Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

why conservatives are BUNK
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The left to right spectrum is probably Communism, Socialism, Liberal Capitalism, Conservative Capitalism, Monopoly Capitalism.



You left off the Fascists over there on the right end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But to call an elected president who holds his office constitutionally a dictator, well that's preposterous.



During the Roman Republic, Fabius Maximus and Julius Caesar (and others) were elected dictator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dulouz



Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An update...

There was a forum at SNU yesterday about this matter and both sides were present.

The liberals attacked, punched, kicked and choked the conservatives and threw furniture at the conservatives as well. They also threw objects around the room.

Joong Ang Daily Dec 1 , 2006.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For critical thinking I might lay out the events (without these dumb revisions/pro-park takes), good, bad, or neutral, and then have questions like:

1. Are Park's repressive actions and martial law justified? Do the ends justify the means?

2. Do you think the same developments could have come about through other means? What other ways might economic development and security have been attained.

3. What if Park had NOT taken these actions? What would Korea be like today? Better? Worse? Explain your answer.



I can't help but see your approach as a pre-set value-laden agenda, designed to produce a specific outcome.

In my opinion, Korea's future would be better served by gathering representative documents, newspaper articles, films, diaries etc. , present them to the students and lead them through a systematic study.

Ask questions like:

a) What attitudes is this person expressing? Do you think his/her age and social status affected their beliefs?

b) In Document 19, the writer says Park's government was repressive. Do you agree? Why or why not? Document 20 says Kim Il-Sung was a dictator. Do you agree? Why or why not?

c) Document 27 was written by a small businessman in Daegu. Document 28 was written by a small businessman in Pyongyang. Compare their attitudes. What happened to these people later?

Final Test Question: You are a third-year high school student in 1965. Do you support President Park or the Democracy Movement? Defend your position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
But to call an elected president who holds his office constitutionally a dictator, well that's preposterous.



During the Roman Republic, Fabius Maximus and Julius Caesar (and others) were elected dictator.


Wouldn't it be fairer to also point out that "dictator" meant something QUITE different in those days then it does now? According to my understanding it simply meant "ruler for life".(the orginal Latin "one who dictacts [orders]
Whereas now it is applied to brutal rulers who oppress their subjects in non-democractic states and has wide pejorative meaning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Wouldn't it be fairer to also point out that "dictator" meant something QUITE different in those days then it does now? According to my understanding it simply meant "ruler for life".(the orginal Latin "one who dictacts [orders]
Whereas now it is applied to brutal rulers who oppress their subjects in non-democractic states and has wide pejorative meaning.


I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Fabius was elected dictator for a specific period of time, not for life. The Roman version, as I understand it, was an emergency measure taken only at dangerous moments when the Senate was suspended and all power for defence of the state was in the hands of the dictator. 'Tyrant' seems to be the word the ancients used to mean what we usually mean by 'dictator'.

Certainly in most English-speaking countries 'dictator' has taken on a negative meaning, but I don't think it is universal at all. After all, there was until recently quite a bit of support for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That is why many commentators put Stalin, Mao and others (Bush?) up there as conservatives. They do not believe in the SANITY , oh sorry, SANCTITY of human life.


Seems there is some confusion over what I meant in the above statement.

I think many people are confusing the ongoing defining of small c conservatism with the political notion of big C Conservatism.

Just as the notion of liberalism has slowly eroded from its intended meaning of less govt and more individual rights and freedoms -- conservatism is continually also being improperly defined.

conservatism is not a political category and you'll find conservatives on all sides of the fences. It also cuts across ideology. Wish I could find the recent article in the NY review of books about this very subject and how America has become all conservative, despite the notion that there are liberals about....

So what do I exactly mean by conservatism. And why did I lump Bush in with those infamous types? While, conservatism is a value which opts for status quo, protecting the NOW. It is cautious and feeds on the notion of public morality and righteousness....It believes in the ruling class and the purity and priviledge of those who have power. It believes that the best for society is to have these people steering the ship. conservatism is very set against immigration, other cultures, intermingling and generally is very defensive with large military expenditure. conservatives as I mentioned, don't mind breaking a lot of "underling" eggs, to maintain the privledge of themselves and the homogenity of their ideals. They focus less on individual rights and mostly on collective rights, falling on the side of whatever notion of "purity" and "righteousness" they espouse. Family values, morality, patriotism, community are keywords. conservatives don't want change and they love the notion of a "bogeyman" -- fear. It is the means they have of keeping things as they are. They are ravenously anti-intellectual (for intellectuals truly hunger for change, the better, constant promotion of what can be done....) and conservatives believe always in some god ordained notion of their being "in the right". They are culturally biased and this is reflected in their own defensiveness regarding their culture and faith....

