Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Foxfyre]

I think this post suggests that a review of the forum and thread guidelines would be in order .

Liberalism as it is defined in modern day American vernacular too often does target Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religion a pass. But that is a different discussion.

Are you trying to say that I'm violating the rules? If you are, please point out the exact violation, not just make a broad comment about something you find distasteful.

I don't see Liberalism as targeting Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religions a pass, Liberals are just pointing out the obvious. Republican Christians want to make laws that originate from Christianity and expect people from other religions to be okay with it, but they take exception when another religion tries to do the same.

And, it isn't a different discussion, it's in response to your comment. If it was a different discussion, then you shouldn't have made the comment.

The OP rules specifically state no ad hominem--address the post and not the speaker. The OP rules also specifically state to leave political parties out of it.

The OP invited participating members to share their views regarding what liberalism and conservatism is to them. I have been doing that. I don't insist anybody else agree with my definitions, but I do insist that I have as much right as any other member to define something as I see it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

I do, however, accept your argument that Conservatism as a philosophy does not condone violence, but in practice, the thing looks very different.

An idea and it's application thereof can be two very, very different things.

I did not link to Pew.

The topic of the OP asks for members to define liberalism and conservatism as they see them. I have been doing that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

I do, however, accept your argument that Conservatism as a philosophy does not condone violence, but in practice, the thing looks very different.

An idea and it's application thereof can be two very, very different things.

I did not link to Pew.

The topic of the OP asks for members to define liberalism and conservatism as they see them. I have been doing that.

You linked to HuffPo, which quotes PEW and PEW only in this case.

And HuffPo is also anything but left-leaning; that publication is all over the board.

Care to try again, or have you maybe decided to give information without such inappropriate judgement calls, which would be far more in line with the rules of the OP?

 

[Foxfyre]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

I do, however, accept your argument that Conservatism as a philosophy does not condone violence, but in practice, the thing looks very different.

An idea and it's application thereof can be two very, very different things.

I did not link to Pew.

The topic of the OP asks for members to define liberalism and conservatism as they see them. I have been doing that.

You linked to HuffPo, which quotes PEW and PEW only in this case.

And HuffPo is also anything but left-leaning; that publication is all over the board.

Care to try again, or have you maybe decided to give information without such inappropriate judgement calls, which would be far more in line with the rules of the OP?

The Huffington Post was launched on May 10, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report.[5][6][7] . . . .
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

I will leave it up to the mods as to whether I have broken any of the forum or the thread rules.

I have been discussing the topic as it was laid out in the OP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

I do, however, accept your argument that Conservatism as a philosophy does not condone violence, but in practice, the thing looks very different.

An idea and it's application thereof can be two very, very different things.

I did not link to Pew.

The topic of the OP asks for members to define liberalism and conservatism as they see them. I have been doing that.

You linked to HuffPo, which quotes PEW and PEW only in this case.

And HuffPo is also anything but left-leaning; that publication is all over the board.

Care to try again, or have you maybe decided to give information without such inappropriate judgement calls, which would be far more in line with the rules of the OP?

The Huffington Post was launched on May 10, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report.[5][6][7] . . . .
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

I will leave it up to the mods as to whether I have broken any of the forum or the thread rules.

I have been discussing the topic as it was laid out in the OP.

Oh, I don't care about that at all and have no desire to be reporting people over small things. Ariane Huffington was and as far as I know, still is a registered **********, so it would be weird to call HER publication "left leaning". And the broader point is that classifing anything here as left or right leaning sure seems to go against the goal of actually debating. So, do you want to debate, or not?

But I suppose it could make for some interesting discussion...

 

[Derideo_Te]

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Pew Research, dude. You should try learning a little bit about the world and what other people actually think for a change instead of just indulging your imagination.

