Why the Left Think They are Better | Peter Hitchens

The left has traditionally seen itself as progressive, with history and morality on its side. But is history on anyone's side? And as for morality, don't all politicians think they're in the right? Should the left then give up its claim to the moral high ground and argue for policies on pragmatic grounds alone? Or would this be to undermine its very core and meaning?

Leader of the Women's Equality Party Sophie Walker, outspoken journalist Peter Hitchens and Labour MP and former vicar Chris Bryant debate left, right and wrong.

Anybody is "better" than Peter Hitchins...

Left, right, "left right out !" -- doesn't matter..

Peter Hitchins is a dick.

Anybody who thinks that the policies they favor would make for a better life for just about everybody is on the left.

People who think that some of us were "born to suffer" or should "remember our place" are on the right.

Left thinking is believing in the ability of human beings to the point where we become untethered, at least somewhat, from ideas of fate, hierarchy and there being some mystical authority running our lives.

Right thinking is believing we were all born to play a part in a larger story and we'd best not rebel against the role we've been assigned.

They aren't ideologies, it goes deeper than that. They're mindsets.

That's why a liberal can cut taxes but a conservative can't raise them. The liberal mindset is, "maybe X is the better thing to do right now, but under different circumstances, Y could be the better thing to do." The conservative mindset is, "X is always better than Y, so always do X."

Interesting that Hitchens admits that he used to be a "trotskyist"...

And that, as a "trotskyist", he thought it would have been totally justifiable to use violence (even extreme violence) against anyone with an opposing view...!



"...Trotskyism is an extreme left-wing political ideology which originated in the split in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1920s between supporters of Joseph Stalin and supporters of Leon Trotsky..."

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Anybody who thinks that the policies they favor would make for a better life for just about everybody is on the left.

People who think that some of us were "born to suffer" or should "remember our place" are on the right.

Left thinking is believing in the ability of human beings to the point where we become untethered, at least somewhat, from ideas of fate, hierarchy and there being some mystical authority running our lives.

Right thinking is believing we were all born to play a part in a larger story and we'd best not rebel against the role we've been assigned.

They aren't ideologies, it goes deeper than that. They're mindsets.

That's why a liberal can cut taxes but a conservative can't raise them. The liberal mindset is, "maybe X is the better thing to do right now, but under different circumstances, Y could be the better thing to do." The conservative mindset is, "X is always better than Y, so always do X."

Talk about failing to understand a single point Hitchins made on the left and morality

Thor wrote:The left has traditionally seen itself as progressive, with history and morality on its side. But is history on anyone's side? And as for morality, don't all politicians think they're in the right? Should the left then give up its claim to the moral high ground and argue for policies on pragmatic grounds alone? Or would this be to undermine its very core and meaning?

Leader of the Women's Equality Party Sophie Walker, outspoken journalist Peter Hitchens and Labour MP and former vicar Chris Bryant debate left, right and wrong.

Is History on anyone's side? Well, history doesn't pick sides.

However, conservatives opposed the banning of slavery, allowing women the right to vote, the NHS, black equality and decriminalising homosexuality - to name just a few things. We now look back at ALL these things as disgusting to have ever been needing change anyway. Those who opposed them would be almost universally loathed in the west today.

And still the Left continues to push forward on various front, while the Right obstructs.

IF the Left think they are better, it's because History shows us that the Left almost always stood on the side that is considered 'right' by today's standards - even by the Right!

Of course, the reality is that people on the Right and Left obviously consider themselves to have the better view - unless they know they are being selfish yet promote it anyway

RW thinking is just apologism in pure form.  Instead of looking for ways to improve existence, it looks for ways to excuse it.  RW thinking is more than believing in defeat; it is making a dogma of it.

It's a coward's creed.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:The left has traditionally seen itself as progressive, with history and morality on its side. But is history on anyone's side? And as for morality, don't all politicians think they're in the right? Should the left then give up its claim to the moral high ground and argue for policies on pragmatic grounds alone? Or would this be to undermine its very core and meaning?

Leader of the Women's Equality Party Sophie Walker, outspoken journalist Peter Hitchens and Labour MP and former vicar Chris Bryant debate left, right and wrong.

Is History on anyone's side? Well, history doesn't pick sides.

However, conservatives opposed the banning of slavery, allowing women the right to vote, the NHS, black equality and decriminalising homosexuality - to name just a few things. We now look back at ALL these things as disgusting to have ever been needing change anyway. Those who opposed them would be almost universally loathed in the west today.

And still the Left continues to push forward on various front, while the Right obstructs.

IF the Left think they are better, it's because History shows us that the Left almost always stood on the side that is considered 'right' by today's standards - even by the Right!

Of course, the reality is that people on the Right and Left obviously consider themselves to have the better view - unless they know they are being selfish yet promote it anyway

You don't half talk some twaddle...!!!


It was the conservative govt who produced the first white paper on forming the nhs...


And maybe you can tell me if the black slave owners and slave traders were "conservatives" or what other political alignment they were?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:The left has traditionally seen itself as progressive, with history and morality on its side. But is history on anyone's side? And as for morality, don't all politicians think they're in the right? Should the left then give up its claim to the moral high ground and argue for policies on pragmatic grounds alone? Or would this be to undermine its very core and meaning?

Leader of the Women's Equality Party Sophie Walker, outspoken journalist Peter Hitchens and Labour MP and former vicar Chris Bryant debate left, right and wrong.

