It would be ironic 'if' the Founding Fathers did indeed embody liberal ideals.
...okay, go on...
But they didn't even remotely compare to a liberal mindset.
...really? Not even remotely? I'm intrigued, go on...
With hindsight we see...
...yes?
...the Founding Fathers having forward thinking
<SPIT TAKE> WHAT?!
but,
Oh, what a relief; there's a "but". I completely thought that you were going to completely contradict your sentiment that they weren't "remotely" liberal in mindset and yet they were "forward thinking".
that is the thing about hindsight of course, it isn't necessarily intentional or intended.
Wait. What? I think someone could make an argument that forward-thinking people who intend to affect change DO have the future in mind making their actions and the results 100% intentional.
Democracy, Civil Rights and the like were nothing new. These were not ideals that were progressive or liberal.
Wow. However, I think I see what's going on. There's probably a part coming up where facts and random historical events or intermingled with a lot of conjecture presented as empirical truth...
The strive for democracy was ... American Revolution doesn't stand up as a liberal event as it was more akin to reverting ... watered down modern version, ... to do with, nor did distribution ... free will and free market.
Ah, okay, yeah, there it is. And while there are individual parts to that I both agree and disagree with, I don't want to get off on a tangent and I surely don't want to play word games.
But like I said, I think I know what's going on here and it has less to do with how these historical details are interpreted and more with how we define and represent words, in this case: liberal. Can we agree that words (or any symbol) can be demonized beyond their meanings? And for the sake of this discussion, I'll use the four-letter f-word for example: it has meanings that we wouldn't say are bad (many we'd say are either good or even objectively scientific) and we can discuss everything about "the f-word" rationally without ever saying it. That is similar to what we do with words like: liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, hippy, tea-bagger... not only do they get people riled up and emotional but they have become effigies that are convenient to attack without having to use your brain.
From the very first part of the response, the term "liberal" is used in a the semantics game. Okay, I won't be cynical and say that since I was not absolutely precise in my use of the term, there was
some flexibility to dance around the definitions
regardless of how eventually even the part-of-speech was changed in your rebuttal.
To my statement:
I bet you don't even find it ironic that this country was founded by the liberals of their day.
Your response:
'if' the Founding Fathers did indeed embody liberal ideals. But they didn't even remotely compare to a liberal mindset.
...uses too ... <ahem>...
liberal of a variation of the word compared to its original context. To be "a liberal of his day" doesn't explicitly equal either "embodying
liberal ideals" or "to have a
liberal mindset" (assuming you mean 'a
contemporary Liberal's mindset). Simply stated: a person who is (adj) liberal is just either someone who believes or advocates government's role in social progress or descriptive of someone who does not strictly adhere to traditional or established ways. I know you're using a term descriptive of how we describe contemporary Liberals based on specific recent issues but in their day, the Founding Fathers and the ideals put forth were liberal. They were radical and they were treasonous in their day. Basically, there is no way to move from being colonies belonging to the British to a sovereign country without rejecting traditional ideals and embracing progressive, forward-thinking ideals.
So, to make a statement "this country was founded by the liberals of their day" is not an outlandish sentiment and it doesn't imply that the Founding Fathers were pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, or any other issue that may be considered "liberal" by today's political definition; it just means relative to what was the accepted establishment, they were liberal. One-hundred years from now, the things we consider to be "liberal" are going to be the status quo.
Bottom line is that it is just depressing what has replaced discussions and conversations these days. People are so horribly manipulated these days that they know a million things to say on any topic but not a single thought as to why (and that's regardless of anyone's political or ideological leanings.) Like this guy: conditioned to rant "liberal" at any person or idea that doesn't fit into his worldview without paying a thought to his own words and what those words actually mean. And they're so unoriginal yet so easy to parrot that even the least-researched forum troll considers themselves a skilled debater. And trust me, this is not exclusive to one side; many a so-called progressive liberal can become hypocritically bigoted when casting aspersions on Christians, Southerners/"red staters", pro-lifers, hunters, gun owners and so on.
Anyway...
reply
share