Political Ideology

Policeman Gamzee strikes again! Anyways, I'd refer to myself as moderately liberally moderate. I'm moderate, but I lean towards the liberal...ness.

I am technically a libertarian. I believe that government should just step the hell off on a lot of issues (not all mind) and that they are taking too much power. I am a HUGE believer in the bill of rights (and all of amendments) and feel they should be protected. Especially in schools; lack of the first amendment anyone? I also believe in the free market.

I also have a mix of feelings from liberal and conservative feelings.

For example I am a huge supporter of LGBT rights. I mean I may be Catholic, but I seriously don't believe that God would have made LGBT just to smite them. I seriously don't. I hate it how that they are still getting discriminated against for something they were born with, although I'm glad its getting better, even if a bit.

On the other side, I don't believe in abortion. Well, I have mixed feelings on it. I mean if they have unsafe sex and then gets pregnant, that is her own fault. I'm sorry, there is tons of protection out there to keep you from getting pregnant. On the other side of the spectrum is the rape victims. They didn't have a choice in the matter. But I also feel, neither did the child. So, I don't know what to make about that particular scenario.

I really haven't formed any other opinions because I really haven't researched a lot of the details of other stuff about politics. I mean you can't make an informed decision on stuff you don't know.

I am going to mount the soap box for a brief few moments and make a tiny suggestion/observation that’s directed out of love and respect for my fellow SD’ers. Please bear with me and kindly do not lynch me after the fact. Much obliged.


Look, I like to heckle US Republicans as much as everybody else. Hell, I live in the backhills of Tennessee. I live with these people. However, I find that only makes the Romney, Reagan, or fundamentalist joke even more enjoyable. Given all this, while I do enjoy the sport, when I see comments like:

Crazy.

Hahaha, no, I'm kidding. Really.

if you don't "believe" in evolution or global warming then, I'm sorry to say, you're just ignorant.

…it makes me wonder if these sorts of comments might be part of a cycle of insanity, ignorance, or weirdness--especially since I’ve observed many similar comments here as well as in other threads.* I mean, how constructive of a conversation do you expect to have with an individual when you start out characterizing them as some combination of crazy, ignorant, or weird? As it is, most people tend to harden their positions in the midst of being challenged anyway, and I tend to think that if you allege that somebody is crazy then it gives them very little incentive to try to disprove that theory. People tend to rise to the occasion for good and for ill.

I mean, I know that I was fairly conservative when I was probably 12 or 13. Fortunately, the forum I was attending at that point humored my transitory flirtation with the right and treated me with respect even though my ideas probably did not deserve to be. I don’t know precisely what I would have done if they had dismissed me as weird or ignorant (and indeed, I have no desire to shoot myself up with the hormones I had at that age to roleplay), but I tend to think I would have been a bit vexed--and furthermore I probably would have ceased taking the speaker credibly no matter whether the ideas were valid or not.

My point is merely that the more you start calling somebody crazy, weird, or ignorant, they will probably stop listening--and any opportunity to have a meaningful exchange of ideas sans ego and sans butt hurt has been lost.

Now if you disagree with all this and think I’m being unreasonable, that’s perfectly fine. I merely ask that everyone (including myself) consider this. If you’re the sort that likes coming into these threads to achieve intellectual ascendancy with a few well aimed broadsides, then this will probably be shrug worthy. This isn’t me saying you shouldn’t express these type of opinions, but it is me asking to consider what you want to achieve in a discussion like this and think about the practical repercussions of what you say. It’s about tone, not substance. I’m sorry if this offends any of you, and I’ll skedaddle for now and might come back to express my political views a bit later.

*I do hope this doesn’t seem like it came out of the blue, but I’ve been pondering on this subject for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Raptor Buddha

I am going to mount the soap box for a brief few moments and make a tiny suggestion/observation that’s directed out of love and respect for my fellow SD’ers. Please bear with me and kindly do not lynch me after the fact. Much obliged.


Look, I like to heckle US Republicans as much as everybody else. Hell, I live in the backhills of Tennessee. I live with these people. However, I find that only makes the Romney, Reagan, or fundamentalist joke even more enjoyable. Given all this, while I do enjoy the sport, when I see comments like:







…it makes me wonder if these sorts of comments might be part of a cycle of insanity, ignorance, or weirdness--especially since I’ve observed many similar comments here as well as in other threads.* I mean, how constructive of a conversation do you expect to have with an individual when you start out characterizing them as some combination of crazy, ignorant, or weird? As it is, most people tend to harden their positions in the midst of being challenged anyway, and I tend to think that if you think somebody is crazy then it gives them very little incentive to try to disprove that theory. People tend to rise to the occasion for good and for ill.

