BF2S Forums NYC Schools To Honor Islam On 9/11

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

How big, exactly, is this beach of sand you all have your heads buried in?

Pray tell lowing, how exactly do papers make their money?

I see, so Islam is NOT founded by a murder/child molester, it is NOT a religion steeped in violence and intolerance, and it does NOT teach superiority over all others, to the point were non-believers must be succumb or be put to death. It is all bad press.

Answer the question pretty please.

FEOS wrote:

So the question remains: what exactly do you mean by "conservative" and "liberal" in this context?

What a good question.

As you say, the Romans certainly were socially liberal - seeing as they believed in what was effectively a welfare state, whereby the state provided for the people.

Some consider the fall of Rome to have been due to massive government overspending and devaluing their economy (particularly their currency). It is often argued that the widespread removal of the gold standard was a great way of putting modern society on the exact same path....

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-13 05:27:04)

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Rome was pretty socially liberal. Wouldn't you say western society is more evolved than ancient Roman society?

Or are you using conservative and liberal differently than the common colloquial usage of the terms here in the US?

Until the Enlightenment period and the Industrial Revolution, Europe was not as culturally advanced as the Ancient Romans.  Medieval Europe was actually quite primitive in a social sense compared to the Romans.

During the Middle Ages, China was actually the most advanced society on the planet.  For the most part, they were more socially liberal than Medieval Europe.

My point being that some would consider Roman society to be far more socially liberal (in many aspects) than today's western society. That contradicts your argument vis a vis social evolution and liberalism.

So the question remains: what exactly do you mean by "conservative" and "liberal" in this context?

Rome collapsed/was destroyed so that particular species of cultural evolution came to an end. Current western societies stem from those who destroyed Rome which were very socially conservative but have been evolving to become more socially liberal.

So how does that not fit the argument about social evolution and liberalism?

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

In your opinion. Which is a minority opinion.

Fortunately Western society is democratic and since few people give any credence to these silly bigoted opinions, they are completely inconsequencial.

C.A.I.R.


and no people in western society would rather not adopt an Islamic culture, sorry to break it to you.

No people in Western Society would rather not adopt an Islamic culture?

What, so everyone in the West wants to adopt Islam? I thought you lived in Western society?

and no, people in Western Society would rather not adopt an Islamic culture.

fixed, I guess that comma, for a little guy, sure makes a difference.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Rome was pretty socially liberal. Wouldn't you say western society is more evolved than ancient Roman society?

Or are you using conservative and liberal differently than the common colloquial usage of the terms here in the US?

Until the Enlightenment period and the Industrial Revolution, Europe was not as culturally advanced as the Ancient Romans.  Medieval Europe was actually quite primitive in a social sense compared to the Romans.

During the Middle Ages, China was actually the most advanced society on the planet.  For the most part, they were more socially liberal than Medieval Europe.

My point being that some would consider Roman society to be far more socially liberal (in many aspects) than today's western society. That contradicts your argument vis a vis social evolution and liberalism.

Those that make that argument are incorrect for one very big reason.  Slavery.

The majority of Rome's population was made up of slaves.  Slavery is a conservative institution.

FEOS wrote:

So the question remains: what exactly do you mean by "conservative" and "liberal" in this context?

I'm defining liberal as synonymous with civil libertarianism.  The general idea is that the freer people are in a personal sense and the more egalitarian society is with regard to political representation and attitudes toward social equality, the more liberal a society is.

I'm defining conservatism as restraints on personal freedom, inequalities in political representation, and prejudices against social equality.

Rome may have been more liberal than us about homosexuality and hedonism, but in many other respects, they were much more conservative.  Slavery is the most obvious example, but classism was much more blatant in Rome as well.  Also, women were second-class citizens, although they did have more rights in Rome than in most of the rest of the Ancient World.

FEOS wrote:

Then you're certainly NOT talking about "conservative" and "liberal" in its common usage here.

How about this then: the more civilly libertarian a society is, the more socially evolved it is.

Would you agree with that?

Spark wrote:

Labels suck, c/d?

It is necessary to point out that the more bound a culture is to ritualistic practices such as the burqa, the more primitive it is in a social sense.

To be fair, though, America needs to eventually evolve past its own evangelist literalism.