Green Arrow vs. GrassrootsConservative: Conservatism, Liberalism, and Tradition

[Green Arrow]

Rules:

1) No insults and personal attacks.

Definitions of "conservative," "liberal," and "tradition" in the context of this discussion:

Conservatism - a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual developmentto abrupt change

Liberalism - a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essentialgoodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Tradition - a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time; the stories, beliefs, etc., that have been part of the culture of a group of people for a long time




@GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=478), do you agree to the rule and the definitions?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yes, I agree with most of that. Not sure why tradition is defined though. Tradition means different things to different people, and the kind talked about in the definition of Conservatism, at least in the American sense of the term, is things like the founding documents and the idea of freedom. We should also define progress if we're going to define tradition, because that's just as subjective. The things Liberals are currently doing is not at all progress to me, except in the way that it destroys our traditions.

[Green Arrow]

Yes, I agree with most of that. Not sure why tradition is defined though. Tradition means different things to different people, and the kind talked about in the definition of Conservatism, at least in the American sense of the term, is things like the founding documents and the idea of freedom. We should also define progress if we're going to define tradition, because that's just as subjective. The things Liberals are currently doing is not at all progress to me, except in the way that it destroys our traditions.

No, tradition means one thing, as I described. Everyone has different traditions, but the definition of tradition does not change. There's a difference.

"Progress" is too nebulous to nail down.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Really? Because these are the full definition(s) of Tradition as defined by Merriam-Webster:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition
tra·di·tion

noun \trə-ˈdi-shən\: a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time
: the stories, beliefs, etc., that have been part of the culture of a group of people for a long time
—used to say that someone has qualities which are like the qualities of another well-known person or group of people from the past










Full Definition of TRADITION

1
a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2
: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3
: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4 : characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>



Tradition is a few different things and to define it like you did is a very limited look at tradition.

It is also quite nebulous, just as much as progress, because the two words are antonyms. When you move towards tradition you move away from progress. When you move towards progress you move away from your traditions, no?

[Green Arrow]

Really? Because these are the full definition(s) of Tradition as defined by Merriam-Webster:

Tradition is a few different things and to define it like you did is a very limited look at tradition.

I specifically said that I was using the definition for the context of this debate. That's how multiple definitions of a word work, each applies to different contexts.

Besides that, all the definitions are incredibly similar and essentially mean the same thing.


It is also quite nebulous, just as much as progress, because the two words are antonyms. When you move towards tradition you move away from progress. When you move towards progress you move away from your traditions, no?

I wouldn't agree with that, not at all. I believe it is possible to progress without giving up traditions. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I specifically said that I was using the definition for the context of this debate. That's how multiple definitions of a word work, each applies to different contexts.

Besides that, all the definitions are incredibly similar and essentially mean the same thing.



I wouldn't agree with that, not at all. I believe it is possible to progress without giving up traditions. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That's fine, I'll use that definition if you want, I'm just saying I think if you define it you're already putting it in too small of a box.

With the exception of a few, you're right. I happen to think #3 fits best here. Could we use that one? That one is the exact opposite of "progress."

If the two are not mutually exclusive what are we even debating? If you can have both the old and the new why do Conservatives and Liberals even have different sides? Even in reading the definitions it's clear the two terms are meant as opposites. One based on tradition, the other on progress.

[Green Arrow]

That's fine, I'll use that definition if you want, I'm just saying I think if you define it you're already putting it in too small of a box.

With the exception of a few, you're right. I happen to think #3 fits best here. Could we use that one? That one is the exact opposite of "progress."

Sure.


If the two are not mutually exclusive what are we even debating? If you can have both the old and the new why do Conservatives and Liberals even have different sides? Even in reading the definitions it's clear the two terms are meant as opposites. One based on tradition, the other on progress.

Definitions are free from ideological differences. They just are, words mean what they mean. There's nothing in any of those definitions that opposes progress, unless you think progress means progressing away from tradition.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Sounds good. Gotta run.

[Green Arrow]

So, rather than a traditional opening statement, I'm going to open with a question for you, GrassrootsConservative:

You consider yourself a conservative. Given that we've agreed on the definitions of "conservative" and "tradition" already, how can you reconcile your claim of conservatism with your hatred of religion? Keeping in mind that America has a deep tradition of religious adherence and belief just as old and deep as its tradition of freedom and egalitarianism.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So, rather than a traditional opening statement, I'm going to open with a question for you, @GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=478):

You consider yourself a conservative. Given that we've agreed on the definitions of "conservative" and "tradition" already, how can you reconcile your claim of conservatism with your hatred of religion? Keeping in mind that America has a deep tradition of religious adherence and belief just as old and deep as its tradition of freedom and egalitarianism.

Well I'm much more interested in freedom of religion than religion itself. I feel like that's probably more of a tradition in American than Christianity is, especially when you look at how our founders twisted it and didn't adhere to many of the original beliefs, such as loving all of "god's" creatures, including blacks which they enslaved. Freedom of religion goes along with all other freedoms, and I don't think religion plays much of a role in politics, at least I hope not given how so many religions have as part of their agenda the destruction of other religions and their people.

