Quote# 9858

Some time ago, here at TOL, I started a thread which sought to re-label Liberals and Conservatives.

I stated that we, as Conservatives, should be called the Liberals, because we seek to liberate people from bondage, from oppression, and to liberate their God given rights.

It is the Liberals who are the ones who seek to conserve those things.

So, let it never be said that it was the right-wingers who lynched blacks, they just had the wrong label. They were very interested in 'conserving' or 'restricting' people's God given right to life.

truthman, TheologyOnline 30 Comments [2/28/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


Obviously truthman failed to read the manual...

Or maybe truthman likes to see his posts here? Everyone has their vices...

2/28/2006 5:59:52 PM


In other news, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Back to you, Bob.

2/28/2006 6:07:03 PM

David D.G.

This guy is just amazing. There seems to be no truth that \"truthman\" can fail to avoid grasping. How does this guy even function in society?

~David D.G.

2/28/2006 6:09:42 PM


Hypothetical situation... we rename liberals as conservatives and conservatives as liberals. All references to each, in this context, are changed to the other.

So... how exactly has this advanced truthman's cause?

2/28/2006 8:07:57 PM

David D.G.

Good point, Meth. And I would just like to point out that this is also yet another example of the recent fundie trend of trying to redefine terms as a fraudulent way of making themselves seem right (though this one is even more pointless than usual).

~David D.G.

2/28/2006 9:42:37 PM


\"They were very interested in 'conserving' or 'restricting' people's God given right to life.\"

That quote contradicts itself. To \"conserve\" life is in no way similar to \"restricting\" life.

2/28/2006 11:01:27 PM


Clearly he is trying to invoke classicl Liberal principles and associate them with what he considers the 'right'.

It's true that Locke, Smith, Rousseau, and Hume gave lip-service to the Christian God but any modern examination of Liberalism will lead to the conclusion that God isn't necessary for the development of Liberalism.

Furthermore, a number of Christian policies are directly contrary to the ideals of Liberalism, such as opposition to equal rights for homosexuals and possibly the Christian position on abortion.

2/28/2006 11:32:44 PM


Meaningless labels are nothing new. Explorers to Africa or the \"New World\" were quick to call the aboriginals living there \"savages\". On what basis? They didn't believe in the same god?
Pathetic nonsense.

2/28/2006 11:57:19 PM


Hey and if we call men women and women men we can eliminate mysogyny. Brilliant!!!! (Gonna confuse the fuck out of the gynaecologists though)

3/1/2006 12:10:27 AM


which is exactly the problem with the evolution of language.

my point is, we should just quit with this \"english\" crap and just everyone speak latin.

3/1/2006 1:16:19 AM


\"So, let it never be said that it was the right-wingers who lynched blacks, they just had the wrong label.\"

Methinks it was more like the victims who had the wrong label, so to speak.

3/1/2006 3:18:35 PM


You can twist the definitions to suit your imagination, but how will you turn around Libertarians?

6/15/2007 8:32:03 AM


Yeah, we liberated the shit out of Iraq, didn't we?

6/15/2007 5:34:12 PM


That last sentence blew my irony meter.

6/16/2007 6:54:47 AM

Brian X

I love "classical liberal" -- it makes it sound as if nothing at all has changed since the term was coined and that those who consider themselves liberals now have no right to the name because they don't espouse the same positions that liberals a century and a half ago espouse.

In the grand scheme of things, it's just the same tendency that both religion and politics have to assume that maintaining the same positions under any and all circumstances is somehow a virtue. In this case, it basically amounts to misappropriating a label based on some of its surface characteristics while ignoring the most basic tenets of the label.

6/18/2007 12:39:45 AM

LT. Fred

Doublethink truthwise your thought-statement truthman (even his bloody name is double-think):
All people are Liberal; just some more Liberal than others.
And 2 + 2 = 5 if you think hard enough.

6/18/2007 5:57:20 AM


"And 2 + 2 = 5 if you think hard enough."

I thought it was 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

6/18/2007 7:24:31 AM


Doublethink: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

6/18/2007 10:24:39 AM


Unfortunately for you, "right-wing" and "left-wing" haven't changed definitions so much.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "conserve," obviously. Neither do you understand the left-wing position on a great many things. Let me clarify something...

The position of many of the far-right conservatives in the US includes:
-Restricting the rights of homosexuals.
-Promoting Christianity over other religions (thus limiting other religions in comparison).
-Limiting the rights of women over their bodies.

Not long ago, these were the same people who were promoting segregation, opposing women's voting, and screaming about 'dirty pinko commies.' Liberal, indeed.


Your blatant and poorly-executed attempt at adding to the Fundie Word Redefinition Project has been found lacking, and therefore your proposal is denied. Please pick up the nearest available dictionary, and proceed to flog yourself with it.

6/18/2007 10:45:57 AM


"We seek to liberate you from the sin of homosexuality, the sin of abortion, and the sin of recreational drug use!"

But that guy doesn't wanna be saved, she got raped, and the other guy's got glaucoma!


6/19/2007 1:16:12 PM


I'm quite comfortable with my life being conserved and not liberated, thank you very much.

Are you also against conservation of nature?

How about conservation of privacy?

Would you consider liberating a raped girl from a child she physically cannot give birth to, unless she's willing to risk death?

Freedom is slavery!

6/19/2007 3:06:26 PM

Professor M

@Salvador --

We re-define "Libertarian" by switching it with "libertarian," so the tradition which invented the term gets the capital L. Of course, that's another right-wing/left-wing, authoritarian/anti-authoritarian switch...

6/19/2007 9:18:38 PM

Brian X

Professor M:

Don't forget, though, that small-l libertarianism isn't actually an organization.

6/20/2007 12:16:53 PM

Professor M

Neither are liberalism or conservativism...and "Libertarians" aren't necessarily just the Libertarian Party.

6/20/2007 3:24:41 PM

1 2 | top: comments page