You can call the results "propaganda" all you want, but I prefer a rational approach to one that operates from the perspective of rigid preconceptions while reacting with hysteria to anything that threatens to create cognitive dissonance when the truth of the matter contradicts them.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

The all too obvious misinterpretation of the Pew polls by the extreme right is readily apparent in their posts.

For starters is it s fallacy that Pew is "left leaning" however the mere fact that extreme conservatives perceive it as such exposes just how skewed they are to the extreme right.

Let's take look at some other Pew polls without introducing any commentary or bias.

Among Muslims Internet Use Goes Hand-in-Hand With More Open Views Toward Western Culture Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

MAY 31, 2013
Among Muslims, Internet Use Goes Hand-in-Hand With More Open Views Toward Western Culture
Around the world, Muslims who use the internet are much more likely than other Muslims to have a favorable opinion of Western movies, music and television and are somewhat more likely to see similarities between Islam and Christianity, according to an analysis of a recent Pew Research Center survey.

The survey of Muslims in 39 countries across the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Africa finds that a median of 18% use the internet in their home, school or workplace. However, internet use varies widely across the countries surveyed, ranging from just 2% of Muslims in Afghanistan to a majority (59%) in Kosovo.

In the 25 countries where there are enough Muslims who use the internet to permit more detailed analysis, the survey finds that internet users tend to be younger and better educated than Muslims who are not online. They also include a somewhat higher proportion of men. But statistical analysis shows that internet use is strongly associated with Muslims’ attitudes toward Western popular culture even when factors such as age, education and gender are taken into account. Holding all else equal, Muslims who use the internet are much more inclined to like Western movies, music and television, and they are somewhat less inclined to say that Western entertainment is harming morality in their country.

The survey also finds that Muslims who use the internet are somewhat more likely than those who are not online to see commonalities between their own faith and Christianity. Statistical analysis shows that internet use is associated with a more open attitude toward Christianity even when controlling for demographic factors such as age, education, gender, level of religious observance and participation in interfaith activities.​

The World s Muslims Religion Politics and Society Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Extremism Widely Rejected

Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam. Asked specifically about suicide bombing, clear majorities in most countries say such acts are rarely or never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies.

In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians. And in most countries, the prevailing view is that such acts are never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies. Yet there are some countries in which substantial minorities think violence against civilians is at least sometimes justified. This view is particularly widespread among Muslims in the Palestinian territories (40%), Afghanistan (39%), Egypt (29%) and Bangladesh (26%).

The survey finds little evidence that attitudes toward violence in the name of Islam are linked to factors such as age, gender or education. Similarly, the survey finds no consistent link between support for enshrining sharia as official law and attitudes toward religiously motivated violence. In only three of the 15 countries with sufficient samples sizes for analysis – Egypt, Kosovo and Tunisia – are sharia supporters significantly more likely to say suicide bombing and other forms of violence are at least sometimes justified. In Bangladesh, sharia supporters are significantly less likely to hold this view.

In a majority of countries surveyed, at least half of Muslims say they are somewhat or very concerned about religious extremism. And on balance, more Muslims are concerned about Islamic than Christian extremist groups. In all but one of the 36 countries where the question was asked, no more than one-in-five Muslims express worries about Christian extremism, compared with 28 countries where at least that many say they are concerned about Islamic extremist groups. ​

Democracy and Religious Freedom

Most Muslims around the world express support for democracy, and most say it is a good thing when others are very free to practice their religion. At the same time, many Muslims want religious leaders to have at least some influence in political matters.

Given a choice between a leader with a strong hand or a democratic system of government, most Muslims choose democracy. Regional medians of roughly six-in-ten or more support democracy in sub-Saharan Africa (72%), Southeast Asia (64%) and Southern and Eastern Europe (58%), while slightly fewer agree in the Middle East and North Africa (55%) and Central Asia (52%). Muslims in South Asia are the most skeptical of democratic government (a median of 45% say they support democracy).​

How does that compare to the biased allegations that Dogmaphobe was projecting of Muslims in post #43 that he claimed came from Pew?

