AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

Centroles wrote:

Wow, a lot happened in the two hours I was in class.

Tarantulas, your argument is a logical fallacy.

Really? To which of my arguments are you referring? And what logical fallacy do you believe has been committed?

Centroles wrote:

Exactly what freedom would be infringed upon by having a national database in the manner i described it?

I ask you bluntly, exactly what about my specific proposal do you disagree with? What aspect of it do you think isn't prudent? Why?

I'm not sure what you described or which one of your posts contains your "specific proposal." As you said, a lot has happened and you yourself posted several times, as did I. Let's push RESET so we're talking about the same thing.

Centroles wrote:

I don't want to hear a widely discredited slippery slope theory that isn't even applicable to this situation...

Here's an example of the slippery slope fallacy:

Quote:

You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.

However, if the person is already stealing to support a gambling habit, using the quote above is not an example of the slippery slope fallacy but a matter of common sense cause and effect. Similarly, starting several years ago we have seen more and more gun laws made until we arrive at the restrictive state we see today. My contention is that we should stop making more gun laws so we stop eroding our right to keep and bear arms. Since the slope has already been shown to be slippery, no fallacy has been committed.

Centroles wrote:

...if you can't point to any negative effects of this specific proposal, there's no basis to make this analogy.

You still need to restate your specific proposal. But you need to know that this logical fallacy is called "Argument From Ignorance ( argumentum ad ignorantiam )."

Quote:

Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.

Examples:
(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.

Or, specifically, "Since you can't point to any bad effects of my proposal, my proposal must be good."

0 Replies

You can find my proposal about half way down page 2.

I'm not asking you to prove anything Tarantulus. I am simply asking that you point to any bad thing that could conceivably and realistically happen as a direct result of this policy.

Your last statement does make sense if was revised a bit. If one cannot give any reasons why a policy might conceivably be bad, then they have no basis to argue that the policy is made. If you can't point to how my policy would conceivably be bad, you have no basis to argue that my policy would be bad.

The so called slippery slope analogy simply doesn't make sense. Our gun ownership rights haven't eroded. If you're not a criminal, you still have the same rights to own a gun as you already did. Our rights to own a gun won't erode as a result of this proposal either. So exactly where is your slope?

0 Replies

The following statement is false.
The previous statement is true.

0 Replies

During the history of our republic, we have often had opposing parties in control of the administration and congress, so trying to say one or the other is responsible for one thing or another misses the whole idea of what a democracy is all about. We're at this point in our history, because presidents and the congress approved what we have today. What most people may have approved 100 years ago will probably not be approved today by any party. Aren't we lucky that we can speak our minds without getting hung. When free speech disappears from our landscape, all bets are off.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

You can find my proposal about half way down page 2.

Okay, you made me go search for it and I did. You posted twice on page 2. The second post was about halfway down the page, and it said this:

Centroles wrote:

Liberals tried to pass a bill recently that said that guns cannot be sold at gun shows to people that don't even bother to present an ID. It was shut down by conservatives.

Why?

You sound like a reasonable person. What justification do you have for not atleast bothering to find out who the person is before being able to sell the gun to them. What if he is a criminal, wanted for a double homicide? Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that after he kills someone with the gun he bought at the gun show, the government would atleast be able to trace the gun back to him and stop him from doing it again?

Off topic, I am the proud owner of SUV (mazda tribute). It actually gets decent mileage though, I couldnt afford it otherwise. I've never been harrassed for it and I've never heard of anyone else being harassed for owning an SUV.

So your proposal is that everyone selling a gun at a gun show should be required to conduct a background check of the buyer? Guns sold at gun shows by federally licensed dealers must include a background check by law. But a gun sold by one private citizen to another private citizen is not and should not be subject to a background check, whether it is sold at a gun show or in a private home. I am opposed to adding that restriction to trade between private citizens.

Centroles wrote:

I'm not asking you to prove anything Tarantulus. I am simply asking that you point to any bad thing that could conceivably and realistically happen as a direct result of this policy.

Well how would it work, for starters? Would the FBI accept a phone call from a private citizen and do a background check for him? If this law were enacted, couldn't I call the FBI and say I was selling you a gun (even if I wasn't), and have them do a background check on you? Would you object to your loss of privacy in that case?

