How to change a conservative's mind?

[joycem10]

I was gonna suggest giving them some head, so they feel less bitter.

Thats usually enough to change my opinion on anything.

 

[Red Stranger]

Hmm, a link to my thread, but you won't mention names. I wonder who you could be talking about

So seriously, how do you change a conservatives mind? Show some facts without a vast liberal spin, and you'll find that conservatives will very willingly listen to your argument and maybe accept your position.

I'm sure many of us have gone through the stage where we learn that a whale is not a fsh. Well, how do we learn that? Through facts that don't have liberal spin to it.

BTW, this thread will probably be closed if the sexual comments continue

 

[The Last Conformist]

Funny, I was saying something along those lines in a thread a couple weeks ago and was told I didn't know what I was talking about (not by you, incidentally).

Well, I cannot guess the motives of your assailant, but as far as Sweden is concerned, the socdems have governed here for most of the last three-quarter century, and they have greatly reshaped our society. If there is any such thing as a "social democratic society", the that of Sweden has to be it. It follows that to be a conservative in the etymological meaning - ie. someone want to to perserve the present state of affairs - here, you have to be a socdem. I cannot see how this could be reasonably denied.

 

[JohnRM]

Changing someones mind on an internet forum is yet to happen.

Not true. I myself had been an strict opponent of gay marriage up until recently and it was several debates on this issue, here, that changed my mind about it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Tsk, John, ruining our preconceptions.

If you don't mind, may In ask what specific argument, if any, convinced you?

 

[.Shane.]

Part of the problem is that people fixate too much on the terms "liberal" and "conservative", IMO.

 

[MobBoss]

Nevermind the president, which was the worst admin\leadership of all time, in your opinion?

Well, besides the two that were actually impeached while in office, Wilsons presidency routinely comes up as one of the biggest failures in all of US history.

 

[JohnRM]

Heck yes. I am a conservative and I am comfortable saying that Bush is a terrible leader who has done lots of illegal or misguided things. The way I always thought, it was conservatives who were big on personal liberties and sound financial policy. By that definition, Bush isn't a conservative anyways.

Conservatives are typically attributed to being Libertarian in regard to a free market economy, but Authoritarian in regard to social issues.

 

[JohnRM]

Tsk, John, ruining our preconceptions.

If you don't mind, may In ask what specific argument, if any, convinced you?

I don't remember specifics, but I came to realization that the People are owed equal treatment under the law. You cannot assign so-called "privelages" to one particular group and not to another. By denying gay couples the right to marry while allowing straight couples that same right is to treat some Americans unequally under the law. Either marriage must be denied to all in respect to its privelages as established under the law or you must grant it to all.


EDIT: I suppose I just had to hear someone cry out "discrimination" a few thousand times and after I finally thought it about it in an objective manner, without my pre-programmed responses, it all made sense.

 

[Inqvisitor]

After reading this and other threads, it seems apparent to me that certain conservatives on this board simply will never accept that Bush is doing a bad job. No amount of proof convinces them of that.

Not exactly difficult to make conservatives accept that Bush is doing a bad job. Sounds more like your trouble is with ideologues, specifically to Bush's particular brand of neocon and liberal politics. Not with "conservatives..."

 

[JohnRM]

Well, besides the two that were actually impeached while in office, Wilsons presidency routinely comes up as one of the biggest failures in all of US history.

Don't forget the U.S. Grant Presidency.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't remember specifics, but I came to realization that the People are owed equal treatment under the law. You cannot assign so-called "privelages" to one particular group and not to another. By denying gay couples the right to marry while allowing straight couples that same right is to treat some Americans unequally under the law. Either marriage must be denied to all in respect to its privelages as established under the law or you must grant it to all.


EDIT: I suppose I just had to hear someone cry out "discrimination" a few thousand times and after I finally thought it about it in an objective manner, without my pre-programmed responses, it all made sense.

Thanks.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't remember specifics, but I came to realization that the People are owed equal treatment under the law. You cannot assign so-called "privelages" to one particular group and not to another. By denying gay couples the right to marry while allowing straight couples that same right is to treat some Americans unequally under the law. Either marriage must be denied to all in respect to its privelages as established under the law or you must grant it to all.

People are treated equally under the law. Do you want a class based solely upon sexual preference to have the same specific protections as we give race/creed/color/gender in this country? And under equal protection do you truly think the buck will stop there? I dont.

 

[Inqvisitor]

I don't remember specifics, but I came to realization that the People are owed equal treatment under the law. You cannot assign so-called "privelages" to one particular group and not to another. By denying gay couples the right to marry while allowing straight couples that same right is to treat some Americans unequally under the law. Either marriage must be denied to all in respect to its privelages as established under the law or you must grant it to all.

Did you just make up this whole "forum argument changed my mind" thing to provoke controversy?
That "equal treatment under the law" argument is extremely weak, considering nobody denies 'gay' couples the right to marry.

 

[punkbass2000]

In response to the OP, I guess the question is why do you want to change a conservative's mind, anyway?

 

[CartesianFart]

That is a good question that MobBoss have just surmise here,what is after the homosexuals when they receive equal rights along with heterosexuals?It seems to me that with all these movement in America,we are becoming more multi-class conscious individuals that is more fragmenting our country into antagonistic tribes.

 

[.Shane.]

Well, besides the two that were actually impeached while in office, Wilsons presidency routinely comes up as one of the biggest failures in all of US history.

Um... no it doesn't. Don't get me wrong, it was flawed. Wilson, like a lot of 2-termers, has 1 great term and 1 meh term. In his first term a lot of useful, protective legislation was passed. His 2nd term was marred by WWI and his biggest failure was in not getting the US to sign the Versaille Treaty that he helped negotiate and that was based somewhat on his "14 Points".

Also, Wilson played a horrible role in race-relations. He re-segregated federal jobs and declared the movie "The Birth of a Nation" good history. BofN is a famous movie but had a horrible, racist message and the President endorsed it.

On the whole, I can think of many, many presidents who I'd list in front of Wilson as "failures".

 

[bathsheba666]

First, find the mind.
Then, change it.

I remember in some Woody Allen movie, the main character was worried because his previously intelligent son had started to develop right wing tendencies.

But there was a happy ending.
They discovered pressure on an artery was restricting the blood supply to the son's brain.
Quick medical procedure..
.. and oxygen and intelligence were restored.

 

[JohnRM]

People are treated equally under the law. Do you want a class based solely upon sexual preference to have the same specific protections as we give race/creed/color/gender in this country? And under equal protection do you truly think the buck will stop there? I dont.

It may not indeed stop there, but that does not remove the fact that it should.

 

[JohnRM]

Did you just make up this whole "forum argument changed my mind" thing to provoke controversy?
That "equal treatment under the law" argument is extremely weak, considering nobody denies 'gay' couples the right to marry.

No.

Considering that gays are prohibited from marrying in most places, it would seem painfully obvious that you are wrong.