 

[Coyote]

Let's not get too derailed into Islam - though that could be a good topic for another thread. Let's try to stick to what liberalism and conservatism means in theory and practice

I use Pew as a source a lot - I think it's pretty unbiased. Folks can cherry pick it, and that can be misleading.

 

[Derideo_Te]

but I do insist that I have as much right as any other member to define something as I see it.

You have the right to define whatever you like.

However you DON'T have the right to fallaciously claim your view is the prevailing view of the majority of this nation.

You make that egregious claim constantly. That is not an ad hom attack either. It is just a fact. Here is an example of where you did exactly that;

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America ​

You don't get to make those bogus claims unless you can back them up with credible sources. Furthermore every time you have been asked to do so you have failed.

Feel free to state your OPINION but don't try to PRETEND that everyone else agrees with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

Here's a link from a left leaning site:
Pew Research Center Global Harassment Of Jews Has Reached A Seven-Year High

Recent Pew Research also reports a high incident of hostile acts toward Muslims in almost as many nations as report hositlity or violence against Jews. IMO, the difference is that hositlity toward Jews is rarely instigated by other Jews. A great deal of the hositlity toward Muslims is instigated by other Muslims who object to the 'unorthodoxy' of fellow Muslims. Muslim women are too often the targets of such hostility. And many governments

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups. It is a liberal concept as liberalism is most usually defined in modern day America that would use government to control religion or demand that it behave in a certain way. We are not to the extreme of those other nations in which hostility to religious groups seems to be growing. Could we get there? If I believed some of the rhetoric on these message boards, I don't think we could rule it out if liberalism achieved total power over the rest of us.

Already, that posting is extremely biased.

PEW is part of the PEW charitable trust Foundation. Both Liberals AND Conservatives serve on the board of that trust. PEW is therefore independent and not beholden to any one particular ideology at all.

PEW's polling values have been very much in the middle of most everything.

So, with your first sentence, you already indicate that you are not even remotely interested in honest debate. The first statement is also a bald-faced lie.

I will take PEW's data over the data of many others any day of the week.

I do, however, accept your argument that Conservatism as a philosophy does not condone violence, but in practice, the thing looks very different.

An idea and it's application thereof can be two very, very different things.

I did not link to Pew.

The topic of the OP asks for members to define liberalism and conservatism as they see them. I have been doing that.

You linked to HuffPo, which quotes PEW and PEW only in this case.

And HuffPo is also anything but left-leaning; that publication is all over the board.

Care to try again, or have you maybe decided to give information without such inappropriate judgement calls, which would be far more in line with the rules of the OP?

The Huffington Post was launched on May 10, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report.[5][6][7] . . . .
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

I will leave it up to the mods as to whether I have broken any of the forum or the thread rules.

I have been discussing the topic as it was laid out in the OP.

Oh, I don't care about that at all and have no desire to be reporting people over small things. Ariane Huffington was and as far as I know, still is a registered **********, so it would be weird to call HER publication "left leaning". And the broader point is that classifing anything here as left or right leaning sure seems to go against the goal of actually debating. So, do you want to debate, or not?

But I suppose it could make for some interesting discussion...

I have been discussing the thread topic that does not include Ariana Huffington or Huffpo. And I have been relating to the thread topic as much as I can. It is an interesting topic and that is what I expect to continue to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's not get too derailed into Islam - though that could be a good topic for another thread. Let's try to stick to what liberalism and conservatism means in theory and practice

I use Pew as a source a lot - I think it's pretty unbiased. Folks can cherry pick it, and that can be misleading.

Trying Coyote. Really trying here.

I do think liberal vs conservative views of Islam can be instructive in differing between the two ideologies, but it sure is easy for things to get derailed isn't it?

