what's in a name? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

LadyEllen -> what's in a name? (5/26/2010 11:30:54 AM)

It seems that the frequency with which terms like conservative, liberal and socialist are thrown about here, and that the apparent malleability of those terms according to the whims of their users, suggests a need for some sort of clarification, or at least explanation on the part of those users as to what exactly is meant.

To this end I offer my own interpretations, and I invite everyone else who takes an interest or uses these terms from time to time, to do the same.

Conservative to my mind indicates a “hands off” position, where intervention in the socio-economic sphere is seen as unnecessary, even damaging to the natural order which shall come about by the natural interactions of the people and the market through natural processes representing the only valid means of change.

Liberal to my mind indicates a “hand up” position, which recognises that interventions in the socio-economic sphere are necessary and beneficial to enabling access for all to the opportunities of the world, not just for individuals but also for business, which may otherwise be denied to them by recognised barriers present, prevailing and likely to arise in natural conditions.

Socialist to my mind indicates a “hand out” position, which holds that the barriers present, prevailing and likely to arise in natural conditions are insurmountable unless compensated for, and enabling access to opportunities is insufficient as a means of intervention – rather it is necessary to undo the natural processes and conditions such that all enjoy equal entitlement to reward.

Over to you – perhaps we might be able to agree definitions for these terms so that the apparently loose application of them on this board to date might be remedied for the future or at least we might have some better idea of what individual users mean when they use them.

E



pahunkboy -> RE: what's in a name? (5/26/2010 11:40:57 AM)

Frankly- that drives me NUTS.

The left right tension only feeds the Federal Reserve beast.

Nothing really changes in terms of the real power structure and the same lame tricks/scams happen again and again.



TheHeretic -> RE: what's in a name? (5/26/2010 5:53:57 PM)

Really, LadyE... If you are going to launch troll threads about definitions, you need to create a fake profile to work from.



DCWoody -> RE: what's in a name? (5/26/2010 10:07:48 PM)

I like to think of my philosophy as hands reaching out in front of me, slightly below shoulder height, making squeezing motions



Real0ne -> RE: what's in a name? (5/26/2010 11:25:55 PM)




Actually that is a very legitimate point.

Definitions today have been skewed to the point of meaninglessness.

The fact is that in practice its relative to ones personal view of themselves and has no standard point of origin.

People look at the other guy and look at themselves and make the claim based on what they think it is or should be.

If he has a democrat label he has to be a lib and repub he has to be a con and that is as far as most peoples brains will take it.





Vendaval -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 2:19:22 AM)

I'm confused because another example is missing. Which political philosophy has a bag of stolen money in one hand while simultaneously giving the f*** you sign to the people who just lost their home, business, health and life savings?



scrapdaddy -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 2:23:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

I'm confused because another example is missing. Which political philosophy has a bag of stolen money in one hand while simultaneously giving the f*** you sign to the people who just lost their home, business, health and life savings?


That isn't a political philosophy. It's a way of life.



Vendaval -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 3:11:58 AM)

If that is the case shouldn't there be a commercial sing along for it?



LadyEllen -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 4:17:27 AM)

"I'm not going to say a word here" because it might,

a) "make it clear to all that I have no idea what I'm talking about when I use these terms" and/or
b) "oblige me to desist using these terms in an unwarranted or derogoratory fashion" and/or
c) "force me to explain my own peculiar interpretations of these terms"

We should take it as read then, that those who will insist on using these terms simply have no idea what they mean and hence their entire commentary may be disregarded.

And one should have thought that with so many self professed experts, when it comes to political matters and as to what constitutes these terms, active and present here from time to time that we could have expected a profusion of participation.

E



Aneirin -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 4:34:48 AM)

Because of the way I think, the words I use in written conversation, I tend to know the meaning, and if I don't but the word seems a good word to use, google is my friend, I search the meaning of the word from various sources. But it is interesting sometimes when I am composing a piece of writing, sometimes a word comes from the depth of my noodle that seems right, but when I look at it, I think on seeing it written, I have not seen that before, better check it, only to find it is the correct word for the situation. I tend to understand the literal definition of a word, not what many have come to believe it means. Of course this does cause some problems sometimes with communication, but if one understands the true definition, then the accepted definition is often the wrong one.

