Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not supporting the status quo, I'm just not expending the effort to change it. Just like I might not change some method in a program I wrote, not because I thought the way it is currently written is good or better, but because it a) works already and b) probably wouldn't be worth the effort to change it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read Edmund Burke, especially 'Reflections on the Revolution in France'. Since he is the father of modern conservatism, he'd basically defined the term .

I'm not supporting the status quo, I'm just not expending the effort to change it. Just like I might not change some method in a program I wrote, not because I thought the way it is currently written is good or better, but because it a) works already and b) probably wouldn't be worth the effort to change it.

By doing so, you ARE supporting the status quo. What if someone argues that the new method may be better? You'd back the status quo because it works already and it is too much effort to change it. Why are you so against being known as backing the status quo? It is only a 'bad thing' for Communists (who as radicals are Conservatives' natural opposition)

[Ramo]

Yeah, Imran's right. Burke believed if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Kuciwalker]

By doing so, you ARE supporting the status quo. What if someone argues that the new method may be better? You'd back the status quo because it works already and it is too much effort to change it. Why are you so against being known as backing the status quo? It is only a 'bad thing' for Communists (who as radicals are Conservatives' natural opposition)

If the other thing works better, I'm all for it. However, until it is demonstrated to do so, there is no reason to be for it. However, there is also no reason to be for the status quo.

[Fake Boris]

In short, Conservatives are *******s who believe genocides and starvations do not require immediate and radical intervention, but rather 'reasonable' action aimed at protecting a system that works for 10% of humans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the other thing works better, I'm all for it. However, until it is demonstrated to do so, there is no reason to be for it.

Which is consider for the status quo. You have to be demonstrated the other thing works better and then it should be gradually introduced. You don't want to 'rock the boat'.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If the other thing works better, I'm all for it. However, until it is demonstrated to do so, there is no reason to be for it.

Which is consider for the status quo. You have to be demonstrated the other thing works better and then it should be gradually introduced. You don't want to 'rock the boat'.

No, I'm fine "rocking the boat". However, I'm not arguing FOR implementing this thing (because it has already been implemented), I'm arguing AGAINST implementing something that I don't have any idea is any better than what is currently implemented.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
In short, Conservatives are *******s who believe genocides and starvations do not require immediate and radical intervention, but rather 'reasonable' action aimed at protecting a system that works for 10% of humans.

Can you read? Obviously a system without genocide and starvation is better than one with them, therefore we should implement such a system (assuming it exists and we are capable of doing so).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker




Can you read? Obviously a system without genocide and starvation is better than one with them, therefore we should implement such a system (assuming it exists and we are capable of doing so).

Really? What about America cuts its military spending in half (which means its military budget will be THREE times as large as the second largest) and start manufacturing medications for Africa?

What about the Tobin tax? And what about joining the Hague Court for crimes against humanity?
Even then, not beating up those demonstrating in favor of this would be a nice start.

[Kuciwalker]

1. Such policy would be global policy, not national policy.

2. IF I thought what you are proposing would have the desired effects, then yes, I would support it. The disagreement lies not in the goals, but in which manner of execution will actually work.

EDIT: this, in fact is what I'm talking about wrt what a "conservative" is. Conservatives (generally) have the same GOALS as liberals, but merely disagree on the most effective way to achieve those goals.

[Ned]

Actually, Imran, I tend to side with you in this argument. Conservatives are naturally inclined to move cautiously due to the potential of unexpected consequences.

Liberals tend to be incautious, advocating radical change that can have (and have had, in the case of communism) many unforseen consequences, most of which are not good.

[Kuciwalker]

And Ned takes a rational argument and turns reinterprets it into random, bigoted nonsense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm arguing AGAINST implementing something that I don't have any idea is any better than what is currently implemented.

In essense, for the status quo . I don't understand why you are so opposed to this.

[Kuciwalker]

A vote against Kerry is not necessarily a vote for Bush, I'll put it that way

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker


1. Such policy would be global policy, not national policy.

2. IF I thought what you are proposing would have the desired effects, then yes, I would support it. The disagreement lies not in the goals, but in which manner of execution will actually work.

Yeah sure. It's been a no-no for all Repukes and Democrats since the end of the Cold War. But when it comes to the NAFTA (which ruined Mexico) all senators get viagracally excited, and start hiring all sorts of advisors and negociators to do it as fast as possible.