Knitting A Conundrum very helpfully posted a link to the description of the fallacy. My point was very simple and straight forward, the argument that wagglebee put forward was an extreme and needless narrowing of the definition of a conservative to such a point that very few conservatives will be left on this forum. Taken to reductio ad absurdum, the group of 'true' conservatives will inevitably consist of one person. Traveling down the slippery slope, JR could at some point decide that those who disagree with his interpretation of Chaucer's 'Anelida and Arcite' be banned.
Taking a well accepted description of conservatism and building a ill considered Conservatism based on bits and pieces of the original description brings up visions of brown shirts and black boots (valid or not).
So what’s the well accepted definition of conservatism?
Give us a break. We are talking about conservatism the way it was espoused by Ronald Reagan and others. Quite simply, conservatives are pro-life, believe in the limited role of the federal government as spelled out in the Constitution, and understand that our freedom and liberty comes from God and not government.
“Taking a well accepted description of conservatism and building a ill considered Conservatism based on bits and pieces of the original description brings up visions of brown shirts and black boots (valid or not).”
Bits and pieces?
I don’t see that here. What I do see is people, whom believe in the Founding Fathers vision, wishing to return the original meanings in the Constitution and abiding by those meanings.
Not electing a Republican with ‘liberal’ positions, and instead insisting on Strict Constructionist for POTUS, to me is hardly “building ill considered conservatism based on bits and pieces”.
No one here ascribes to what you portend.
Ok, that was a great scottish joke.
Say this 3 times fast in a scottish accent:
Whale Oil Beef Hooked
;-)
;-)
Freepmail me if you don’t get it.
You have a nice living document day.