I mean, I know that I was fairly conservative when I was probably 12 or 13. Fortunately, the forum I was attending at that point humored my transitory flirtation with the right and treated me with respect even though my ideas probably did not deserve to be. I don’t know precisely what I would have done if they had dismissed me as weird or ignorant (and indeed, I have no desire to shoot myself up with the hormones I had at that age to roleplay), but I tend to think I would have been a bit vexed--and furthermore I probably would have ceased taking the speaker credibly no matter whether the ideas were valid or not.

My point is merely that the more you start calling somebody crazy, weird, or ignorant, they will probably stop listening--and any opportunity to have a meaningful exchange of ideas sans ego and sans butt hurt has been lost.

Now if you disagree with all this and think I’m being unreasonable, that’s perfectly fine. I merely ask that everyone (including myself) consider this. If you’re the sort that likes coming into these threads to achieve intellectual ascendancy with a few well aimed broadsides, then this will probably be shrug worthy. This isn’t me saying you shouldn’t express these type of opinions, but it is me asking to consider what you want to achieve in a discussion like this and think about the practical repercussions of what you say. It’s about tone, not substance. I’m sorry if this offends any of you, and I’ll skedaddle for now and might come back to express my political views a bit later.

*I do hope this doesn’t seem like it came out of the blue, but I’ve been pondering on this subject for quite some time.

I agree with your message, although I feel that you're quoting me out of context. In context, R3B3LCAUSE asked me how foreigners view the Republican party. In general, most of Canada and Europe WOULD regard Republican candidates as outlandish and crazy. It's merely an observation, and I am not dismissing conservatism.

Originally Posted by Cascadian

I agree with your message, although I feel that you're quoting me out of context. In context, R3B3LCAUSE asked me how foreigners view the Republican party. In general, most of Canada and Europe WOULD regard Republican candidates as outlandish and crazy. It's merely an observation, and I am not dismissing conservatism.

After re-reading it I think it probably is out of context, and I certainly didn't want anybody to feel like I was singling them out or picking (hence why I omitted whom the quote is attributed to) on them. I tend to think the effect can still be somewhat the same. However, I was probably overeager to make this point and will eliminate your quote. My apologies.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

Conservatives are less accepting of others. I believe that Conservatives have a better understanding on fiscal concepts. Liberals spend money way more than needed. They should be in charge of Social things.

I am accepting of homosexuals, just not the idea of homosexuality (just an example) calling conservatives less accepting is a bit unfair

And why is it discrimination to say that a homosexual relationship can't be a marriage? It's not like Anyone (rational) wants to round up all the LGBTs and lynch em. They have a right to be homosexual, not a right to offend the sanctity of marriage

Originally Posted by Ruki

I am technically a libertarian. I believe that government should just step the hell off on a lot of issues (not all mind) and that they are taking too much power. I am a HUGE believer in the bill of rights (and all of amendments) and feel they should be protected. Especially in schools; lack of the first amendment anyone? I also believe in the free market.

I also have a mix of feelings from liberal and conservative feelings.

For example I am a huge supporter of LGBT rights. I mean I may be Catholic, but I seriously don't believe that God would have made LGBT just to smite them. I seriously don't. I hate it how that they are still getting discriminated against for something they were born with, although I'm glad its getting better, even if a bit.

On the other side, I don't believe in abortion. Well, I have mixed feelings on it. I mean if they have unsafe sex and then gets pregnant, that is her own fault. I'm sorry, there is tons of protection out there to keep you from getting pregnant. On the other side of the spectrum is the rape victims. They didn't have a choice in the matter. But I also feel, neither did the child. So, I don't know what to make about that particular scenario.

I really haven't formed any other opinions because I really haven't researched a lot of the details of other stuff about politics. I mean you can't make an informed decision on stuff you don't know.

Abortion for rape victims: which is worse, a women being a mother against her will, or a child being murdered against his/her will?
Homosexuality: I personally don't think science has adequately proven they are born that way, but again that is just my opinion.
First amendment in schools: That's because schools are the ultimate tool for propaganda, which the left uses to great effect, kids praying just doesn't fit their agenda

Originally Posted by Cascadian

I agree with your message, although I feel that you're quoting me out of context. In context, R3B3LCAUSE asked me how foreigners view the Republican party. In general, most of Canada and Europe WOULD regard Republican candidates as outlandish and crazy. It's merely an observation, and I am not dismissing conservatism.

Did I say Republicans? I don't believe i did. When I am old enough I plan to register as a Libertarian.

before anyone asks, I know Libertarianism is technically 'Liberal' but in the united states most Libertarians are considered conservative, so that is why I chose to vote conservative on this poll.