I might ask the same of you, how your Liberal beliefs might line up with your Norse religion, which is an even older tradition than American Christianity. I won't though, because frankly it doesn't matter to me, but suffice to say I feel my anti-religious views have no effect on the determination I have to pursue political Conservatism.

/Edit: And to my point that freedom of religion is a greater tradition than Christianity is, look at our history of policies in relation to immigration. You do not have to be a Christian to come to America, but you do have to respect other religions and their peoples' freedoms to worship who they wish or to not worship at all.

[Green Arrow]

Well I'm much more interested in freedom of religion than religion itself. I feel like that's probably more of a tradition in American than Christianity is, especially when you look at how our founders twisted it and didn't adhere to many of the original beliefs, such as loving all of "god's" creatures, including blacks which they enslaved. Freedom of religion goes along with all other freedoms, and I don't think religion plays much of a role in politics, at least I hope not given how so many religions have as part of their agenda the destruction of other religions and their people.

I might ask the same of you, how your Liberal beliefs might line up with your Norse religion, which is an even older tradition than American Christianity. I won't though, because frankly it doesn't matter to me, but suffice to say I feel my anti-religious views have no effect on the determination I have to pursue political Conservatism.

/Edit: And to my point that freedom of religion is a greater tradition than Christianity is, look at our history of policies in relation to immigration. You do not have to be a Christian to come to America, but you do have to respect other religions and their peoples' freedoms to worship who they wish or to not worship at all.

I didn't say they were Christians, I said they were religious. And they were, all of them were religious to some degree. That religion wasn't really Christianity, at least not in all cases, but it WAS religion. I don't necessarily disagree with you that freedom in all things was more of a tradition than religion, but religion is still a pretty huge deal from our founding to now. Some of our founders even favored having Bibles in public schools and teaching it.

As for my own religion and political leanings, the religion I follow now is not the same as it was back then. Mostly because it's impossible to make it the same as it was back then, because we don't know enough about how it was to replicate it in the here and now. But even if we did, it would still be different, because as we evolve, so too do our beliefs. Even the old religions like Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam aren't the same today as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Regardless, I'm not asking you why you aren't religious. I don't really care if you choose to be religious or not. I'm just curious how you can reconcile being a conservative, someone who supports adherence to tradition, and then be as rabidly anti-religion as you are, to the point where you say that the very man many of the founders of this country, among them Thomas Jefferson, revered, is no more than a sick, murdering tyrant, no different than Charles Manson.

And if you're really just picking and choosing which traditions you try to conserve, how does that make you any different than the liberals you hate?

[GrassrootsConservative]

I didn't say they were Christians, I said they were religious. And they were, all of them were religious to some degree. That religion wasn't really Christianity, at least not in all cases, but it WAS religion. I don't necessarily disagree with you that freedom in all things was more of a tradition than religion, but religion is still a pretty huge deal from our founding to now. Some of our founders even favored having Bibles in public schools and teaching it.

As for my own religion and political leanings, the religion I follow now is not the same as it was back then. Mostly because it's impossible to make it the same as it was back then, because we don't know enough about how it was to replicate it in the here and now. But even if we did, it would still be different, because as we evolve, so too do our beliefs. Even the old religions like Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam aren't the same today as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Regardless, I'm not asking you why you aren't religious. I don't really care if you choose to be religious or not. I'm just curious how you can reconcile being a conservative, someone who supports adherence to tradition, and then be as rabidly anti-religion as you are, to the point where you say that the very man many of the founders of this country, among them Thomas Jefferson, revered, is no more than a sick, murdering tyrant, no different than Charles Manson.

And if you're really just picking and choosing which traditions you try to conserve, how does that make you any different than the liberals you hate?

Liberals don't even respect the thing you admit is more of a tradition than religion, freedom. They don't respect any of the founding documents either. I might not be Conservative 100% of the time on every issue (and I've never made that claim either), but at least I respect some of the things that made this country great.

You should know by now, that comparatively, I am just about as Conservative as it gets. I even critique people on "the right" who are Republicans in name only that do Liberal things. EVERYTHING people do that is Liberal, or progressive, or whatever term you want to use, their positions, are damaging to this great nation, and you can see it in our recession and depression and oppression, even though there are many of them who will deny it. You can't change the fact that every turn we make towards Liberalism is another brick in the wall of the new jail cell that currently holds America hostage.

Yes, I smoke pot. Yes, I am against religion. Yes, I believe politicians should all be given the death penalty only on basis of the atrocities that they are and that they create. Yes I still believe I am one of the few true Conservatives honestly wanting the best for our country. Having the beliefs that some freedoms to let Americans be who they are and to break the law on occasion should not make me a Liberal or anything close. If Liberals were honest to their platform that freedom is bad and most people should be in jail I would not have these freedoms, no?