Is History on anyone's side? Well, history doesn't pick sides.

However, conservatives opposed the banning of slavery, allowing women the right to vote, the NHS, black equality and decriminalising homosexuality - to name just a few things. We now look back at ALL these things as disgusting to have ever been needing change anyway. Those who opposed them would be almost universally loathed in the west today.

And still the Left continues to push forward on various front, while the Right obstructs.

IF the Left think they are better, it's because History shows us that the Left almost always stood on the side that is considered 'right' by today's standards - even by the Right!

Of course, the reality is that people on the Right and Left obviously consider themselves to have the better view - unless they know they are being selfish yet promote it anyway

You don't half talk some twaddle...!!!


It was the conservative govt who produced the first white paper on forming the nhs...


And maybe you can tell me if the black slave owners and slave traders were "conservatives" or what other political alignment they were?

It was the Tories who blocked the ACTUAL NHS in parliament before it actually got through. A white paper is pretty much what it says it is

It doesn't require more than two brain cells to figure that anti-abolitionists who used their god given rights to own other human beings did so on 'traditional' beliefs of racial superiority. They had conservative views in that they wanted to 'conserve' their way of life, that's where the name of the bloody party comes from That's without even mentioning it was Whig (liberal) governments who introduced both the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, not the Tories (Conservatives).

In years to come things like opposing gay marriage and denying man-made climate change will be seen as similarly disgusting views to have held. So good job on being among those who'll be sneered at by the future

So... all the blacks who owned black slaves were doing so because they had ideas of racial superiority...?


And what about the blacks who had Japanese women as sex slaves...???


Was that racial superiority or sexist superiority...?


Or just another inconvenient truth for the lefty like yourself...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:So... all the blacks who owned black slaves were doing so because they had ideas of racial superiority...?


And what about the blacks who had Japanese women as sex slaves...???


Was that racial superiority or sexist superiority...?


Or just another inconvenient truth for the lefty like yourself...!?

I think you're going rather off topic and none of that is relevant to the point.

The point being - the Left have tended to push forward social progress, while conservatives have tended to try and hold it back every time. It's even in the name. Conservatives usually think things were better either as they are or as they were. Social Liberals tend to think things are not good enough now and need to change. Hence liberal minded people pushed for the abolition of slavery, women's rights to vote, free healthcare for all, civil rights, gay rights, and now trans rights and environmentalism.

While the Right:

- wanted to maintain their 'right' to own slaves, because that's how things were.
- didn't want women to be able to vote, because what could they have known about such matters?
- didn't want civil rights, because blacks shouldn't have been allowed to mix with whites.
- didn't want gay people to be allowed to marry, because marriage had always been between a man and woman as intended.
- don't want trans people to be allowed to use certain bathrooms, because they 'aren't real men/women'.
- don't want to push policies to help with the problem of climate change, because man-made climate change is a myth.

Always, always, always holding back the tide of progress. News flash, it's impossible. And those who fight progress have their reputations crushed by later generations.

Not going off topic at all... just showing up your ignorant bigotry...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not going off topic at all... just showing up your ignorant bigotry...

How so?

I have nothing nice to say of black slave owners; you're just deflecting because you know what I'm saying makes sense.

No... I have just destroyed your ignorant bigoted sweeping generalisations...

And shown you up as an ignorant bigot...!


Your whole political beliefs are based on stupidity, ignorance and bigotry...!!!

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Anybody who thinks that the policies they favor would make for a better life for just about everybody is on the left.

People who think that some of us were "born to suffer" or should "remember our place" are on the right.

Left thinking is believing in the ability of human beings to the point where we become untethered, at least somewhat, from ideas of fate, hierarchy and there being some mystical authority running our lives.

Right thinking is believing we were all born to play a part in a larger story and we'd best not rebel against the role we've been assigned.

They aren't ideologies, it goes deeper than that. They're mindsets.

That's why a liberal can cut taxes but a conservative can't raise them. The liberal mindset is, "maybe X is the better thing to do right now, but under different circumstances, Y could be the better thing to do." The conservative mindset is, "X is always better than Y, so always do X."

Talk about failing to understand a single point Hitchins made on the left and morality

Hitchins is a fuckwit.

Pure and simple..

Tommy Monk wrote:
So... all the blacks who owned black slaves were doing so because they had ideas of racial superiority...?

And what about the blacks who had Japanese women as sex slaves...???

Was that racial superiority or sexist superiority...?

Or just another inconvenient truth for the lefty like yourself...!?

Why did you have to introduce the subject of evil "blacks" into this thread,  Tommy  ?

Why do you hate, and look down upon,  those scary "blacks" so much..

Did your sister date one once,  per chance  ???

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I have just destroyed your ignorant bigoted sweeping generalisations...

And shown you up as an ignorant bigot...!


Your whole political beliefs are based on stupidity, ignorance and bigotry...!!!

Ah, so the Right have always championed gay rights, civil rights and women's rights then?

No. So either present valid counters or stop prattling on with your exclamation riddled BS

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not going off topic at all... just showing up your ignorant bigotry...

How so?

I have nothing nice to say of black slave owners; you're just deflecting because you know what I'm saying makes sense.

You haven't actually said this, but can you just clarify that when you say "right wing", you're not just talking about white people?

