Logical inconsistencies in personal beliefs

[OokiiNeko]

Continually voting Republican and/or Democrat, even when, together, they are spending the country into bankruptcy.




P.S. Unfortunately, Barr is probably a shill.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
People have an unlimited ability to be self conflicting. Their experience as a being goes beyond what is rational. That's not good or bad, just human.

^^ This ^^

Also, since it seems to be the de facto topic for this type of discussion: Pro choice - anti death penalty.

I believe (like most others) that I am very consistent in my beliefs on this topic.

I am 100% against abortion and would never want my wife to have one. However, that stance stops there. I do not have the power to force my beliefs onto another.

I am 100% against the death penalty and I would love it if we stopped it completely. However, I have no problems with the execution of those that have confessed to heinous crimes without duress (Ex: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacey) and there is physical evidence that they are guilty (dna preferably).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

**Cut**

I'm not really sure what to tell you man, I have already answered pretty much everything you brought up. At this point you're attempting to use semantics and what I can assume is willful denial to escape a losing argument. You are simply repeating the same arguments that are frankly, pretty poor, and are hoping for a different result this time. While I don't think that age is in any way a disqualifier for making a good argument, what you've been writing gives me the impression that you are very young.

You can get as excited as you want about anarcho-capitalism. Go make a society of it if... have a great time. In fact I really hope some of those guys do make a society based on that, because I think the result would be hilarious and in the age of Youtube I'd probably get to watch.

Back to the original point of this discussion though, you fucked up. You tried to apply your arbitrary definitions to other people who don't accept them and then declare them 'logically inconsistent' for doing so. This was a mistake on your part. I bet it was because you are genuinely moved and excited by the ideology you embrace, and while I can respect that, it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. You're falling for the classic mistake people have when it comes to politics, which is 'anyone who disagrees with me must be stupid and/or insane.' Like it or not, there are plenty of ways for people to embrace the current system without being 'logically inconsistent'. My condolences.

As for the system being doomed, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I don't see any logical inconsistencies in the OP.

Pro-choice but against the death penalty: These people believe they should have a choice as to whether or not they bring a collection of cells in the uterus to term, and don't believe the state should have the power to end a life.

Pro-life but for death penalty: These people believe the foetus is an innocent and vulnerable human being who should be protected and killing him/her would be murder, but believe the state should have the power to execute convicted, guilty high-level criminals.

Pro-choice vegans: I don't even know what you're getting at here. No conflict whatsoever.

Agree^

I'll try an example that I (hopefully?) believe illustrates inconsistancies.

Liberals on the 2nd & 4th Amendments.

On the 4th - Strongly opposed to any perceived encroachment on this (protection from unreasonable search and seizures). Frequently cite "those who give up their freedoms for safety deserve neither".

On the 2nd (particularly regarding the individual right to guns)- Times have changed, guns kill people. We'd be better with no guns etc.

On the one hand, the matter the danger, the right must be respected. On the other, because of the danger, we need to get rid of the right (to a gun).

Repubs (note I do not say "conservative") - Could likely say the same thing, but just reverse the positions.

Seems inconsistant to me.

Fern

This is one of the most inconsistent beliefs on the left. They seem not to realize that the 2nd amendment cannot be dismantled without scuttling the 4th as well. The question of how the guns are to be taken away from the people is something they seem to choose to ignore, lest their quest for a gun-free utopia be challenged.

The right's contradictions tend to be of a more fundamental nature. Everything seems to be "do as I say, not as I do." They speak of small government and low taxes, but support costly foreign wars and strict 'law and order' moral agendas. They speak proudly of 'freedom' while condemning anyone who does not conform to traditional values and morals, and while actually advocating agendas to drastically curtail freedom under the notion of protecting it (this is probably the most inconsistent belief on the right). Etc.

And if you are going to refrain from using the term 'conservative' improperly, could I ask you to do the same with 'liberal.' Gun control is a leftist, not a liberal, agenda.

Superb.

This non-partisan thinking reminds me of this :

?The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.? -F.S. Fitzgerald

 

[bobcpg]

"A liberal is someone who's immediate interests are not at stake"

Not sure by who, but it does make sense.

As it more or less seems, Liberals fight for issue they are not in the direct path of, Conservatives fight for issues directly affecting them.

Never do you hear:
I do not want a gun in my house because I will get shot by it.
I really hate America and what we do, so I'm leaving for another country.
America gives more in world wide human aid that all of Europe and most other countries combined.
I really think the marriage laws are messed up so I will get a divorce.
I have no problem doubling my taxes I pay.
....

My point being, I feel too many Liberals like to spend other peoples money as it makes them feel good. When it comes down to spending their own money, well that is a whole different ball game.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: bobcpg
"A liberal is someone who's immediate interests are not at stake"

Not sure by who, but it does make sense.

As it more or less seems, Liberals fight for issue they are not in the direct path of, Conservatives fight for issues directly affecting them.

Never do you hear:
I do not want a gun in my house because I will get shot by it.
I really hate America and what we do, so I'm leaving for another country.
America gives more in world wide human aid that all of Europe and most other countries combined.
I really think the marriage laws are messed up so I will get a divorce.
I have no problem doubling my taxes I pay.
....

My point being, I feel too many Liberals like to spend other peoples money as it makes them feel good. When it comes down to spending their own money, well that is a whole different ball game.

Umm. I don't know what you're smoking, but the 'conservatives' of late, whom have pretty much ruined my ability to even call myself that, are NOT paragons of honesty. This $1 trillion+ war in Iraq is just one example. Even if the government doesn't directly tax us more to pay for such blunders, the additional deficit and black spending has to come from somewhere, which means that inflation, national debt, etc, all get a negative hit.

Look at the spending spree of the 6 years that the (R)'s had full control, it was unprecedented. It's not exactly comforting to think of the strain this puts on our country. Madcap spending is BAD, whether it's done by the (R)'s or the (D)'s. The difference has been that the (R)'s spend without taxing to cover it, the (D)'s ironically were more controlled during the Clinton era (credit where it's due, Gingrich and company aided in that regard), than under recent memory.

Recap, in generic terms :

Liberals / Dems : Spend moderate to high, tax moderate to high (mostly to the richest)

Conservatives / Reps : Spend high to extreme, tax moderate, other than lots of loopholes for the richest.

That's just bad and worse AFAIC.

Best?

Spend low to moderate, tax low to moderate.