymous with conservative and are dragging down the few good conservative ideas.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 10, 2009 16:27:44 GMT -5
This is something I have been wondering for awhile, could a conservative poster on this site gain respect, or acceptance from the general community? Do Rookie and I count? No. I would count you guys as moderates at best.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 10, 2009 16:29:04 GMT -5
Can you put up with Skyfire? Skyfire is a poor example. Even when he does have valid points to use in some arguments he does not. He seem to spout talking points more then anything else.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 10, 2009 16:31:08 GMT -5
This is something I have been wondering for awhile, could a conservative poster on this site gain respect, or acceptance from the general community? Asolutely. But they would have to be intelligent, articulate, open minded, and willing to listen.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 10, 2009 16:31:38 GMT -5
Define conservative. its just the idiot bible-thumping creationist gay-hating backwards flag-waving theocrat warmongers I think should be beat with the stupid stick. Sadly they've become so numerous and loud their synonymous with conservative and are dragging down the few good conservative ideas. I was thinking more, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-smaller government, less taxes, less regulations....ect. I think the key would be a lack of religious bases for those some of those stances.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 10, 2009 16:31:58 GMT -5
What do you mean by conservative? I consider myself fairly conservative. Fiscally conservative definitely. I just believe that it is better for society as a whole to care for the down and out, rather than to leave them on the street to steal for a living (SFU & UBC back me up on this one). I believe in a hand up, not a hand out, although there are some that are too far gone to ever be a productive member of society.
I own guns and train hunting and protection dogs. I believe in strong restrictions on handguns as opposed to hunting weapons. I don't believe anyone needs an automatic weapon. And I believe the "war on drugs" is a waste of time and money.
I don't know, maybe that makes me a liberal in your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 10, 2009 16:33:52 GMT -5
Well, apparently you mean an intelligent conservative willing to debate sensibly (unlike the example being thrown around, who does not). Those who can discuss things maturely will gain respect from FSTDTers, though if personal ideologies are taken into account, then the question of whether we respect their ideologies is a matter of personal perspective. We do not automatically afford respect to others' beliefs (hence FSTDT coming into existence) if those beliefs are too far-removed from our own as to be incensing.
In short, they can be respected as people, but that doesn't mean that their political beliefs will be respected. If they voice a drastic opinion, they - along with every member - can expect to have it questioned, refuted, debated and even argued. It's kinda what we do.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 10, 2009 16:36:44 GMT -5
Indeed. Definitions are becoming very fluid these days.
Let me attempt to put things in perspective. As far as I my understanding goes:
Liberalism is where you want relaxing/changing the current status quo to include new traits, never explored before. Conservatism is where you want to preserve the status quo. Reactionism is where you want to reverse changes and go back to previous (already explored and changed) state of things.
In that sence the economic ideas of both democrats and republicans are conservative. Liberal would be (in this country) exploring socialist/communist or anarchistic economics. Thus the way to distinguis is not to call them conservative or liberal but say republican/democrat views or dunno... restricted vs expanded government etc... The social views of the christian fundamentalist wing of the republicans are not conservative - they are reactionary. The moderate wing is probably close to conservative. The democrats are attempting limited social liberalism. But I can see how any stronger liberalism is constrained by the dominant conservative/reactionary social views of the electorate.
What I would call both economic and social liberals are the views of the Libertarians.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 10, 2009 16:38:30 GMT -5
I was thinking more, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-smaller government, less taxes, less regulations....ect. I think the key would be a lack of religious bases for those some of those stances. The second is the only one I'd jump down their throat about. If you remove religion *which was a pathetic excuse anyway* the only remaining reason is simple bigotry. The last 3 don't even have anything to do with religion. *some of those good ideas I mentioned*
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 10, 2009 16:43:47 GMT -5
What do you mean by conservative? I consider myself fairly conservative. Fiscally conservative definitely. I just believe that it is better for society as a whole to care for the down and out, rather than to leave them on the street to steal for a living (SFU & UBC back me up on this one). I believe in a hand up, not a hand out, although there are some that are too far gone to ever be a productive member of society. I own guns and train hunting and protection dogs. I believe in strong restrictions on handguns as opposed to hunting weapons. I don't believe anyone needs an automatic weapon. And I believe the "war on drugs" is a waste of time and money. I don't know, maybe that makes me a liberal in your eyes. Yes, it sounds that for most issues you fall to the left, while on fiscal issues you are more right. I'm thinking someone that holds most if not all of what is seen a conservative ideals.
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on Mar 10, 2009 16:44:28 GMT -5
After AIG, Citigroup, and Bush's bailouts with no strings attached, less regulation doesn't sound so good anymore. Anyone wanna buy a used jet?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 10, 2009 16:45:44 GMT -5
Well, apparently you mean an intelligent conservative willing to debate sensibly (unlike the example being thrown around, who does not). Those who can discuss things maturely will gain respect from FSTDTers, though if personal ideologies are taken into account, then the question of whether we respect their ideologies is a matter of personal perspective. We do not automatically afford respect to others' beliefs (hence FSTDT coming into existence) if those beliefs are too far-removed from our own as to be incensing. In short, they can be respected as people, but that doesn't mean that their political beliefs will be respected. If they voice a drastic opinion, they - along with every member - can expect to have it questioned, refuted, debated and even argued. It's kinda what we do. This is more what I was thinking.
|
|