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:The left has traditionally seen itself as progressive, with history and morality on its side. But is history on anyone's side? And as for morality, don't all politicians think they're in the right? Should the left then give up its claim to the moral high ground and argue for policies on pragmatic grounds alone? Or would this be to undermine its very core and meaning?

Leader of the Women's Equality Party Sophie Walker, outspoken journalist Peter Hitchens and Labour MP and former vicar Chris Bryant debate left, right and wrong.

Is History on anyone's side? Well, history doesn't pick sides.

However, conservatives opposed the banning of slavery, allowing women the right to vote, the NHS, black equality and decriminalising homosexuality - to name just a few things. We now look back at ALL these things as disgusting to have ever been needing change anyway. Those who opposed them would be almost universally loathed in the west today.

And still the Left continues to push forward on various front, while the Right obstructs.

IF the Left think they are better, it's because History shows us that the Left almost always stood on the side that is considered 'right' by today's standards - even by the Right!

Of course, the reality is that people on the Right and Left obviously consider themselves to have the better view - unless they know they are being selfish yet promote it anyway

And yet again the left go onto the immediate defensive

They fail to take on board when there is problems and side track and look to divert to the right

Nobody denies through history problems with the right and he is talking about the mentality of today

The left is fragmented and is even now at conflict within groups with each other

We now have feminists activists at odds with Transgender activists

The left push agendas without any possible thought of the consequnces of such policies an actions

To claim the left continues to push forward on what fronts?

The ones where already have equality laws on?

You mean now the views is to push for equality of outcomes?

Which then incorportes an unequal system within society?

Many people have views on the left and right, but at least I can point out the wrongs and extremes on both sides. The left constantly fail to do so

Its why of late I am calling out the left. Who as seen and proven by Hitchins here, think they are morally superior to everyone else and fail to see the irony in the concept of superior to inferior

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

How so?

I have nothing nice to say of black slave owners; you're just deflecting because you know what I'm saying makes sense.

You haven't actually said this, but can you just clarify that when you say "right wing", you're not just talking about white people?

Actually, this is a point that was being discussed this morning on MSNBC.  Professor Eddie Glaude of Princeton University was speaking of a "reservoir of malcontent" that is rapidly becoming a third political party in the US, UK, France, and Germany.

The complaint stems from a populist movement, Professor Glaude said.  The last time populism was ascendant was just before WWII.  A correlation between populism and nationalism, perhaps?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You haven't actually said this, but can you just clarify that when you say "right wing", you're not just talking about white people?

Actually, this is a point that was being discussed this morning on MSNBC.  Professor Eddie Glaude of Princeton University was speaking of a "reservoir of malcontent" that is rapidly becoming a third political party in the US, UK, France, and Germany.

The complaint stems from a populist movement, Professor Glaude said.  The last time populism was ascendant was just before WWII.  A correlation between populism and nationalism, perhaps?

A populist movement has still being going on since 1917 from the left and is being revieved constantly No matter how many times it fails in history.

Its called marxism

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not going off topic at all... just showing up your ignorant bigotry...

How so?

I have nothing nice to say of black slave owners; you're just deflecting because you know what I'm saying makes sense.

You haven't actually said this, but can you just clarify that when you say "right wing", you're not just talking about white people?

Of course not, and at no point did I imply as such.

Jesse Lee Peterson is a black guy and is about the most delusional RW mouthpiece on youtube...

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, this is a point that was being discussed this morning on MSNBC.  Professor Eddie Glaude of Princeton University was speaking of a "reservoir of malcontent" that is rapidly becoming a third political party in the US, UK, France, and Germany.

The complaint stems from a populist movement, Professor Glaude said.  The last time populism was ascendant was just before WWII.  A correlation between populism and nationalism, perhaps?

A populist movement has still being going on since 1917 from the left and is being revieved constantly No matter how many times it fails in history.

Its called marxism

And not forgetting "corporate fascism" either, Dodge...

The clearly preferred option for both you and Tommy Monk, it would seem..

We've all seen you defending big business and corporate greed on here -- with your constant lies about big businesses "creating jobs" and "lifting living standards in poor countries".

You keep on bleating about "Marxism" -- even though you obviously know less-than-zero about the subject -- and keep on pathetically trying to label every left-leaning opponent here as a "brainless.. Marxist..", even though you have never actually succeeded in demonstrating just how Quill, veya, Ben or myself are supposedly some kind of brainwashed Marxist commie dupes..

A right-wing judge just decided yesterday to strip affordable health care from 4.5 million people - and that's just in Texas.

Sorry, yeah, I'm better than that. The left is better than that.

Don't like being made to feel inferior?

Then don't come up with inferior, fucking evil, policies.

Simple.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:


A populist movement has still being going on since 1917 from the left and is being revieved constantly No matter how many times it fails in history.

Its called marxism

And not forgetting "corporate fascism" either,  Dodge...

The clearly preferred option for both you and Tommy Monk, it would seem..

We've all seen you defending big business and corporate greed on here --  with your constant lies about big businesses "creating jobs" and "lifting living standards in poor countries".

You keep on bleating about "Marxism" --  even though you obviously know less-than-zero about the subject --  and keep on pathetically trying to label every left-leaning opponent here as a "brainless..  Marxist..",  even though you have never actually succeeded in demonstrating just how Quill, veya, Ben or myself are supposedly some kind of brainwashed Marxist commie dupes..

Since when was Fascism popular today?