Centroles wrote:

Your last statement does make sense if was revised a bit. If one cannot give any reasons why a policy might conceivably be bad, then they have no basis to argue that the policy is made. If you can't point to how my policy would conceivably be bad, you have no basis to argue that my policy would be bad.

Well sure. If I can't show how your policy is bad, then I shouldn't say it's bad. But the fallacy maintains that if I can't show how your policy is bad, then you can't make me say it's good.

Centroles wrote:

The so called slippery slope analogy simply doesn't make sense. Our gun ownership rights haven't eroded. If you're not a criminal, you still have the same rights to own a gun as you already did. Our rights to own a gun won't erode as a result of this proposal either. So exactly where is your slope?

Our gun ownership rights haven't eroded? I can't buy a 13-round magazine for my Sig Sauer P-228 Sheriff's Posse duty weapon unless I can show that I'm classified as "law enforcement" or "military," and the magazine has to be stamped as such. I can't buy any semiautomatic guns from Steyr. And if my Ruger Mini-14 rifle was manufactured after 1994 (or maybe 1992, I don't recall), I can't buy an aftermarket folding stock for it. Talk about erosion of rights...

I hesitate to post a website of the enemy, but I have a point to make. Go to the Brady Campaign web page that talks about the "assault weapons ban." Near the top of the page, you'll see this:

Quote:

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher

Pistols

Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

You can see that most of these attributes are purely cosmetic and have no connection to the actual operation of the gun. A threaded muzzle or a pistol grip or a folding stock doesn't make a gun any more dangerous. Basically this law bans guns that look scary. But it bans magazines of over 10 rounds, which does directly limit the ability of a private citizen to protect himself. In other words, it is bad. There are no statistics that show how scary looking guns or 13-round magazines have been a problem in this country prior to 1994, so it is puzzling how this bill ever made it through Congress. There is a "sunset clause" in this law that will let it expire in September of 2004, and there is a gigantic "grass roots" political campaign to inform politicians that their vote to continue this law past 2004 will directly affect their chances of reelection. So around September we should see some people scrambling.

Your proposal about gun shows limits the rights of private citizens, and the slope has been slippery since 1994. I hope that helps to explain things.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But Frank you are lumping classic conservatives in with neo-conservatives and your thesis assumes conservative' is defined now as it was more than 200 years ago. It isn't.

Before I can debate a premise that "conservatism' has always been on the wrong side, we first need to define it then vs now.

But having said that, I think the debate over whether to put ones family, life, fortune, and property at risk in face of almost overwhelming odds would have been a legitimate debate. As it turned out, it was mostly the wealthy land owners who most supported England. They had the most to lose.

Some might say that those who have the most to lose should be the ones to decide.

In that particular case, I am glad the majority chose to take the risk for a better life and a better world which is how it all turned out. I am glad Abraham Lincoln was willing to expend all his political capital and risk his legacy and destiny by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
I am glad there were politicians and police officers willing to risk political capital, their legacy and destinies to get us through the stormy years of desegregation. I'm glad Ronald Reagan had the will to expend political capital, his legacy, and his destiny to stare down Communist Russia.

C'mon, Fox, even though Joe is agreeing with you, you should be able to see the errors of your arguments.

"Conservative" now -- means what a conservative is today.

"Conservative" back in revolutionary times means what a conservative of that day was.

The "conservatives" -- the people who identified themselves as conservatives back in revolutionary days...were the people who wanted us to continue as a colony of England.

Yeah, they were trying to protect their wealth. I agree that was part of the motivation.

But they were on the wrong side of that argument! Period!

The "conservatives" of the pre-Civil War era were the folks identifying themselves as conservatives at that time. They were most prevelent in the Southern states. (Things don't change all that much!)

They were the ones arguing that "slavery and slave trafficking" was a question for each state to decide for itself.

They were wrong!

When the question of the right of women and blacks to vote arose...the people who identified themselves as conservatives at that time....argued against it.

They were wrong.

Quote:

Isn't it odd that it is now the conservatives who seem to be willing to expend political capital and risk their legacy and destiny toward hope of a better and safer world, and it is the liberals who most insist on the status quo?

Gimme a goddam break, will ya.

