Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    He said "liberal views = destruction of society", you agreeded with him
    no, i disagreed, but stated that there was a glimmer of reason in his statement, which was in response to your claim of 'ignorance".

    and when we ask for you to put any sort of evidence you both run a mile.
    you wanted me to elaborate on this claim and i did so. whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant, since that is an argument for or against conservatism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, i disagreed, but stated that there was a glimmer of reason in his statement, which was in response to your claim of 'ignorance".
    I called him ignorant for posts like this:
    http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....2&postcount=30
    http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....0&postcount=37
    and his inability to defend his views that liberalism = evil

    (Original post by vienna95)
    you wanted me to elaborate on this claim and i did so. whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant, since that is an argument for or against conservatism.
    ok i can understand that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I was responding to your post which said that
    i know, but i was merely putting forward a theory which may justify/bolster the disputed statement. it may or may not have been one i agree with. of course youre free to argue with that statement, as you have done.

    I was pointing out that if the ideal of our society had remained unchanged
    conservatism "questions" change but does not prevent it altogether. it wishes to conserve those mechanisms of society that are considered virtuous or fundamental. conservatives believe that the society we live in and the values we have, have been constructed over centuries and thus not only define the world we live in but are actually crucial to its existence. a conservatives objection to gay marriage would hinge on the belief that families are the cornerstone of communities, and of wider society. altering that building block would affect society directly, almost irrespective of whether it was good or bad.

    This is why I feel that liberalism is not causing the downfall of our society but infact helping to promote equality,
    the point is, promoting equality (or forcing it), for better or worse, right or wrong, could ultimately do more damage (another question entirely!) to society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I called him ignorant for posts like this:
    http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....2&postcount=30
    http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....0&postcount=37
    and his inability to defend his views that liberalism = evil
    ok.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the point is, promoting equality (or forcing it), for better or worse, right or wrong, could ultimately do more damage (another question entirely!) to society.
    As could leaving them as they are over time. It can cause tensions between the sectors of society who feel that they deserve quality like homosexuals. Not giving them equality could in the long term cause more harm than good. Nobody can really say in all honest which would cause more damage.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Why is it that liberal views are considered weaker than the right wing views. I mean I keep on being told that my oppinions are less valid or weaker because they are liberal. The way that I see it, it is easier to be right wing and only look out for yourself. It is harder for people to be liberal even if it is not in for you benefit. So why is it considered to be weaker, I would have thought if anything it was stronger.
    Because liberal views tend to be the cool thing to have thus many of the people who claim to hold them arent the greatest political minds youl ever meet - any wannabe teen angst ridden rebel will usually claim to hold these 'punk' liberal views with only a very vague understanding of what they claim to believe in(for example i know a guy who, when asked if he was a socialist, replied with 'hell no im a communist' :rolleyes: . People like that fool Kitten off big brother are the reason liberals are often looked down upon.

    Mod Expression - Language
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    So you think that liberal views cause the downfall of society? How exactly by reducing the inequality that is arround?
    In practice "reducing inequality" means "changing the rules" for the benefit of minorities, so doesn't promote "equality" atall. Take it too far and you end up in a total mess, and once you start, its hard to stop, as once you change things for one minority the next one wants the same.

    Take gay marriage for example. 0.3% of couples in the UK are gay. Yes, point three percent. It's a TINY minority, yet they want us to change the definition of marriage to include them aswell, purely for their own benefit. To be honest I think it's quite ridiculous that people would even consider taking any serious action for such a small minority.

    The typical liberal attitude would be to let gay people marry. But hey, why stop there? What about people who want to marry their cousin/stepmum/son/daughter/aunt/dog? What about kids who want to get married? What about single people? What about people who want to marry half a dozen others? What about people who want to get their pets married? Why should all these be ignored?

    Question any of this, and you'll often get the usual responses about incest being bad, deformed children (incestual relationships ALWAYS have children, obviously), beastality being sick, polygamy being wrong, blah... but it's all totally irrelevant, as it'll happen whether or not you let them marry.

    You let one group of people change the rules, sooner or later the next group comes along and wants the same. Changing things for some and not others would be labelling them as "special", and above the others, and is certainly NOT "equality". The only way to have total equality would be to allow everyone to do everything, and hey presto, marriage becomes meaningless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Because liberal views tend to be the cool thing to have thus many of the people who claim to hold them arent the greatest political minds youl ever meet - any wannabe teen angst ridden rebel will usually claim to hold these 'punk' liberal views with only a very vague understanding of what they claim to believe in(for example i know a guy who, when asked if he was a socialist, replied with 'hell no im a communist' :rolleyes: . People like that fool Kitten off big brother are the reason liberals are often looked down upon.
    But then why is it considered more respectable to be right wing? I mean there are groups like the BNP and more extremely the Nazis who aren't respectable. So why are right wing views respectable.


    Mod Expression - Language
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    The typical liberal attitude would be to let gay people marry.
    Yup I agree with gay people getting married. I don't think this harms the rest of society and it really doesn't even effect them. If not marriage then I think there should be some sort of agreement which allows gay partners priority of family as marriage does. You say that there are only 0.3% of couples in the UK are gay that may be true but in a country where the population is 52 million people that is still a huge amount of couples.

    In response to your other points I don't have a problem with Polygamy as long as everyone involved is a concenting adult.

    In reguards to your other point there are no where near as many incestuous couple as there are gay couples. However if there was a sizable group of concenting adults who engaged in incestuous relationships where there wasn't abuse going on then maybe they should be allowed to get married. I personally wouldn't like it but that is part of life.

    The point about beastiality and people marrying their horse I don't agree with if for no other reason that an animal can't consent to getting married so how can you say that it is what the animal wants?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    But then why is it considered more respectable to be right wing? I mean there are groups like the BNP and more extremely the Nazis who aren't respectable. So why are right wing views respectable.
    There are far fewer BNP and Nazi types around than there are liberals. Personally i dont think there is a perception of a right wing stance being more respectable than a left wing stance but apparently there is so i merely replied on this assumption. If i were to hypothesise id say its because left wingers 'sell out' more often than right wingers - how many liberal/socialist minded students go on to earn considerable amounts of money and conveniently forget about their supposed political persuasion? As i stated earlier the liberal point of view is most often held by the young and i think theres a lot of evidence for Churchills quote that "anyone who isnt a liberal in their 20s has no heart, while anyone who hasnt become a conservative by their 40s has no brain" being something of a trend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    As could leaving them as they are over time. It can cause tensions between the sectors of society who feel that they deserve quality like homosexuals. Not giving them equality could in the long term cause more harm than good. Nobody can really say in all honest which would cause more damage.
    bear with me, and the generalisations.

    the society we live in is, by the fact that it exists, the ultimate form of society that man has created upto this point in time. to take the same example, marriage, in various forms, has been a key concept for generations and thus any challenge to its form must be indeed challenged itself, for one must respect it as a product of civilisation before us, but also as a component of society, including the one in which we now find ourselves.
    a conservative may not obstruct equality, but wishes to respect the millions that have gone before us and the product of their existence, the values and social mechanisms we have inherited. they want to assess what a change to the idea of marriage would mean not only to those who live now, but those who will follow us to live in the society we create. equality, tension between minority groups would pale into insignificance if the very social fabric of mankind collapsed entirely, for the benefit of just one minority at this specific moment in time.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.