Seriously

I know the clueless left like to call anyone Far right as fascist, based on their ignorance of politics, but I dont see many fascist populism today

I certainly see many Far right populist groups today

I do not defend greed on here and yet again the left resort to lying

Like clockwork

Now as seen I do not deny there is many populist groups

I was however correcting Quill, on populist groups, which he claimed had not been since WW2

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:A right-wing judge just decided yesterday to strip affordable health care from 4.5 million people - and that's just in Texas.

Sorry, yeah, I'm better than that. The left is better than that.

Don't like being made to feel inferior?

Then don't come up with inferior, fucking evil, policies.

Simple.

No they just introduce policies that starved millions to death, geonocide, ethnic cleansing and concentration canps

That is what the left did in China and Russia

History shows in fact the left are worse in fact

So yes they have come up with some of the most evil policies in history

We even see this today in North Korea, China and Venuzala, where in at least two countless are starving

You see this is what the left conveniently forget

Again nothing to actually take on the points and again Ben doing exactly what I stated the left think

That they are morally superior

I think the left have the same mentality as racists do when it comes to other races, but with morality

They both think they are superior and think others are inferior and they fail to see the problem with that

You see religious nuts through history and even today argue the same nonsense also where they think they are morally superior

You really failed to grasp the point Hitchins was making here, didn't you?

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:A right-wing judge just decided yesterday to strip affordable health care from 4.5 million people - and that's just in Texas.

Sorry, yeah, I'm better than that. The left is better than that.

Don't like being made to feel inferior?

Then don't come up with inferior, fucking evil, policies.

Simple.

No they just introduce policies that starved millions to death, geonocide, ethnic cleansing and concentration canps

That is what the left did in China and Russia

History shows in fact the left are worse in fact

So yes they have come up with some of the most evil policies in history

We even see this today in North Korea, China and Venuzala, where in at least two countless are starving

You see this is what the left conveniently forget

Again nothing to actually take on the points and again Ben doing exactly what I stated the left think

That they are morally superior

I think the left have the same mentality as racists do when it comes to other races, but with morality

They both think they are superior and think others are inferior and they fail to see the problem with that

You see religious nuts through history and even today argue the same nonsense also where they think they are morally superior

You really failed to grasp the point Hitchins was making here, didn't you?

"History proves that the left are far worse..."

Fuck off with your lying shit, you slimy little fascist suckup..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:

No they just introduce policies that starved millions to death, geonocide, ethnic cleansing and concentration canps

That is what the left did in China and Russia

History shows in fact the left are worse in fact

So yes they have come up with some of the most evil policies in history

We even see this today in North Korea, China and Venuzala, where in at least two countless are starving

You see this is what the left conveniently forget

Again nothing to actually take on the points and again Ben doing exactly what I stated the left think

That they are morally superior

I think the left have the same mentality as racists do when it comes to other races, but with morality

They both think they are superior and think others are inferior and they fail to see the problem with that

You see religious nuts through history and even today argue the same nonsense also where they think they are morally superior

You really failed to grasp the point Hitchins was making here, didn't you?

"History proves that the left are far worse..."

Fuck off with your lying shit,  you slimy little fascist suckup..

  

So as per usual the potty mouth cannot actually debat my points but gets worked up as usual, casting anyone right of stalin as fascist

Wow

If you can't answer the point, resort to swearing. Shows you are just a yob !

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You haven't actually said this, but can you just clarify that when you say "right wing", you're not just talking about white people?

Of course not, and at no point did I imply as such.

Jesse Lee Peterson is a black guy and is about the most delusional RW mouthpiece on youtube...

Ok. I know you didn't imply anything like that, but it does seem to be assumed that when people talk about the "right wing" they are generally talking about white people and they're excluding black people.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:A right-wing judge just decided yesterday to strip affordable health care from 4.5 million people - and that's just in Texas.

Sorry, yeah, I'm better than that. The left is better than that.

Don't like being made to feel inferior?

Then don't come up with inferior, fucking evil, policies.

Simple.

Could you link to that story? I'd like to see if there's more to it.

Even the conservatives can't have been all bad, obviously a good number were open to persuasion otherwise reforms such as the Abolition of slavery for instance, would not have got through parliament given the time this happened.
A lot of reforms were religiously based as well.

Vintage wrote:Even the conservatives can't have been all bad, obviously a good number were open to persuasion otherwise reforms such as the Abolition of slavery for instance, would not have got through parliament given the time this happened.
A lot of reforms were religiously based as well.

The first statement is true, the second complete bullshit.
For example, religious doctrine was argued to endorse slavery
Just because some Christians were against slavery, was more to do with the new concept of secular thinking
What you really want to say is that it was some people who were religious that were open minded
As the reality is, views througout religious history, were endorsed based on religion. Slavery being one of them

Hence its quite insulting to claim, that reforms were religiously based. That is a complete load of crap

It was secular thinking that opened the door to some religious people to become truley human

Maybe you can explain this religious doctrine in the Monotheist religions that condemned slavery?

When in fact it endorsed it?

This kind of religious bullshit had simple morphed previous Roman pagan mentality on slavery. It was the enlightenment that helped people change their ways. Even those religious

I mean Vintage. Are you seriously trying to kid the forum, that it was religious ideology, that brought about progresive ideas?

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense

What you had was religious people take on new better ideas and even worse claim them as you do now. Based religiously

And I will add one further point to how ridiculous your point is Vintage. Claiming they were religiously based. Why do we see that it is the religious, that are so anti reform? As they have always been

Even today?