I could go on.......Bush as with Stalin and Mao are conservatives. I don't equate them on any other scale, just to be clear.

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holy shit. I agree with dd.

Conservative is more a description of a disposition. It isn't an adequate way to explain a world view. Rightist is better.

This, below, is a far better way at explaining the spectrum.



Take the quiz!

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
happeningthang



Joined: 26 Apr 2003

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dulouz wrote:
An update...

There was a forum at SNU yesterday about this matter and both sides were present.

The liberals attacked, punched, kicked and choked the conservatives and threw furniture at the conservatives as well. They also threw objects around the room.

Joong Ang Daily Dec 1 , 2006.


Awesome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cbclark4



Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
The left to right spectrum is probably Communism, Socialism, Liberal Capitalism, Conservative Capitalism, Monopoly Capitalism.



You left off the Fascists over there on the right end.


No I don't think so. Fascist or National Socialist were a breed that believed in state control of industry, so basically tendig toward the Monopoly Capitalist model. England was inthe same Economic Model with her Empire at that time also tending toward the Monopoly Capitalism without the state control more or less allowing for the Monolopies to dictate policy.

Fascism or National Socialism relied upon oppressive social tactics to enforce the regime of the Economic policy and so you will see both economies shared the same model with differing level of social controls.

Other fascist model would be Peron's Argentina, Mussolini's Italy, Spain's Franco. Fascism is not necessarily an economic model. It is however near the pinnacle of oppression (Feudalism, Surfism and Slave State are the ultimate pinnacle, Ancient Egypt, modern Pol Pot).


cbc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cbclark4



Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
But to call an elected president who holds his office constitutionally a dictator, well that's preposterous.



During the Roman Republic, Fabius Maximus and Julius Caesar (and others) were elected dictator.


You may want to research that a bit. If by elected you mean appointed by the senate that is correct. Then you need to ask who appointed the Senators.

Its like saying Park was elected.

One could also say Hitler was Elected dictator if you use that definition of elected. Though elected he seized absolute power.

cbc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cbclark4



Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ddeubel wrote:

I think many people are confusing the ongoing defining of small c conservatism with the political notion of big C Conservatism.

Just as the notion of liberalism has slowly eroded from its intended meaning of less govt and more individual rights and freedoms -- conservatism is continually also being improperly defined.

DD


our friend ytb posted this gem linked below, it may help you to try the survey and see where you fall on the compass. Also may help me understand where we are disagreeing if at all.

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=72350

cbc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll check it out. But I disagree with the whole pidgeon holing aspect of things like this. (so does that make me Liberatarian??? , I don't think so).

I do also disagree with you thought that fascism was an economic movement / expression (or maybe you aren't saying that but it came through in your reply).

Fascism in my mind and many others, was a system of governemt based on the notion of "fatherland" . It was purely ideological and found its strength through the belief that the whole nation was sacred and pure. All was done for the nation's sake and its figurehead was the "father figure" who embodded all that was good and purile in the nation. It was a personality cult where all individual presence was secondary to the will of the nation and leader.

That economically the state assumed control of most everything, was a secondary and proximate characteristic of the higher all embracing ideology of the state.

That's my own version.

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cbclark4



Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry if my post was confusing. Fascism was strictly economics.

It had an economic Philosphy of Monopoly Capitalism with a Nationalist bent (industrial control). The Oppression and racist policies were social aspect of Fascism not economic.

At the same in Britain the Empirical policies where similar Monopoly Capitalism, the social policies or oppresion was different, it was offshore in far away places, it was not categorized as Fascism but Imperialism or Colonialism, there were no death camps.

Monopoly Capitalism died at the end of WWII.

cbc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cbclark4



Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The concept of "fatherland" or "motherland" or even "homeland" are nationalist concepts nothing to do with left, right, liberal, or conservative.

Nationlism or National Pride or Patriotism or Sovreignty are recognitions of geopolitical regions from which one hails. Too the extreme these concepts can embody a sort of supremacy or racism. To the lesser extent merely a sense of identity.

Internationalism or Globalism is another concept, ideologically the identity with the world, being a citizen of the world, it can also be conceptualized as world domination by a political or corporate or industial or commercial or religious entity.

Individualism frees us from tying into these precepts too seriously.

cbc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International