On one hand, you want to eliminate the right of women choice. However, if a child is born with disabilities, you don't want to fund the programs that gives assistance to help with the disabled child(ren)..How ironic?

Really? You know this about me how? News flash for you, your wrong about the disabilities part, so lets not pretend you know me. I'm all for helping a child born with disabilities, but all against snuffing a life out because it's just too inconvenient.

On one hand, you want to eliminate the right of women choice. However, if a child is born with disabilities, you don't want to fund the programs that gives assistance to help with the disabled child(ren)..How ironic?

 

Even if it were true, and I don't think it is, is it any more ironic than you caring nothing about the child in the womb, but only wanting to help out after it's born?

Really? You know this about me how? News flash for you, your wrong about the disabilities part, so lets not pretend you know me. I'm all for helping a child born with disabilities, but all against snuffing a life out because it's just too inconvenient.

 

First of all, it wasn't directly for you. It was in to be used in general for the right. It doesn't matter what you think about why someone is choosing to do what they want. That's why it's called, "A individual right".

Even if it were true, and I don't think it is, is it any more ironic than you caring nothing about the child in the womb, but only wanting to help out after it's born?

Again, it's not what I care about. It's doesn't matter what you or I think. It's an individual right. I'm sure, everyone you may know doesn't agree with the choices you make, but it's your choice and your life.

First of all, it wasn't directly for you. It was in to be used in general for the right. It doesn't matter what you think about why someone is choosing to do what they want. That's why it's called, "A individual right".

 

So then is it "A individual right" to choose to be armed?

First of all, it wasn't directly for you. It was in to be used in general for the right. It doesn't matter what you think about why someone is choosing to do what they want. That's why it's called, "A individual right".

And those on the right believe a child has an "individual right" to live, a chance to at least be. It's not about suppressing women, but that's how the other side wants to paint it.

So then is it "A individual right" to choose to be armed?

 

Yes, you are correct!

Again, it's not what I care about. It's doesn't matter what you or I think. It's an individual right. I'm sure, everyone you may know doesn't agree with the choices you make, but it's your choice and your life.

 

Not talking about rights, talking about irony and what people support or how they act.

It's not that I thought you were painting a rosy picture for the liberal side, it's the way you presented the conservative side, fear of change. I disagree. You can't tell me one side is afraid of change and the other side isn't, doesn't come across well and doesn't work.

 

Why not? You seem to assume change is inherently good. Most people who advocate change, or "progress," are highly critical of the current state of society, whether it be the level of inequality (social or economic) or tolerance. I certainly don't think those in the "Transgender in Massachusetts" thread privilege change as an inherent positive and are certainly resistant to it. Is progress always a good thing to you?

 

Resistance to change is what led William F. Buckley to write that his conservative magazine "stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." He was recoiling at the notion of "liberal" progress and those who believe they can cure society's ills.

 

It's what led Hayek in the piece I linked earlier to make his libertarian case against conservatism by saying "The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a 'brake on the vehicle of progress,' I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake."

Yes, you are correct!

 

So then you as a liberal are opposed to any changes in gun laws that in any way restrict "A individual right" to arm themselves as they see fit?

Most people mean Republican or Democratic when they say conservative or liberal. Very few people are consciously guided by, or are aware of ideology.

 

The conservative ideology has generally been united by a fear of change in society.

 

The liberal ideology, in the United States version, has generally been united by egalitarianism.

 

I reread Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative" last weekend, and it's a good start for discussion (he uses the traditional definition of liberal, which is something like libertarian in the American sense).

 

Only for certain groups and usually directed towards groups who support their ideology.

And those on the right believe a child has an "individual right" to live, a chance to at least be. It's not about suppressing women, but that's how the other side wants to paint it.

 

It's not about suppressing women?:lol: So, what would you call it?

It's not about suppressing women?:lol: So, what would you call it?

Responsibilty:idunno:

So then you as a liberal are opposed to any changes in gun laws that in any way restrict "A individual right" to arm themselves as they see fit?

 

Not a liberal, Independent. I have no issue with how many guns you have or what type a person may have. The only time I have issue is when a mentally ill person having access to a firearm.

Responsibilty:idunno:

 

Your opinion!