Religion played no part, only enlightened religious people did help bring about change

Sorry, but that is an insult, to claim reforms were religiously based. When the Church of England. Has voted against every single progressive political policy through our nations history

lts not an insult just as not all conservatives wouldn't be moved on reforms not all religious people thought god had placed you in your station in life and you suffered or made good as a result, people like the Cadbury family for instance, deeply religious but believed people should be treated equally and given a chance [hide]to improve their lot , hence their concern for their workers welfare, it may have been a bit paternalistic but it was religiously based.

Vintage wrote:lts not an insult just as not all conservatives wouldn't be moved on reforms not all religious people thought god had placed you in your station in life and you suffered or made good as a result, people like the Cadbury family for instance, deeply religious but believed people should be treated equally and given a chance [hide]to improve their lot , hence their concern for their workers welfare, it may have been a bit paternalistic but it was religiously based.

I certainly agree that a lot of the abolitionists were religiously inspired. The fact the Bible can be used to both support and oppose slavery only further weighs against the Bible being a valid source of morality or evidence of anything imo. But religion certainly provided inspiration for those who did oppose slavery too - the Quakers, notably, took it upon themselves to promote its abolition.

I don't claim all conservatives (small c) supported slavery either, only that is was people with what was then a conservative mindset that were among the strongest supporters of slavery and the trade. Since, after all, their father's had owned slaves, as had their grandfathers, they could cite the Bible in support and (in their opinion) it was clear that they had a right, as the superior people, to own other people.

It was the Whigs who abolished slavery, the Whigs who became the modern Liberal-cum-Liberal Democrats Party.

So no, of course not all conservatives opposed every progressive measure through history, but when there was massive opposition it did come from the Right.

Of course nowadays conservatives do NOT support slavery, or oppose civil rights, or want to stop women from voting - instead they choose to decry gay rights, climate change policies, gun restrictions (in America) and trans rights.

In 50 years time this discussion will still be going on, I don't know what about, but someone will be listing the 4 things above as things the dinosaur conservatives of the early 21st century actually opposed

Vintage wrote:lts not an insult just as not all conservatives wouldn't be moved on reforms not all religious people thought god had placed you in your station in life and you suffered or made good as a result, people like the Cadbury family for instance, deeply religious but believed people should be treated equally and given a chance [hide]to improve their lot , hence their concern for their workers welfare, it may have been a bit paternalistic but it was religiously based.

Oh dear, just when I though you started to begin to undesrstand history

So was Cadbury's views based on religion?

And that is your evidence for your claim

Cadbury?

wow

Eilzel wrote:

Vintage wrote:lts not an insult just as not all conservatives wouldn't be moved on reforms not all religious people thought god had placed you in your station in life and you suffered or made good as a result, people like the Cadbury family for instance, deeply religious but believed people should be treated equally and given a chance [hide]to improve their lot , hence their concern for their workers welfare, it may have been a bit paternalistic but it was religiously based.

I certainly agree that a lot of the abolitionists were religiously inspired. The fact the Bible can be used to both support and oppose slavery only further weighs against the Bible being a valid source of morality or evidence of anything imo. But religion certainly provided inspiration for those who did oppose slavery too - the Quakers, notably, took it upon themselves to promote its abolition.

I don't claim all conservatives (small c) supported slavery either, only that is was people with what was then a conservative mindset that were among the strongest supporters of slavery and the trade. Since, after all, their father's had owned slaves, as had their grandfathers, they could cite the Bible in support and (in their opinion) it was clear that they had a right, as the superior people, to own other people.

It was the Whigs who abolished slavery, the Whigs who became the modern Liberal-cum-Liberal Democrats Party.

So no, of course not all conservatives opposed every progressive measure through history, but when there was massive opposition it did come from the Right.

Of course nowadays conservatives do NOT support slavery, or oppose civil rights, or want to stop women from voting - instead they choose to decry gay rights, climate change policies, gun restrictions (in America) and trans rights.

In 50 years time this discussion will still be going on, I don't know what about, but someone will be listing the 4 things above as things the dinosaur conservatives of the early 21st century actually opposed

Well the left oppose Zionism today
Jewish rights
White peeople's rights
Women's rights (as they are now supersceded by Trans rights)
Men's rights
Oppose equality for intersectionality
Religious peoples rights
Rich peoples rightsdc
Right wing peoples rights

Etc

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Vintage wrote:lts not an insult just as not all conservatives wouldn't be moved on reforms not all religious people thought god had placed you in your station in life and you suffered or made good as a result, people like the Cadbury family for instance, deeply religious but believed people should be treated equally and given a chance [hide]to improve their lot , hence their concern for their workers welfare, it may have been a bit paternalistic but it was religiously based.

I certainly agree that a lot of the abolitionists were religiously inspired. The fact the Bible can be used to both support and oppose slavery only further weighs against the Bible being a valid source of morality or evidence of anything imo. But religion certainly provided inspiration for those who did oppose slavery too - the Quakers, notably, took it upon themselves to promote its abolition.

I don't claim all conservatives (small c) supported slavery either, only that is was people with what was then a conservative mindset that were among the strongest supporters of slavery and the trade. Since, after all, their father's had owned slaves, as had their grandfathers, they could cite the Bible in support and (in their opinion) it was clear that they had a right, as the superior people, to own other people.