Do you honestly suppose that what is happening today is that the conservatives are expending political capital and risking their legacy and destiny in hopes of a better and safer world...and that the liberals are somehow working in opposition to that??????????

Fox, even a ideologue like yourself should be able to see that argument as silly.

Quote:

Which is right? We'll know when the next generation of history books are published.

Yup! Truer words were never spoken.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

In under two seconds I could (barehanded) crush your larnyx, break both of your knees, and gouge out one of your eyes, after first striking your dominant arm's olecrenon process and making you incapable of holding anything in that hand. Aren't you glad I'm not a mugger?
A skilled knife fighter would be able to approach you very closely and slit your throat, a less skilled one will sneak up behind you. My personal opinion is that concealed carry permits are more useful as a security blanket for the average citizen, than as a method of protecting themselves. I think they may lead some people to take more chances than are prudent, becasue they trust in the cannon on their hip. Most people I know who have ccp's are not as aware of the neccessity of situational awareness as you seem to be.

That would require you to be close enough to me. Again I would not put myself in a situation where this scenario is likely to happen. I stay out of the bad parts of town and I am almost always paying attention to what is going on around me whether I am walking down the street or driving in my car. I do have to drive through some bad parts of town to get to work and in those places my hand will be near my gun. As for dominant arm, and self respecting person that is going to carry a weapon should be able to use it in either hand. That only makes sense. No point in carrying if you can't use it and if some one were to shoot me in my dominant arm I would want my other arm to be able to carry on.

0 Replies

I thought the civil war was fought over the states rights to govern themselves. And doesn't it say in the constitution some where that any thing not in it is reserved to the states to decide? And when the states decided other states didn't agree and we went to war.

Conservative - Liberal - Both have some wacky ideas. I find my self leaning more and more to the Constitution party. But that would just give you more amunition.

0 Replies

Pertaining to the original question:

If by conservative you mean Republican (which you may or may not), need I remind you that Abraham Lincoln was a republican. Whether Lincoln was conservative I don't know but I suspect he wasn't.

IMO on the issue I can think of in which the conservatives are right include:

Abortion - Absolutely barbaric. IMO the liberals have turned and twisted this issue to the degree that it's no longer a question of pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion, it's pro-life vs. pro-choice. Do you have any idea how confusing this was for dyslexics like myself to vote on when it came out.

Affirmative Action - While good intentioned is reverse racism. It contradicts the principle that all humans are created equal. As a minority I find it extremely patronizing.

Slavery and womens rights - Come on. The war is over. People can get parts for their brains now. The miniscule minority that agrees with these things ought to.

Welfare - It's broken. Liberals have created a destructive way of life for the poor. Should be a last resort, became a way of life. (Corporate welfare is another issue. The conservatives got that one wrong.)

Social Security - Some safety net. For the government maybe, not for the people who have to eat cat food. Again a liberal social program run amok.

I'm sure there are more. Those are the ones I can think of. Hope you reconsider the fact that when you make all-inclusive statements/questions like "are conservatives on the wrong side of every issue" you can't possibly be correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

0 Replies

Frank: Were the Anti-Federalists conservatives or liberals? They wanted a weak central government, frequent elections, and term limits. They distrusted the power of federal government, accusing it of fostering an "aristocracy" rather than a true democracy. They favored protection of native industries. They were the ones pressing for a Bill of Rights. They said things like: "A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin."

Were those positions conservative in the 1780s? Are they conservative now?

(For links to Anti-Federalist literature, check here).

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

"Conservative" now -- means what a conservative is today.

"Conservative" back in revolutionary times means what a conservative of that day was.

The "conservatives" -- the people who identified themselves as conservatives back in revolutionary days...were the people who wanted us to continue as a colony of England.

Yeah, they were trying to protect their wealth. I agree that was part of the motivation.

But they were on the wrong side of that argument! Period!

This is a patently false statement. The term conservative in a political context was simply not used. Political parties did not exist--English Tories and Whigs were distinguished by their notions of how the monarchical government ougth to be organized, but neither side of those political issues wished to do away with the monarcy. In the American colonies, most of those who "were trying to protect their wealth," would, in fact, have been considered Whigs had they lived in England, and on the political spectrum there, that would make them liberals. One can only make sense of your thesis by applying contemporary terms to those times--and in that case, you either define those wishing to protect their property as conservatives, and would be obliged by the facts of that situation to acknowledge that conservatives supported the revolution (the mercantile class); or, you define them in the terms of the day, consider the mercantile class as Whigs and therefore liberals, in which case there were many Tories whom one would be obliged to consider liberals. You can't have it both ways, and it is undeniable from the historical record that members of the mercantile class took both rebellious stances, and loyalist stances.