I use Pew a LOT. And there are a ton of different Pew polls, all conducted within the last five to ten years, on attitudes of Islam, attitudes and actions toward Muslims and Jews and Christians etc. etc. etc. The results can be interpreted in many different ways, and Pew too often leaves the conclusion open for broad interpretation, but when I look at all of them objectively, some pretty strong patterns do seem to emerge.

And it is probably even instructive how liberals and conservatives posting in this thread interpret those polls differently.

One of the more interesting phenomenon I am watching on this thread is which group is more often able to focus on the thread topic and rules, and which group seems more often to have a real problem with how some of us do that. I wonder if that too fits into the definitions of liberalism and conservatism?

 

[Mertex]

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups.

That's an interesting observation, considering the recent occurence.


A Republican candidate, commits suicide because he was being rumored to be a Jew by another Republican. If conservatives don't condone or practice such hostility why is it that one of their own would rather die than be accused of being Jewish, or that another Republican (Hancock) would know that accusing someone of being Jewish would be derogatory enough as to cause him to lose, not to mention take his own life.


John Danforth says rumors of a gubernatorial candidate being Jewish led to his suicide
BY JTA March 4, 2015, 6:39 pm

Former US senator John Danforth chastised Missouri state political leaders for using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic, which he said led to the suicide of a gubernatorial candidate.
Former senator decries use of anti-Semitism in Missouri campaign The Times of Israel

It appears that my comment is conspicuously being ignored and instead we have devolved into discussing the rules of the thread.

If you are going to make a statement, at least defend it when it is challenged.

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups.

That's an interesting observation, considering the recent occurence.


A Republican candidate, commits suicide because he was being rumored to be a Jew by another Republican. If conservatives don't condone or practice such hostility why is it that one of their own would rather die than be accused of being Jewish, or that another Republican (Hancock) would know that accusing someone of being Jewish would be derogatory enough as to cause him to lose, not to mention take his own life.


John Danforth says rumors of a gubernatorial candidate being Jewish led to his suicide
BY JTA March 4, 2015, 6:39 pm

Former US senator John Danforth chastised Missouri state political leaders for using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic, which he said led to the suicide of a gubernatorial candidate.
Former senator decries use of anti-Semitism in Missouri campaign The Times of Israel

It appears that my comment is conspicuously being ignored and instead we have devolved into discussing the rules of the thread.

If you are going to make a statement, at least defend it when it is challenged.

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups

My statement was within the context of defining what conservatism and liberalism is and referred to no political party as the OP requests. The topic is not a Missouri suicide or what prompted it.

However in rebuttal noting that it is off topic:
Hancock s radio co-host Kelley defends him in Schweich suicide controversy News

Kelley is not of the party being accused.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups.

That's an interesting observation, considering the recent occurence.


A Republican candidate, commits suicide because he was being rumored to be a Jew by another Republican. If conservatives don't condone or practice such hostility why is it that one of their own would rather die than be accused of being Jewish, or that another Republican (Hancock) would know that accusing someone of being Jewish would be derogatory enough as to cause him to lose, not to mention take his own life.


John Danforth says rumors of a gubernatorial candidate being Jewish led to his suicide
BY JTA March 4, 2015, 6:39 pm

Former US senator John Danforth chastised Missouri state political leaders for using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic, which he said led to the suicide of a gubernatorial candidate.
Former senator decries use of anti-Semitism in Missouri campaign The Times of Israel

It appears that my comment is conspicuously being ignored and instead we have devolved into discussing the rules of the thread.

If you are going to make a statement, at least defend it when it is challenged.

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups

My statement was within the context of defining what conservatism and liberalism is and referred to no political party as the OP requests. The topic is not a Missouri suicide or what prompted it.

However in rebuttal noting that it is off topic:
Hancock s radio co-host Kelley defends him in Schweich suicide controversy News

Kelley is not of the party being accused.

The question was about your claim that conservatism "neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups".

The example provided had nothing to do with political parties but rather the fact that conservatives were using "using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic".

That refutes your claim.

