[extropy-chat] Re: the (scary) future of pro-death bioethics and legislation

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes:
> > Banning stem cell
> > research, for instance, is called "conservative",
> but
> > clamping down on research - even that which could
> > merely identify a threat - wasn't as widely used
> in
> > the past, so isn't promoting that change a
> "liberal"
> > move?
> 
> No.  Conservatives don't want change or new things. 
> Clamping down on 
> research or the discover of new things is
> conservative.  Preventing 
> information that might support the need for change
> is conservative.  All of 
> these seem consistent to me.  You have to look at
> the motives.  These "new" 
> actions are not mean to change anything, but to
> enforce the status quo.  
> Just because they are using more force and trying
> harder than ever not to 
> change does not count as a liberal initiative for
> change. 

That's what it seems to me, too, but I've seen people
use arguments like this to claim they're liberals
because they want to change the vector of progress,
and make sure everything's "safe" (as in the
Precautionary Principle) before it's allowed, unlike
in the past.

Just providing an example of the kinds of warping
these labels are subject to.  (I think we can agree
that to call this "liberal" is contrary to the
original meaning.)