It was the Whigs who abolished slavery, the Whigs who became the modern Liberal-cum-Liberal Democrats Party.

So no, of course not all conservatives opposed every progressive measure through history, but when there was massive opposition it did come from the Right.

Of course nowadays conservatives do NOT support slavery, or oppose civil rights, or want to stop women from voting - instead they choose to decry gay rights, climate change policies, gun restrictions (in America) and trans rights.

In 50 years time this discussion will still be going on, I don't know what about, but someone will be listing the 4 things above as things the dinosaur conservatives of the early 21st century actually opposed

Well the left oppose Zionism today
Jewish rights
White peeople's rights
Women's rights (as they are now supersceded by Trans rights)
Men's rights
Oppose equality for intersectionality
Religious peoples rights
Rich peoples rightsdc
Right wing peoples rights

Etc

The mainstream left do not oppose those things. Those groups you mention, aside from Jews and women in some cases, are categorically not disadvantaged today. You'll be left behind too.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well the left oppose Zionism today
Jewish rights
White peeople's rights
Women's rights (as they are now supersceded by Trans rights)
Men's rights
Oppose equality for intersectionality
Religious peoples rights
Rich peoples rightsdc
Right wing peoples rights

Etc

The mainstream left do not oppose those things. Those groups you mention, aside from Jews and women in some cases, are categorically not disadvantaged today. You'll be left behind too.

Well most conservatives do not deny gay rights, climate change or trans rights
Trans rights are trumping everyones rights these days, they have more rights than most and even teaching is changing to accomadate leftiest ideology on this

You then claim religious people are not disadvantaged?

Or white people, who now from the working class, are the most disadvantaged within schools?

I could go on, but again, you seem to being living under a bubble

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well the left oppose Zionism today
Jewish rights
White peeople's rights
Women's rights (as they are now supersceded by Trans rights)
Men's rights
Oppose equality for intersectionality
Religious peoples rights
Rich peoples rightsdc
Right wing peoples rights

Etc

The mainstream left do not oppose those things. Those groups you mention, aside from Jews and women in some cases, are categorically not disadvantaged today. You'll be left behind too.

Well most conservatives do not deny gay rights, climate change or trans rights
Trans rights are trumping everyones rights these days, they have more rights than most and even teaching is changing to accomadate leftiest ideology on this

You then claim religious people are not disadvantaged?

Or white people, who now from the working class, are the most disadvantaged within schools?

I could go on, but again, you seem to being living under a bubble

Most don't deny gay rights now, but they did. A sizable minority in the USA still would and want to. In many countries the situation remains dire thanks to Russian conservatives, Taiwanese conservatives, Saudi conservatives and so on.

Trans rights are in an odd place. People still want to deny them the right to go by their preferred gender, to change their passports, to use certain bathrooms etc. They are also frequently attacked in many countries and murdered in some. Amazing rights they have huh

The Republican party are way behind on climate change - thankfully in the UK our conservatives have learned a little, although fracking seems to be a recent issue the Tory party don't give a shit to help with.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well most conservatives do not deny gay rights, climate change or trans rights
Trans rights are trumping everyones rights these days, they have more rights than most and even teaching is changing to accomadate leftiest ideology on this

You then claim religious people are not disadvantaged?

Or white people, who now from the working class, are the most disadvantaged within schools?

I could go on, but again, you seem to being living under a bubble

Most don't deny gay rights now, but they did. A sizable minority in the USA still would and want to. In many countries the situation remains dire thanks to Russian conservatives, Taiwanese conservatives, Saudi conservatives and so on.

Trans rights are in an odd place. People still want to deny them the right to go by their preferred gender, to change their passports, to use certain bathrooms etc. They are also frequently attacked in many countries and murdered in some. Amazing rights they have huh

The Republican party are way behind on climate change - thankfully in the UK our conservatives have learned a little, although fracking seems to be a recent issue the Tory party don't give a shit to help with.

But that is the problem with the bases of your thinking mate. Its solely centered on the US and Britain alone and never takes into account the rest of Europe for example. Hence your views on Conservatism are limited to a small sphere and based on sterotypes

The problem with transgendersim, is its encroaching on the rights of others and even worse at the expense of women. Espically within sports. Its up to them how to define themselves, but that does not mean, based on their biological sex, that they can trump the rights of others. Many groups are persecuted around the world, so spare me the victimology argument

So how about youi broaden your reasoning on Conservatism, as seen is very limited to say the least

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well most conservatives do not deny gay rights, climate change or trans rights
Trans rights are trumping everyones rights these days, they have more rights than most and even teaching is changing to accomadate leftiest ideology on this

You then claim religious people are not disadvantaged?

Or white people, who now from the working class, are the most disadvantaged within schools?

I could go on, but again, you seem to being living under a bubble

Most don't deny gay rights now, but they did. A sizable minority in the USA still would and want to. In many countries the situation remains dire thanks to Russian conservatives, Taiwanese conservatives, Saudi conservatives and so on.

Trans rights are in an odd place. People still want to deny them the right to go by their preferred gender, to change their passports, to use certain bathrooms etc. They are also frequently attacked in many countries and murdered in some. Amazing rights they have huh

The Republican party are way behind on climate change - thankfully in the UK our conservatives have learned a little, although fracking seems to be a recent issue the Tory party don't give a shit to help with.

