Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (53209)	7/18/2002 9:10:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Liberal for his time I am pretty sure I said that Yes but my point (or one of them) was that liberal for his time wouldn't make him liberal now if was transported to the future or if he was born in modern times. So I'm not so sure that he would be a "militant left wing atheist". "Liberal" at his time isn't just the same idea, in a different context, expressed in a different way to be relevant to the time he lived. Its a wholly separate thing, closer to what we mean by the word "libertarian" today then what is now meant by liberal. I think "conservative" is a word that can cause confusion by the fact that it means different things, and "liberal" is even worse. Even the expression "liberal for his time", could mean 1 - That he was what the people of his time would call liberal, or 2 - That he was more like the people now called liberal then most of the people of his day. I would agree with 1. 2 I sort of agree with as well, but I also think he is more like modern day conservatives then many of the people of his time, so by that definition he would be both "liberal for his time", and "conservative for his time", which would be a contradiction if it was not for the flexibility of those words. Tim