"I object to the misuse of lots of terms, including "Conservative" and "Liberal" - To whit: "pro-choice" can't be a "liberal" philosophy because choice is the law of the land - the desire to change the law of the land is, by definition, liberal. Anti-choice people are liberal, pro-choice people are conservative. "
When challenged, he then gave me the M-W definitions
Main Entry: 2liberal Function: noun : a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: adjective 1 : PRESERVATIVE 3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m Function: noun 1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change 3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
And now, his argument:
"Once something is the law of the land, it is "an existing ... situation," and therefore (by definition) preferred by someone who is "conservative," and opposed by someone who is "liberal."
That's how the words work. A person can go on believing that they're "conservative," and still be anti-choice, but they're wrong. They're really a liberal, and become one the day the law changed and they failed to support it. Political views may change, but language is beautiful and constant.
Only by changing the definition of the word can they keep from changing sides of the isle, and in order to change the word, they would have to be liberal in their use of language, proving me right."
That's the point where I wrote back "ROTFLMAO" since it was obvious that he was trying to be clever and "provocative" and didn't actually have an argument, but was just DAing for the sake of it.
no subject
"I object to the misuse of lots of terms, including "Conservative" and "Liberal" - To whit: "pro-choice" can't be a "liberal" philosophy because choice is the law of the land - the desire to change the law of the land is, by definition, liberal. Anti-choice people are liberal, pro-choice people are conservative. "
When challenged, he then gave me the M-W definitions
Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
And now, his argument:
"Once something is the law of the land, it is "an existing ... situation," and therefore (by definition) preferred by someone who is "conservative," and opposed by someone who is "liberal."
That's how the words work. A person can go on believing that they're "conservative," and still be anti-choice, but they're wrong. They're really a liberal, and become one the day the law changed and they failed to support it. Political views may change, but language is beautiful and constant.
Only by changing the definition of the word can they keep from changing sides of the isle, and in order to change the word, they would have to be liberal in their use of language, proving me right."
That's the point where I wrote back "ROTFLMAO" since it was obvious that he was trying to be clever and "provocative" and didn't actually have an argument, but was just DAing for the sake of it.