But that is the problem with the bases of your thinking mate. Its solely centered on the US and Britain alone and never takes into account the rest of Europe for example. Hence your views on Conservatism are limited to a small sphere and based on sterotypes

The problem with transgendersim, is its encroaching on the rights of others and even worse at the expense of women. Espically within sports. Its up to them how to define themselves, but that does not mean, based on their biological sex, that they can trump the rights of others. Many groups are persecuted around the world, so spare me the victimology argument

So how about youi broaden your reasoning on Conservatism, as seen is very limited to say the least

My view of conservatism covers nearly all of Asia, all of Africa, the Middle East, conservatives in parts of the Americas, as well as Eastern Europe - are you honestly telling me you think the conservatives in those places aren't as backward as conservatives in the UK decades ago? If not more so?

Of course conservatives in Western Europe, Canada, and a few other places are basically progressives now compared with their predecessors - thanks to their countries being pulled forward by liberals over the years.

But in many countries conservatism, real conservatism, still holds sway and is hyper damaging socially. You want me to broaden my field to include some European countries because conservatives there are 'enlightened', but in most of the world conservatives are as resistant to change as they ever were.

They are in the UK still, the resistance has just moved on to different things. That's what conservatives do - resistant change. They like to 'conserve' the status quo (even if the status quo sucks) - hmmm, conserve, wonder how that could be added into the name of a political ideology

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:


But that is the problem with the bases of your thinking mate. Its solely centered on the US and Britain alone and never takes into account the rest of Europe for example. Hence your views on Conservatism are limited to a small sphere and based on sterotypes

The problem with transgendersim, is its encroaching on the rights of others and even worse at the expense of women. Espically within sports. Its up to them how to define themselves, but that does not mean, based on their biological sex, that they can trump the rights of others. Many groups are persecuted around the world, so spare me the victimology argument

So how about youi broaden your reasoning on Conservatism, as seen is very limited to say the least

My view of conservatism covers nearly all of Asia, all of Africa, the Middle East, conservatives in parts of the Americas, as well as Eastern Europe - are you honestly telling me you think the conservatives in those places aren't as backward as conservatives in the UK decades ago? If not more so?

Of course conservatives in Western Europe, Canada, and a few other places are basically progressives now compared with their predecessors - thanks to their countries being pulled forward by liberals over the years.

But in many countries conservatism, real conservatism, still holds sway and is hyper damaging socially. You want me to broaden my field to include some European countries because conservatives there are 'enlightened', but in most of the world conservatives are as resistant to change as they ever were.

They are in the UK still, the resistance has just moved on to different things. That's what conservatives do - resistant change. They like to 'conserve' the status quo (even if the status quo sucks) - hmmm, conserve, wonder how that could be added into the name of a political ideology

1) Does it? When before you only used Britain and the US? Those views clearly are based on the past

2) Pulled forward by Liberals? So now people cannot make up their own minds. Unbelievable the arrogance and bullshit from the left

3) Real Conservatism? That old chestnut, when Conservatism has such a broad and wide range of ideas and policies

4) The most regressive people I am seeing today constantly come from the left and I never deny problems from the right or conservatism, but you certainly do seem to be living in a bubble

Oh and for the record, the left did not invent many social progressive views on equality

For example under the Celts and Anglo Saxons women held equal rights.

There was no laws against homosexuality within Anglo Saxon times and in Celtic times the people engaged freely in open same sex relationships

These societies were in no way left wing, but as usual the left try to take ownership for things they clearly only revived

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:


But that is the problem with the bases of your thinking mate. Its solely centered on the US and Britain alone and never takes into account the rest of Europe for example. Hence your views on Conservatism are limited to a small sphere and based on sterotypes

The problem with transgendersim, is its encroaching on the rights of others and even worse at the expense of women. Espically within sports. Its up to them how to define themselves, but that does not mean, based on their biological sex, that they can trump the rights of others. Many groups are persecuted around the world, so spare me the victimology argument

So how about youi broaden your reasoning on Conservatism, as seen is very limited to say the least

My view of conservatism covers nearly all of Asia, all of Africa, the Middle East, conservatives in parts of the Americas, as well as Eastern Europe - are you honestly telling me you think the conservatives in those places aren't as backward as conservatives in the UK decades ago? If not more so?

Of course conservatives in Western Europe, Canada, and a few other places are basically progressives now compared with their predecessors - thanks to their countries being pulled forward by liberals over the years.

But in many countries conservatism, real conservatism, still holds sway and is hyper damaging socially. You want me to broaden my field to include some European countries because conservatives there are 'enlightened', but in most of the world conservatives are as resistant to change as they ever were.

They are in the UK still, the resistance has just moved on to different things. That's what conservatives do - resistant change. They like to 'conserve' the status quo (even if the status quo sucks) - hmmm, conserve, wonder how that could be added into the name of a political ideology

1) Does it? When before you only used Britain and the US? Those views clearly are based on the past

2) Pulled forward by Liberals? So now people cannot make up their own minds. Unbelievable the arrogance and bullshit from the left

3) Real Conservatism? That old chestnut, when Conservatism has such a broad and wide range of ideas and policies

4) The most regressive people I am seeing today constantly come from the left and I never deny problems from the right or conservatism, but you certainly do seem to be living in a bubble

I refer mostly to the US and UK when discussing things because most people here are from those countries - don't be too blown away by that revelation.