Do people really know what they are talking about, or is it a case of they have picked up a word from others and apply it where they think it applies, but do not know because the original user that educated them didn't understand the definition of that word, it like as not carried on through conversation from person to person unchecked.

Words are powerful, people must understand their use.



NorthernGent -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 1:13:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Conservative to my mind indicates a “hands off” position, where intervention in the socio-economic sphere is seen as unnecessary, even damaging to the natural order which shall come about by the natural interactions of the people and the market through natural processes representing the only valid means of change.



Conservative can be hands off.....or hands on....it's really defined by a desire to maintain the established order...whether that established order is seen as the constitution or the monarchy.

In practice the British Conservative Party...is very liberal economically (free trade) and very conservative socially.



NorthernGent -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 1:15:15 PM)

And to say British conservatives desire a 'hands-off'approach to sociop-economic matters.........beggars belief. These are the people who would knocj up CCTV in your eyes if they thought they could get away with it.



brainiacsub -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 1:41:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

[...]
Conservative to my mind indicates a “hands off” position, where intervention in the socio-economic sphere is seen as unnecessary, even damaging to the natural order which shall come about by the natural interactions of the people and the market through natural processes representing the only valid means of change.

[...]

Actually, your definition is more Libertarian than Conservative. No worries, though...most Conservatives and Libertarians don't know the difference either.

It's a shame you even have to start this thread. These discussions wouldn't be so acerbic if at a minimum people would look these terms up in Wikipedia and try to understand them on their own before posting.



pahunkboy -> RE: what's in a name? (5/27/2010 2:06:57 PM)

No worries, though...most Conservatives and Libertarians don't know the difference either./snip


LMAO!.    Yup.  She is right.



LadyEllen -> RE: what's in a name? (5/28/2010 4:01:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Conservative can be hands off.....or hands on....it's really defined by a desire to maintain the established order...whether that established order is seen as the constitution or the monarchy.

In practice the British Conservative Party...is very liberal economically (free trade) and very conservative socially.


I'd accept that addition NG - that conservative also implies active intervention to maintain the natural order (as perceived by those concerned). However I'm not at all sure that the free trade element of conservative qualifies as liberal according to my definition of liberal - it seems to me that left to their own devices conservatives would prefer to work without the kind of regulation that liberals are more likely to introduce to level an otherwise unfair playing field and to enable the kind of access and outcomes requisite to a liberal social sphere.

We are talking in general terms here though examples from conservatism around the world are of course interesting.

As for the notion of conservatives wanting to introduce cctv (and their whole "the peasants are revolting" thing) - is this not just another example of their wish to maintain what they see as the natural order against the perceived deterioration of society? So yes we might conclude that their interventions where they occur are designed to one purpose, the maintenance of "natural order".

E



Moonhead -> RE: what's in a name? (5/28/2010 8:14:28 AM)

In that light, I think the argument that conservatism is all about paranoia has quite a bit of substance to it.



NorthernGent -> RE: what's in a name? (5/29/2010 12:21:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

And as for the notion of conservatives wanting to introduce cctv (and their whole "the peasants are revolting" thing) - is this not just another example of their wish to maintain what they see as the natural order against the perceived deterioration of society? So yes we might conclude that their interventions where they occur are designed to one purpose, the maintenance of "natural order".

E


Of course it is. Which is why there are horror stories of the towns and cities and the savages that live there.....as I've said before. It's all bound up in the conservative notion that England means........the shires.....country lanes.....relly heppy middle class gels and dashing chaps. The towns and cities are not England in their minds and they're going to paint them as a 'house of horrors'.

I think we have a recent example at hand of the conservative 'hands-on' approach as follows:

The Conservative Party have been banging on about the 'big society'.....which is supposed to be about the withdrawal of government from community life.

So.....three prostitutes go missing in Yorkshire......

What's the first thing the British Conservative Prime Minister says? Does he say this is a matter for the Yorkshire Police and for the communities of Yorkshire? No....he makes public that the government needs to step in and introduce new laws surrounding prostitution.

