By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 20 April 2010
Edit Thread
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:

It's rather silly to call one who wants to radically change the government a conservative.

Regardless... you can't call someone who is authortarian yet not fiscally conservative a conservative.

Which is what that chart is showing actually.  Authortarianism... NOT being Conservative or Liberal socially.

Which is actually quite the mixed bag for our politicans currently.  Democrats are more authoritarian then Republicans on plenty of issues.

Nor is it easy to argue that numerous guerillia groups in south america aren't liberal... or tons of guerillia groups... in plenty of places.  For example.  Chechnian sepratists.

Or in general if you want to use the Authortarian scale... there is always anrachist groups.

There is no real correlation like you would wish there is.

 

Here's the same analysis method used for the 2008 US Presidential election.  Notice how conservatives (Republicans) are more authoritarian than than liberals (Democrats), Ron Paul being the only Republican outlier.

Conservatives want to radically change the government BACK to the way it was in the past, or the way they viewed the past, hence conservatism.  Also, this change limits the freedom of other individuals, including gays and non-Christians, so its socially conservative in that sense as well.

Authoritarianism is being socially conservative.  It includes every type of social issue of authoritarian decisions upon others, from Republicans not wanting to allow gays to visit their partners to Communists who want to keep the people from electing its leaders.  On the other hand, liberals promote personal freedoms.

Yeah uh...

A) Authoritarian =/= conservatism as has already been proven.

B) Authortitarian doesn't even correlate with this kind of violence.  There are tons of terrorist grooups that aren't Authoritarian, which you keep ignoring... because you know I'm right

C) Notice how the Republicans are all WELL below any kind of "dangerous" level of Authoritarianism.

D) There are just as many Authortiarian Democrat fringe groups ad republican ones... that's why they're you know... fringe groups.

E) There are plenty of threats and statements made by actual liberals.

 

Your whole arguement has been nothing but a poorly constructed house of cards from the get go.