Liberals including ordinary people who support movements to progress; don't discount the millions who protested against racism, the many ordinary people who campaigned for abolitionism and the women who marched for women's rights didge, they pushed for change, and liberals in governments got through the policies to make them reality. Of course, conservative politicians and people complained, as the conservatives of today do the same - complain.

Conservatism means to conserve, simple as that. Change runs contrary to that conservation. Abolishing slavery, allowing women to vote, treating black people equally, letting gay people be honest about their sexuality - all this ran against 'traditions' that conservative people wanted to preserve.

I do deny the flaws of the extreme left, such as the non-binary attention seekers. But the problems from the left are minor compared to the constant resistance to progress that comes from the Right.

EDIT: the Anglo-Saxons didn't have a left or a right, didge. Politics was nothing like the same as it is now. Then you had Kings or Earls or Dukes and the peasantry. Lords and ladies played politics in their courts while peasants just survived - a very different world and totally incompatible with the modern history of nation-states.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:


1) Does it? When before you only used Britain and the US? Those views clearly are based on the past

2) Pulled forward by Liberals? So now people cannot make up their own minds. Unbelievable the arrogance and bullshit from the left

3) Real Conservatism? That old chestnut, when Conservatism has such a broad and wide range of ideas and policies

4) The most regressive people I am seeing today constantly come from the left and I never deny problems from the right or conservatism, but you certainly do seem to be living in a bubble

.

I do deny the flaws of the extreme left, such as the non-binary attention seekers. But the problems from the left are minor compared to the constant resistance to progress that comes from the Right.

EDIT: the Anglo-Saxons didn't have a left or a right, didge. Politics was nothing like the same as it is now. Then you had Kings or Earls or Dukes and the peasantry. Lords and ladies played politics in their courts while peasants just survived - a very different world and totally incompatible with the modern history of nation-states.

Not going to continue the farce around conservatism, as you again have a very flawed and tunnel vision approach to looking at Conservatism

You again downplay the problems on the left. Even when they are now being played out in policies and law

Hence they are far more than minor to say the least

That is bullshit, as both the celts and Anglo Saxons had political systems. So they certainly can be placed in right sphere of politics for the time. Like I say though they held very progressive rights for homosexuals and women. So again the left are not the real progressives on these issues. They simple revived previous known equality from the past

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:


1) Does it? When before you only used Britain and the US? Those views clearly are based on the past

2) Pulled forward by Liberals? So now people cannot make up their own minds. Unbelievable the arrogance and bullshit from the left

3) Real Conservatism? That old chestnut, when Conservatism has such a broad and wide range of ideas and policies

4) The most regressive people I am seeing today constantly come from the left and I never deny problems from the right or conservatism, but you certainly do seem to be living in a bubble

.

I do deny the flaws of the extreme left, such as the non-binary attention seekers. But the problems from the left are minor compared to the constant resistance to progress that comes from the Right.

EDIT: the Anglo-Saxons didn't have a left or a right, didge. Politics was nothing like the same as it is now. Then you had Kings or Earls or Dukes and the peasantry. Lords and ladies played politics in their courts while peasants just survived - a very different world and totally incompatible with the modern history of nation-states.

Not going to continue the farce around conservatism, as you again have a very flawed and tunnel vision approach to looking at Conservatism

You again downplay the problems on the left. Even when they are now being played out in policies and law

Hence they are far more than minor to say the least

That is bullshit, as both the celts and Anglo Saxons had political systems. So they certainly can be placed in right sphere of politics for the time. Like I say though they held very progressive rights for homosexuals and women. So again the left are not the real progressives on these issues. They simple revived previous known equality from the past

Your point on Anglo-Saxons is utterly irrelevant. No one has at any point stated that no societies have ever had better standards in terms of freedom for different groups - but they did not have traditional 'Left/Right' politics, which only came into form around the time of the French Revolution (the wings even refer to specific sides of a building where different groups would sit). Their political systems were nothing like those of today, there was no democracy, the feelings of ordinary people DID NOT matter to the kings of the time.

Once Christianity was firmly embedded as the traditional religion of the UK and certainly post Reformation, our country had a very distinct culture and people knew what was and was not traditional by that point. Conservatives have fought for centuries to preserve all that that entailed. Once people's voices became more and more important and the power of the monarch began to subside, change happen much more quickly.

No one has said treating people equally is a new idea (although it is, relatively, the inequality was just differently dispersed in the past). But for conservatives of the last two hundred years it certainly has been an idea different enough (to them) to resist.

1)Bullshit again, as again the politics for the time is within the sphere of right wing politics. You can deny this to the cows come home, but it wont change this fact. Your incorrect view that it started with the French Revolution. Really shows an ignorance of history itself. All that happened then was to simplify an already existing divide between the side defending aristocracy and church and the side defending those that were neither priests nor aristocrats. Which then became classed as left and right.

2) So right wing political spheres have long existed for centuries and will only see the rise of the left pre the French Revolution. Now indeed Christianity held sway and took control of the right wing Monarchist system. It simple changed hands to a more religious authority. Which then erradicated previously progressive views. So your reasoning is so poor its beyond belief. As again the political systems were already in place. They simple had the church come to control them. Hence societies had been very progressive to a point in the past. It was Christianity that changed that. Not right wing Monarchism itself. Hence its the form of Christian conservatism, that grew from its control of the Monarchies.

3) So all that happened is again Liberals revived old progressive policies that were once prevalent within times that held early ring wing Monarchist societies