So.....really.....they're talking out of their arses...what they really mean is 'hands-off' for business....and 'hands-on' for anything that doesn't conform to the conservative ideal.



popeye1250 -> RE: what's in a name? (5/29/2010 1:14:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

It seems that the frequency with which terms like conservative, liberal and socialist are thrown about here, and that the apparent malleability of those terms according to the whims of their users, suggests a need for some sort of clarification, or at least explanation on the part of those users as to what exactly is meant.

To this end I offer my own interpretations, and I invite everyone else who takes an interest or uses these terms from time to time, to do the same.

Conservative to my mind indicates a “hands off” position, where intervention in the socio-economic sphere is seen as unnecessary, even damaging to the natural order which shall come about by the natural interactions of the people and the market through natural processes representing the only valid means of change.

Liberal to my mind indicates a “hand up” position, which recognises that interventions in the socio-economic sphere are necessary and beneficial to enabling access for all to the opportunities of the world, not just for individuals but also for business, which may otherwise be denied to them by recognised barriers present, prevailing and likely to arise in natural conditions.

Socialist to my mind indicates a “hand out” position, which holds that the barriers present, prevailing and likely to arise in natural conditions are insurmountable unless compensated for, and enabling access to opportunities is insufficient as a means of intervention – rather it is necessary to undo the natural processes and conditions such that all enjoy equal entitlement to reward.

Over to you – perhaps we might be able to agree definitions for these terms so that the apparently loose application of them on this board to date might be remedied for the future or at least we might have some better idea of what individual users mean when they use them.

E



Lady E, I think you're pretty close as regards the U.S. with your definitions. But, as Northern Gent says they wouldn't apply so much to England.
The conservative party there is opposite from our conservatives here.
And we're getting a real lesson here about Liberals and their "govt. should be involved in Everything" philosophy and the American People are greatly angered by it. Just watch our elections in November! It'll be like a bunch of bullocks hitting their nuts on an electric fence! All at once!
I think though to be fair that "Liberals" catch too much shit for the actions of the "Leftists" that somehow slithered their way into the Democratic party over here. For instance I don't know any "Liberals" who are for giving "amnesty" to illegal aliens but it seems most of the "Leftists" are.
For example I go into Yahoo News and read stories about that and there are hundreds of comments against "amnesty" and thousands of "thumbs ups" for those comments and only three or four comments that are "for" amnesty and hundreds or thousands of "thumbs downs" on those comments!
It's the same for the "conservatives." If those two parties would eject the wackos from their midst we might be able to get something done.
"Not enough" govt is as bad as "too much" govt in my opinion. And unfortunately it looks like President Obama is a "leftist" and that's not good for him, I really don't think by his performance over the last 16 months that he'll be re-elected in 2012. Many commentators here are already comparing him to Carter! Bowing and cowtowing to our enemies, allowing Mexico to criticise our people, laws and one of our states in the congress no less! I just don't think he comes from the type of background that is conducive to running a country (academia) and that the job is obviously too much for him.
Then there was Bush, low i.q. , holy roller, failed businessman, faux conservative, bought and paid for by big business, and like the Clintons a YALE graduate! I think we need a LOT less people with "degrees" in govt., they're REAL good at complicating things when they don't need to be! "Same actions, same results."
One thing is for certain, all the problems we have in the U.S. were caused by Democrats and Republicans "Liberals and Conservatives" so why continue to vote for them, unless, ...you have a low i.q?



Moonhead -> RE: what's in a name? (5/29/2010 5:29:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Of course it is. Which is why there are horror stories of the towns and cities and the savages that live there.....as I've said before. It's all bound up in the conservative notion that England means........the shires.....country lanes.....relly heppy middle class gels and dashing chaps. The towns and cities are not England in their minds and they're going to paint them as a 'house of horrors'.


Old maids cycling to church and cricket on the village green or whatever that stupid line of Major's was...



LadyEllen -> RE: what's in a name? (5/29/2010 9:00:28 AM)

OK so we've done "conservative" - what I'm really interested in is what our American friends think is "liberal" and what they think is "socialist" (if any difference is perceived between those two at all).

E



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125