[Green Arrow]

Liberals don't even respect the thing you admit is more of a tradition than religion, freedom. They don't respect any of the founding documents either. I might not be Conservative 100% of the time on every issue (and I've never made that claim either), but at least I respect some of the things that made this country great.

You should know by now, that comparatively, I am just about as Conservative as it gets. I even critique people on "the right" who are Republicans in name only that do Liberal things. EVERYTHING people do that is Liberal, or progressive, or whatever term you want to use, their positions, are damaging to this great nation, and you can see it in our recession and depression and oppression, even though there are many of them who will deny it. You can't change the fact that every turn we make towards Liberalism is another brick in the wall of the new jail cell that currently holds America hostage.

Yes, I smoke pot. Yes, I am against religion. Yes, I believe politicians should all be given the death penalty only on basis of the atrocities that they are and that they create. Yes I still believe I am one of the few true Conservatives honestly wanting the best for our country. Having the beliefs that some freedoms to let Americans be who they are and to break the law on occasion should not make me a Liberal or anything close. If Liberals were honest to their platform that freedom is bad and most people should be in jail I would not have these freedoms, no?

My concern is that you basically take the meaning out of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and just use "liberal" for everything you don't like. For example, you say there that conservatives respect freedoms and liberals do not. Yet, you've called me, Alyosha, and Codename Section liberals before for disagreeing with you, and I know for a fact all three of us respect freedom very highly.

So, either some liberals respect freedom, or no liberals respect freedom and a LOT of people you've called liberals are not liberals. Which is it?

[Mister D]

Is this open?

[Mister D]

Ah, I see it is. I will likely contribute tomorrow.

[Green Arrow]

Uhhh, it's not supposed to be, lol. It's still in the one-on-one section.
Adelaide?

[GrassrootsConservative]

My concern is that you basically take the meaning out of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and just use "liberal" for everything you don't like. For example, you say there that conservatives respect freedoms and liberals do not. Yet, you've called me, @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), and @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) liberals before for disagreeing with you, and I know for a fact all three of us respect freedom very highly.

So, either some liberals respect freedom, or no liberals respect freedom and a LOT of people you've called liberals are not liberals. Which is it?

Where did I call you three Liberals? You have me mistaken. There are plenty here who try that, I remember Mister D once called me a Liberal, but I do not call anyone a Liberal unless they admit to it. Here's your last chance, go and find where I have called you and Alyosha and Code Liberals. Maybe you and Alyosha, but not Code. I know Code is not a Liberal. Find where I called Code a Liberal and I'll give you this debate and apologize.

Also Mister D this thread is still in the one-on-one debate room. I don't care if you post here, this is strictly FYI.

[Green Arrow]

Where did I call you three Liberals? You have me mistaken. There are plenty here who try that, I remember Mister D once called me a Liberal, but I do not call anyone a Liberal unless they admit to it. Here's your last chance, go and find where I have called you and Alyosha and Code Liberals. Maybe you and Alyosha, but not Code. I know Code is not a Liberal. Find where I called Code a Liberal and I'll give you this debate and apologize.

Also @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) this thread is still in the one-on-one debate room. I don't care if you post here, this is strictly FYI.

Football's on and I'm with my family, so I'm not going to go hunting through the crappy search feature. So, revised statement:

My concern is that you basically take the meaning out of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and just use "liberal" for everything you don't like. For example, you say there that conservatives respect freedoms and liberals do not. Yet, you've called me and Alyosha liberals before for disagreeing with you, and I know for a fact that both of us respect freedom very highly.


So, either some liberals respect freedom, or no liberals respect freedom and a LOT of people you've called liberals are not liberals. Which is it?

[Mister D]

Where did I call you three Liberals? You have me mistaken. There are plenty here who try that, I remember Mister D once called me a Liberal, but I do not call anyone a Liberal unless they admit to it. Here's your last chance, go and find where I have called you and Alyosha and Code Liberals. Maybe you and Alyosha, but not Code. I know Code is not a Liberal. Find where I called Code a Liberal and I'll give you this debate and apologize.

Also @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) this thread is still in the one-on-one debate room. I don't care if you post here, this is strictly FYI.

Oh, sorry. I will hold off then. I should really go to bed

[GrassrootsConservative]

Football's on and I'm with my family, so I'm not going to go hunting through the crappy search feature. So, revised statement:

My concern is that you basically take the meaning out of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and just use "liberal" for everything you don't like. For example, you say there that conservatives respect freedoms and liberals do not. Yet, you've called me and @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) liberals before for disagreeing with you, and I know for a fact that both of us respect freedom very highly.


So, either some liberals respect freedom, or no liberals respect freedom and a LOT of people you've called liberals are not liberals. Which is it?

The second one, but I must point out that I've been called a Liberal too. Everybody does it. What I am trying to do is make it so that I stop labelling people as such and just called out what Liberalism is, let other people own up to those atrocities if they want to, and some have. Many on here I have called Liberals have admitted to being Liberals.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Did I win this one, then?