Also on the global warming issue, I apologize for my misconception on the subject of evaporation. I still doubt global warming though

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I am accepting of homosexuals, just not the idea of homosexuality (just an example) calling conservatives less accepting is a bit unfair

But you see, it is that exact kind of caveat that Cor Sicarius might have been addressing.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Abortion for rape victims: which is worse, a women being a mother against her will, or a child being murdered against his/her will?
Homosexuality: I personally don't think science has adequately proven they are born that way, but again that is just my opinion.

Well in the case for homosexuality, some people can "flip" sides due to certain events in their lives. However, most of the time I believe they are born that way. I mean why would you willingly choose to be discriminated against?

I personally say a child being murdered against his/her will. What did they do to deserve death? While it isn't fair that the mother was raped, I personally feel that killing a child who didn't even ask for this and did nothing wrong besides being conceived due to unfortunate circumstances is a tragedy. Not to say the mother asked for it either, that's not what I'm saying, but I feel that abortion cuts off life before it even can truly begin.

I know those for abortion don't view fetuses as living beings, but I do.

But you see, it is that exact kind of caveat that Cor Sicarius might have been addressing.

Believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. lots of people do things I consider wrong (myself included in moments of weakness) This doesn't mean I don't accept them. they are people too, and deserve to be loved (in a brotherly sense) like anyone else, what about that is non-accepting?

Originally Posted by Cascadian

Am I the only one who thinks Harper is an alright guy? I don't agree with him, but he seems to be intelligent enough. He was good enough to refuse to touch socially conservative positions (probably out of his own self-preservation, but still), and his only real downfall is that he's boring. Sure, I'd rather see any of the other parties win the election, but as far as conservatives go, we have it pretty sane.

o_O

Of course Harper is smart, that's why I can't forgive him for some of the stupid ♥♥♥♥ he is doing with the nation. Just because someone is smart doesn't make them fit for governance nor does it mean should they come into the position they will do well.

Look over even a quarter of what was in that omnibus bill labelled the budget and you'll see he's making cuts that can severely harm our environment, deregulating the systems that carefully ensure oil industry is doing the right thing and gives the ultimate power for signing off on things to his federal minister.

What of the refugees of our nation? They were going to have their medical care cut off; the people who are pending approval, the people who've failed but are appealing do not have access to health care. How many diabetics are going to go into anaphylactic shock? How many will die?

And what of our prison systems? Closing down existing jails to build new "no-frills" ones right beside them is retarded. Who was it that came out say, "we're only meeting supply!!", Toews? The man is a moron. The only reason that supply of people will be there is because this government has made regressive reforms to the Criminal Code that will put MORE drug users behind bars rather than getting them the help they need. And shortly after all this, Harper came out saying "the war on drugs has failed," yet he is continuing to pursue it here.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. lots of people do things I consider wrong (myself included in moments of weakness) This doesn't mean I don't accept them. they are people too, and deserve to be loved (in a brotherly sense) like anyone else, what about that is non-accepting?

Well, if one group of people are more accepting than another group regarding a particular (relatively common) lifestyle, and if all other things are accepted the same, then isn't it somewhat accurate to say that one group is "more accepting" than the other?

The idea that there are just "liberals, conservatives, and moderates" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever come into contact with.

I am a Left Libertarian, which is none of the above.

I'm a Democratic Socialist with Marxist sympathies and a bit of a Syndicalist streak. None of the above, in other words.

Originally Posted by Lysis

if you don't "believe" in evolution or global warming then, I'm sorry to say, you're just ignorant. These aren't matters of political opinion, they're matters of scientific fact.

I've often wondered how people can get away with calling other people ignorant in SD. I thought the subtitle for this section says that mutual respect is required?


I certainly don't agree with R3B3LCAUSE, but I think calling him ignorant is wrong. Lysis, how would you like it if people started calling you ignorant just because you think differently than them? If you don't agree with someone's opinion, the best thing to do is to engage in a discussion and not start insulting them.


Like Wesley said, insulting people just hurts the discussion. And this is the serious DISCUSSION section.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

I've often wondered how people can get away with calling other people ignorant in SD. I thought the subtitle for this section says that mutual respect is required?


I certainly don't agree with R3B3LCAUSE, but I think calling him ignorant is wrong. Lysis, how would you like it if people started calling you ignorant just because you think differently than them? If you don't agree with someone's opinion, the best thing to do is to engage in a discussion and not start insulting them.


Like Wesley said, insulting people just hurts the discussion. And this is the serious DISCUSSION section.

if you are unaware or refuse to acknowledge well-documented scientific facts, such as the theory of evolution, global warming, the roundness of the Earth, or the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, then you are, by definition, ignorant ("lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact").

it's not an insult, it's just an observation. Again, people seem to be making the mistake of conflating fact and opinion. Scientific facts aren't a matter of opinion. If it's your opinion that the Sun orbits around the Earth then you are ignorant to the facts and evidence that show this simply isn't true.