Your deflection does not address your failure to defend your claim.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's be honest, it's not "liberalism vs conservatism", it's "socialism vs capitalism". "Liberal" was always a code word for "socialist".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

But which is worse when it comes to liberty, equality, and justice:

A government with the power to force people to accept and enforce its definition of such things? (And conversely given power to change that defintiion or take away liberty, equality, and justice?) This of course is always presented as for the general good.

Or unscrupulous people who operate sweat shops or underpay their people, but the people have a choice in whether they work for such employers or not; i.e. the people decide how it is going to be?

IMO it is this is the basic difference in point of view that does define modern day liberalism and conservatism.

 

[Mertex]

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups.

That's an interesting observation, considering the recent occurence.


A Republican candidate, commits suicide because he was being rumored to be a Jew by another Republican. If conservatives don't condone or practice such hostility why is it that one of their own would rather die than be accused of being Jewish, or that another Republican (Hancock) would know that accusing someone of being Jewish would be derogatory enough as to cause him to lose, not to mention take his own life.


John Danforth says rumors of a gubernatorial candidate being Jewish led to his suicide
BY JTA March 4, 2015, 6:39 pm

Former US senator John Danforth chastised Missouri state political leaders for using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic, which he said led to the suicide of a gubernatorial candidate.
Former senator decries use of anti-Semitism in Missouri campaign The Times of Israel

It appears that my comment is conspicuously being ignored and instead we have devolved into discussing the rules of the thread.

If you are going to make a statement, at least defend it when it is challenged.

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups

My statement was within the context of defining what conservatism and liberalism is and referred to no political party as the OP requests. The topic is not a Missouri suicide or what prompted it.

And my response was within the context of debunking your statement. Sure the topic is not about a Missouri suicide, but it also isn't about an LA County seal being challenged. My response clearly debunks your statement that conservatives do not practice hostility toward other religious groups....we've seen plenty of conservatives here on this Forum demean all Muslims and use the term "Muslim" to try and insult the President. If it wasn't used as an insult, why is it used at all?

However in rebuttal noting that it is off topic:
Hancock s radio co-host Kelley defends him in Schweich suicide controversy News

Kelley is not of the party being accused.

Well yeah, but Hancock admits having mentioned that Schweich was Jewish, although he claims it was not a derogatory manner.....how often do people go around telling others what religion someone practices? Hmmmmm, doesn't pass the smell test.


“While I do not recall doing so, it is possible that I mentioned Tom’s faith in passing during one of the many conversations I have each day. There was absolutely nothing malicious about my intent, and I certainly was not attempting to “inject religion” into the governor’s race, as some have suggested.”
Whodid Hancock Tell Schweich Was Jewish Ebuzz New US Top News Photos Videos Live Buzz Breaking News

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups.

That's an interesting observation, considering the recent occurence.


A Republican candidate, commits suicide because he was being rumored to be a Jew by another Republican. If conservatives don't condone or practice such hostility why is it that one of their own would rather die than be accused of being Jewish, or that another Republican (Hancock) would know that accusing someone of being Jewish would be derogatory enough as to cause him to lose, not to mention take his own life.


John Danforth says rumors of a gubernatorial candidate being Jewish led to his suicide
BY JTA March 4, 2015, 6:39 pm

Former US senator John Danforth chastised Missouri state political leaders for using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic, which he said led to the suicide of a gubernatorial candidate.
Former senator decries use of anti-Semitism in Missouri campaign The Times of Israel

It appears that my comment is conspicuously being ignored and instead we have devolved into discussing the rules of the thread.

If you are going to make a statement, at least defend it when it is challenged.

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups

My statement was within the context of defining what conservatism and liberalism is and referred to no political party as the OP requests. The topic is not a Missouri suicide or what prompted it.

However in rebuttal noting that it is off topic:
Hancock s radio co-host Kelley defends him in Schweich suicide controversy News

Kelley is not of the party being accused.

