Your premises are bullshit. Both sides were religious. The progressives, BY DEFINITION, were the abolitionists. Religion has nothing to do with “left/right” divisions except as it pertains to conservative theocratic tendencies. Maybe this will comes as a shock to you, but most liberals are religious, and always have been. Atheism and anti-religionism are an extreme minority on either side.
Exactly. Protection of the minority from the tyranny of majority was enshrined in our constitution, and has been around for over 200 years now. Rights are reserved to individuals. Trying to override individual rights by majority is an attempt to change this, and hence, by the definitions you propose, a liberal idea.
Jim Crowe laws, for example, were an attempt to suppress rights provided in the Constitution. That’s a liberal idea, and it’s not a coincidence that they were passed by Democrats.
Who do you think you’re kidding?
Oooooh, Dio used a naughty word. How articulate! No wonder you command so much respect here!
So… whichever side wins in any social debate is the progressive side? Talk about a tautology.
The abolitionists were progressive, were they? Well, the leading abolitionists were also, largely, leaders of the temperance movement. Abolishing slavery and abolishing Demon Rum went hand in hand.
So, since abolitionsist were “progressive,” was Prohibition ALSO a progressive movement? In the 1920’s, I guess you’d have HAD to say yes, since the movement succeeded (at least for a time). And it’s NOT a coincidence that women’s suffrage and Prohibition came about simultaneously. MANY of the women pushing for the right to vote were doing so in order to gt the power to ban alcohol.
So, Gloria Steinem has to deal with a weird, complicated fact: that she owes her right to vote, in large measure, to prudish old schoolmarms and judgmental Church Ladies! Women’s suffrage seems like a “progressive” measure now, but the people pushing for it were NOT people any latter day feminists would welcome as an ally.
The abolitionist movement was led by people you’d have dismissed as the Religious Right. I have little doubt that, if Jon Stewart had been around in 1860, he’d have been mercilessly lampooning Henry Ward Beecher (the original stereotypical fiery preacher with a few chicks on the side) and his sister’s cheesey, hokey novel.
The “progressives” you imagine you’d have sided with if you’d been around back then, were often people you’d have despised. And even when those people succeeded, the end result was not necessarily what any of them had envisioned.
Given that you have not demonstrated that enshrining such rights was the status quo at the time the constitution was created, your entire position is baseless. Given that enshrining such rights was not the norm, your position collapses into kindling. And given that you think that suppressing rights was liberal (root word same as liberation), despite it having most definitely been the status quo in the area, you have set fire to the kindling that composes your entire position.
Read the OP. Therein the ground rules are set. (And it has nothing to do with who wins - are you listening to anybody here? Nobody has said anything remotely like that!)
Here, the definitions of conservative/liberal put into play by the OP differ from the common definitions of the words. Deal with it. The conservative notion of prohibition was, according to the rules of the thread, progressive - simply because it was a movement for change. A pretty unsuccessful one, as it happens.
You seem to have this odd idea that people who are conservative about one thing must be conservative about everything, and that the same goes for liberals. Which is ludicrous.
It’s actually possible to side with people you despise, you know, if you differ with them on many things, but not everything. “Strange bedfellows”, “Enemy of my enemy”, and all that? Ring a bell?
The rest of us have, so sorry, we’re not going to be impressed with your cleverly retarded arguments trying to convince liberals that they’re racists (or would have been). We, at least, are not stupid enough to form opinions based solely on a party line.
Ok I really get tired of that one. It never was premissablem to allege that, what was premissable was adducing evidence of the complainants sexual history to show that it was likely she consented to sexual intercourse. Rather a big difference.
And I for one say that its a regressive step that "liberal victory, since it undermines the basic concept of presumption of innocence and the right of an accused to a fair trial.
Cite?
Interesting. What you seem to be saying is that a person can only hold either conservative views, or progressive views. If one idea a person holds can be labeled as progressive, then all their ideas must similarly be progressive. Interesting insight into your thoughts on politics. I’ll have to keep that in mind when reading your posts in the future.
There’s nothing particularly weird or complicated about it. Positions that were considered wild and radical a century ago are now viewed as stolid and reactionary. That’s pretty much an unavoidable part of the social progress, and is well understood by most progressives. I don’t think you’re exactly blowing anyone’s mind by pointing that out.
Considering that Stewart freely lampoons positions he supports and agrees with, I think this is another one of those insights of yours that’s only comes as a shock to yourself.
A lot of the progressives I side with today are people I despise. Someone doesn’t have to be likable to be right.
Look at the various rape shield statutes.
The 14th amendment with the Equal Protection clause was passed in 1868, making it the status quo from that point on. Any anti-race law passed since that time was an attempt to change that, and hence, a progressive/liberal idea by the definitions in this thread.
There’s no difference whatsoever since prior history is no evidence at al that “consent was likely.” Even prostitutes can get raped.
How the hell does it undermine either one of thos things? The accused still gets a fair trial and a presumption of innocence. It just recognizes that the alleged victim’s sexual history is not evidence of consent.
I said nothing of the kind. I said progressives were defined as those pushing for change. Conservatives, by their most basic definition, are for status quo.
The temperance movement was liberal too. Radical, but liberal. You don’t have much of a grasp on the terminology, do you?
Yes.
Sure they do. Why wouldn’t they? Where do you get this ridiculous notion that progressives hate religion?
Nope. Just like the Civil Rights Movement, it was led by the religious LEFT. You show a tremendous misunderstanding of what “left/right” means if you think “religious” automatically means “conservative.”