This is my plot on the Political Compass



This shows the plotted points of other people in history.

The word "ignorant" has insulting undertones, as it means "destitute of knowledge or education" Ignorant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And calling someone unknowledgable or uneducated because they share a different belief is insulting. There are individuals with PHds who don't believe global warming or evolution is false, not because they are ignorant of the theory but because they don't agree with it. Not agreeing with a scientific consensus doesn't make you ignorant and if it is some of the greatest discoveries in human history have been by people who were "ignorant".

For the record I agree with the theories of global warming and evolution, what I don't believe in is people in SD treating those in the out-groups such as conservatism, religion and skeptics like punching bags.

Edit:

I took that test a while back Cor, if I remember correctly I was in the bottom left quadrant, which in some ways makes sense, but in others doesn't I don't believe putting a label on people is logical because in some ways I am quite conservative such as opening up Canada's telecommunications industry to international competition. Its just that in most ways I am liberal.

I like the philosophy of not really caring what a person believes so long as it doesn't have consequences that somehow inhibit mine or other peoples' freedoms.

Who cares if someone believes in God, or Buddha, or evolution, or creationism, or that gays are sinful, or that rainbows have pots of gold at the end, or that the loch ness monster is real, or santa claus, or that Dane Cook is funny. I really only care if their beliefs have a harmful effect (i.e. Hitler's hatred of Jews causing the Holocaust, or religious views coming into play and not allowing gays to receive the benefits of marriage).

Those are just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Pietro

And calling someone unknowledgable or uneducated because they share a different belief is insulting. There are individuals with PHds who don't believe global warming or evolution is false, not because they are ignorant of the theory but because they don't agree with it. Not agreeing with a scientific consensus doesn't make you ignorant and if it is some of the greatest discoveries in human history have been by people who were "ignorant".

you're free to believe whatever you want, being unknowledgeable about documented facts still makes you ignorant. I'm not even talking about scientific consensus here, I'm talking about facts. Whatever your thoughts are on the theory of evolution, it's still a well-documented scientific fact that the process of evolution takes place. Same with global warming—there's plenty of disagreement about what causes it and what should be done about it, but it's simple fact that the Earth has been getting warmer.

the point is, politics and opinion don't dictate facts. Facts are true whether you're "left" or "right". If you don't believe in evolution, life continues to evolve. If you don't believe in gravity, objects continue to fall.

The thread presents a false dichotomy of sorts. I'm neither a liberal, in the classical sense or in the contemporary sense, nor a "conservative", and I'm certainly not moderate.

What's a classical libertarian to do?

Originally Posted by THE POLICE

or that Dane Cook is funny

This directly harms me as it means that I have to hear Dane Cook get quoted.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

And also if you think about it global warming doesn't seem logical. What happens when a planet that is covered by mostly water heats up? Evaporation. aside from the fact that evaporation itself is cooling, it creates clouds and rain, both of which cool things down, and raises sea levels for even more effect. the Earth's temp may fluctuate from time to time, but I doubt it will ever reach a dangerous level

This is actually a large part of why global warming is dangerous. The earth getting hot in and of itself isn't really that big of a deal. The big issue is that global warming is a major forcing on global climate change. Global warming does cause an increase in precipitation, which means more and larger hurricanes and all around more unpredictable weather patterns. It doesn’t help that melting glacier ice adds more fresh water to an otherwise closed system, increasing precipitation even more and throwing off ocean salinity.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

And if the people who believe in evolution are the same ones who believe in global warming, won't we just evolve to the warmer planet?

Good question! Actually, yes. Given millions of years, we would eventually evolve to survive better in harsher climates. Evolution works through natural selection, those who aen't fit for their environment are more likely to die than those who are, those who are less likely to die are more likely to live long enough to produce offspring, and thus, are more likely to pass on their genetic code. Eventually, if climate change persistently kills off large numbers of humans over the course of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, humans will evolve to better survive in such climates, as those who already have genes which lend themselves to harsher climates will be the ones most likely to survive.

This, of course, ignores economic and technological forcings.

Originally Posted by Lysis

it's not relevant, though. Scientific fact isn't a matter of opinion. Evolution is supported by actual, empirical evidence, which you can observe yourself.

The social sciences are still sciences.

Originally Posted by Left4Cuccos

Actually, no more death than normal needs to occur if there were some physical, spatial separation, most likely caused by migration of groups of people to places that better supported their biology, to facilitate branching from the original population. I'm just not sure that this would apply very well to humanity.

Migration doesn't have an effect on evolution in and of itself. A location may "better support biology" because it results in less deaths/larger potential to reproduce. If a location supports biology, then selection against the trait it supports doesn't occur, though.

In the case of humans and global warming, this would mean abandoning the planet.