Quote:

The "conservatives" of the pre-Civil War era were the folks identifying themselves as conservatives at that time. They were most prevelent in the Southern states. (Things don't change all that much!)

They were the ones arguing that "slavery and slave trafficking" was a question for each state to decide for itself.

They were wrong!

No, Frank, you are wrong. You are once again indulging in anachronism. Most southerners prior to the 1860 election voted for the Democrats, and the Democrats' power in the nation was such that the unbalanced political influence of southern planters can be laid squarely at their door. The newly founded Republican party were considered the radicals. Your anachronism is to apply 20th century political terms to first the 18th, and then the 19th centuries. Even in this dawning of the 21st century, there are significant differences in the divide between liberal and conservative in comparison to any one of several political eras in the 20th century. You are oversimplifying your definitions, and making completely specious statments about history. A glaring example above is "slave trafficking." Unless you simply refer to the sale of slaves by slave owners within the United States (which makes the term here merely ornamental), you are either ignorant of or ignoring the provision in the constitution which prohibits the slave trade after 1800.

Quote:

When the question of the right of women and blacks to vote arose...the people who identified themselves as conservatives at that time....argued against it.

They were wrong.

Once again, it is you who are wrong. Black men were eligible for the vote immediately upon their emancipation. Given the character of the Congress at that time, you will either be obliged to contend (ridiculously) that there were no conservatives in Congress; or to contend that the Republicans were the liberals in Congress, and the Democrats the conservatives. It is all a meaningless contention on your part, though, since it would have taken specific legislation to prohibit the vote to emancipated black men to deny them the right. No special legislation was needed to give them the vote.

After Susan Anthony died, Carrie Catt combined the two major women's suffarage movements of the day, and immediately appealed to politicians in Washington for that suffrage with a contention that giving the vote to women would result in voting among women by white, educated women overwhelmingly, and that this could be used effectively to negate the votes of black men and immigrants. Oh yeah, that's really liberal.

I suggest that you don't know what the hell you're writing about, Frank.

0 Replies

setanta

I was under the impression you'd been murdered.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Great post scrat.

Thanks.

0 Replies

The desire by so many here to acheive that "consumation so devoutly desired" had not yet yielded the desired result, Mr. Mountie.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Also, to my dismay and consternation, I find myself agreeing with Scrat here. Obviously, it's time to check my meds.

Hey, you know what they say about a stopped clock... :wink:

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The desire by so many here to acheive that "consumation so devoutly desired" had not yet yielded the desired result, Mr. Mountie.

I stand corrected. Wel, actually, I kneel and aim corrected.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

saints, unfortunately if you're a conservative that supports background checks and presenting an ID, you're in the minority.

Your evidence for this statement?

0 Replies

saintsfanbrian wrote:

And doesn't it say in the constitution some where that any thing not in it is reserved to the states to decide? And when the states decided other states didn't agree and we went to war.

Although an oversimplification, this statement is not entirely wrong. In answer to your question, the last two amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are those to which you refer:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, it is somewhat disingenuous to give this as the cause of the war. The immediate proximate cause of the war was the election of Lincoln. Southerners, knowing that a Republican would occupy the White House, with a majority Republican "radical" Congress, made the not unreasonable assumption that this government would attempt to abolish slavery. They used references to the two amendments above to make a quasi-legalistic case that as the constitution does not provide a means of expelling a state from the Union, the several states therefore have a right to withdraw. This is, however, sidestepping the issue of slavery. Lincoln's justification for calling out the militia, and calling upon the Governors of the states to provide volunteer regiments was the seizure of federal officers and property in the seceding states.

0 Replies

Set, good to see the balnced side of you. I will take my next rebuking with more seriousness now. Razz

0 Replies

Obviously, McG, i would like to indulge the conceit that my point of view is always balanced. But i've been wrong before--just yesterday, i inadvertantly short-changed the lady at the convenience store.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know