Harriet Beecher Stowe was a radical liberal. Jon Stewart would have loved her. Fox News, not so much.
Not only are you using words without knowing what they mean, you’re making assumptions about my feelings on religion which are totally groundless. Religion can motivate either side. It’s not a definitional quality of either “left” or “right.” The vast majority of American slave owners were Christians. So were the vast majority of abolitionists. People fit religion to their ideologies, not their ideologies to their religion.
There is a fundamental differnce, in one you are arguing that rape was somehow “justified” which I don’t think is a “defence” that has ever succeeded, in the other that it was consensual, and prior sexual history tends to support the proposition that it was consensual.
If the woman was walking home from a night out, then yeah sure, sexual history is irrelevant. If the alleged rape occurred between partners or people with a prior sexual relationship or in circumstances where consent is alleged, then definatly, prior history can be probative.
And even a prostitutes prior sexual history being adduced has not stopped rape convictions being secured, the trial looks at all the evidence there is, and if it is rape, well then there will be evidence to support it and it will tend to undermine the prior history evidence.
Where a person is not allowed to adduce evidence in defence, evidence that may well be relevant, then it is nio longer a fair trial.
The concerns behind rape shield laws can be dealt more appropriatly by Practice Guidelines to judges, what the hell is the judge there for anyway. A judge always has the discretion to stop a line of questioning
No it can’t. Husnbands can rape their wives. Sexual history means nothing and has no probative value whatever.
Oh yes it has.
Prior sexual history is not evidence.
Actually I think by the rules of debate, I am the one required to proffer a citation, as I am the one who made a positive claim (however implicit). Anyway, here’s a paper on the history of rape shield laws.
Be warned that this link leads to a PDF.
Diogenes has already answered your points on a substantive level. I am merely chiming in to point out that your points are offensive, troglodystic bullshit.
Hmm, I’m not sure that the legal status quo trumps the social status quo - it seems contradictory to state that the moment equal protection passed, the people who were trying to oppress blacks were suddenly operating in defiance of the status quo by continuing to do exactly what they’d all been doing all along.
It seems more sensible to assess what the “status quo” is in each applicable forum separately. For example, there was a radical progressive change to the constitution with the 14th amendment, which was most certainly not the status quo at the time, and only gradually became the status quo gradually as it got years behind it. While simultaneously, despite the law, the status quo of oppressive and discriminatory attitudes and behaviors was only more gradually altered in the south, much more slowly than the actual act of changing the law was.
And I saw that goalpost moving from “enshrined in our constitution, and has been around for over 200 years now” to “in 1868”. Don’t think I didn’t.
It seems that the superior courts of several jurisdictions diagree with you.
England and Wales.
The great state of New York
http://www.anusha.com/jov-deci.htm
Every case turns on its own facts. There are times when a complainants prior sexual history is irrelevant as evidence in the specific case, where for instance the parties are strangers, in other cases as in R v A (above) where there had been a sexual relationship, the prior sexual history was relevant. The discretion should be the judges, not one created by statute.
Back to the OP. anybody keeping count?
What’s the list of “conservative” causes that have “won”?
-
Eugenics. All the major progressives of the last century were gung ho for it. Conservatives, usually Catholics, opposed it, and (with a major assist from Hitler, who made it hard for anyone to make a case for eugenics with a straight face) “won.”
-
Since Diogenes is on record as saying temperance/Prohibition was a “progressive” movement (I think he’s full of beans once again, but I’ll humor him), then the people who liked to drink were “conservatives,” and they won.
What else have we agreed on? Scorecard?
Obviously, a big PART of my squabble with Dio here is that. though we al ltend to gloss it over, there is a difference between “left-wing” and “progressive,” just as there is between “right-wing” and “conservative.” If (left-wing) socialists hold power in Freedonia, and the (right-wing) free-market activists want to oust them, then one could argue that, by the dtrict definitioon in the dictionary, the left-wingers are “conservative” (they want to keep things as they are) and the free-marketers are progressive (they want change).
But it STILL strikes me as silly. misleading, even dishonest that hard-core Stalinists (the incredibly far Left, that is) in the former Soviet Union were invariably described as “conservatives” in the Western media.
And it ALSO strikes me that many people and movements generally placed under the “progressive” tent are nothing of the kind… and vice versa. Many “conservatives” support a style of free market capitalism that can be LETHAL to traditional family and religious values.
So, how about a re-phrasing of the original question: what, exactly, does Tim regard as a “progressive” movement"? Is that different, in his mind, from a liberal movement? Does he see a difference between “conservative” and “right-wing”?
Assuming he thinks Roe vs. Wade was crrectly decided and that he thinks abortion is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution… does that mean people who want Roe vs. Wade overturned are now the “progressives”? (Since Roe is, after all, the status quo!)?
Since I know Diogenes likes a good steak (I don’t know about Revtim’s eating habits), here’s one: how about PETA and the “Meat Is Murder” crowd? Are they progressive? If so, should meat-eaters just give up, since we all know “conservatives” can never successfully stand up to a progressive movement? What do you thin, Tim? You’re obviously dying to tell religious conservatives, “Give up fighting on gay marriage, since you conservatives always ends up losing anyway.”
Whaddya say, Tim? Ready to tell Diogenes to give up, and start eating his broccoli?
If you really want to go back to the OP, I suggest you actually read it. I clearly stated, and this has been repeatedly pointed out to you, I meant “conservative” in the classic “keep the status quo” sense for the purpose of this thread.