"I'm well aware of the difference between conservatism as a way of thinking (for instance, thinking that women are not equal to men simply because they were not considered equal in the past)..."
If this is what you believe, then your definition of conservative ideology is irrevocably flawed. If you tried to present an argument against the conservative ideology on that basis, it'd be struck down as both anonymous authority and style over substance fallacies. In addition, I think the part about The Rock is a red herring. His personal political affiliation, nor the personal affiliations of any of the wrestlers, are at issue here.
The example of ideological conservatism you presented is, itself, a prejudicial language and style over substance fallacy. I have yet to see a moderate ideological conservative argue anything of the sort. Radicals, perhaps. Not moderates, and defining a situation by anything other than the average isn't productive. An average conservative wants true equality and opportunity, not special protections under the law. An average conservative is an egalitarian at heart. It's problematic that many liberals arguing the difference between liberalism and conservatism present the situation in such a way that the term "conservatism" is either anathema to normalcy, or the same definition that was used in the period of the Enlightenment. It's not. Two hundred years and more have passed since the great eighteenth-century philosophers defined the two terms, and societal ideologies are nothing if not fluid. You may encounter radicals who do fit the mold you showed above. I would wager, however, that the vast majority of ideological conservatives would reject that statement utterly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 12:04 pm (UTC)If this is what you believe, then your definition of conservative ideology is irrevocably flawed. If you tried to present an argument against the conservative ideology on that basis, it'd be struck down as both anonymous authority and style over substance fallacies. In addition, I think the part about The Rock is a red herring. His personal political affiliation, nor the personal affiliations of any of the wrestlers, are at issue here.
The example of ideological conservatism you presented is, itself, a prejudicial language and style over substance fallacy. I have yet to see a moderate ideological conservative argue anything of the sort. Radicals, perhaps. Not moderates, and defining a situation by anything other than the average isn't productive. An average conservative wants true equality and opportunity, not special protections under the law. An average conservative is an egalitarian at heart. It's problematic that many liberals arguing the difference between liberalism and conservatism present the situation in such a way that the term "conservatism" is either anathema to normalcy, or the same definition that was used in the period of the Enlightenment. It's not. Two hundred years and more have passed since the great eighteenth-century philosophers defined the two terms, and societal ideologies are nothing if not fluid. You may encounter radicals who do fit the mold you showed above. I would wager, however, that the vast majority of ideological conservatives would reject that statement utterly.
(P.S. - Debating with you is fun. ^_^)