The question was about your claim that conservatism "neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups".

The example provided had nothing to do with political parties but rather the fact that conservatives were using "using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic".

That refutes your claim.

Your deflection does not address your failure to defend your claim.

The statement I responded to suggested that a person of a particular political party was off base. There was no evidence presented that conservatism or liberalism factored into that in any way.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's be honest, it's not "liberalism vs conservatism", it's "socialism vs capitalism". "Liberal" was always a code word for "socialist".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

But which is worse when it comes to liberty, equality, and justice? A government with the power to force people to accept its definition of such things? (And conversely given power to change that defintiion or take away liberty, equality, and justice?) This of course is always presented as for the general good.

Or unscrupulous people who operate sweat shops or underpay their people, but the people have a choice in whether they work for such employers or not?

IMO it is this concept that does define modern day liberalism and conservatism.

Yet another strawman.

Sweatshops only exist because those that are employed don't have any choices. It is either the sweatshop or starvation.

As far as the bogus claim that only liberals "redefine" the meanings of terms that is absolutely false. The Apartheid regime was 100% conservative (and endorsed by conservative icons in this nation) and it produced some of the most unbelievable redefinitions I have ever encountered. Perhaps the most astounding example was when they adopted the term "plurals" to refer to black South Africans.

So there is zero basis to your claim that either of those examples are even vague approximations of the definitions of "modern day liberalism and conservatism".

Oh, and no, they aren't "modern day" either so let's pull the plug on that little deceit too.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups.

That's an interesting observation, considering the recent occurence.


A Republican candidate, commits suicide because he was being rumored to be a Jew by another Republican. If conservatives don't condone or practice such hostility why is it that one of their own would rather die than be accused of being Jewish, or that another Republican (Hancock) would know that accusing someone of being Jewish would be derogatory enough as to cause him to lose, not to mention take his own life.


John Danforth says rumors of a gubernatorial candidate being Jewish led to his suicide
BY JTA March 4, 2015, 6:39 pm

Former US senator John Danforth chastised Missouri state political leaders for using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic, which he said led to the suicide of a gubernatorial candidate.
Former senator decries use of anti-Semitism in Missouri campaign The Times of Israel

It appears that my comment is conspicuously being ignored and instead we have devolved into discussing the rules of the thread.

If you are going to make a statement, at least defend it when it is challenged.

Conservatism as it is most usually defined in modern day America neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups

My statement was within the context of defining what conservatism and liberalism is and referred to no political party as the OP requests. The topic is not a Missouri suicide or what prompted it.

However in rebuttal noting that it is off topic:
Hancock s radio co-host Kelley defends him in Schweich suicide controversy News

Kelley is not of the party being accused.

The question was about your claim that conservatism "neither condones nor practices such hostility toward other religious groups".

The example provided had nothing to do with political parties but rather the fact that conservatives were using "using anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic".

That refutes your claim.

Your deflection does not address your failure to defend your claim.

The statement I responded to suggested that a person of a particular political party was off base. There was no evidence presented that conservatism or liberalism factored into that in any way.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that anti-semitism is common amongst conservatives, especially the extreme conservatives.

 

[alan1]

Are you trying to say that I'm violating the rules? If you are, please point out the exact violation, not just make a broad comment about something you find distasteful.

Yes, I'd say you are violating the rules, this was in the OP.
:1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values."
Your rule violation hilighted in blue below.

I don't see Liberalism as targeting Christianity for particular animosity from government while tending to give any other religions a pass, Liberals are just pointing out the obvious. Republican Christians want to make laws that originate from Christianity and expect people from other religions to be okay with it, but they take exception when another religion tries to do the same.

And, it isn't a different discussion, it's in response to your comment. If it was a different discussion, then you shouldn't have made the comment.

 

[Coyote]

For those that have been distracted, here's a reminder of the thread rules - I kept it simple, just three rules

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.