• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Liberal-Conservative Dichotomy is an illusion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Seems like there is an overlap in many peoples minds between taste and truth.


truth===(science) The world is not flat , this is the one correct answer.
although at one time most people believed it was flat.

taste===(bands) the best classical rock band is Led Zepplin.
ask 40 different people you may get 40 different answers and all are correct.

conservatism vs liberalism is not a matter of truth it is a matter of taste. Taste of the individual and therefore does not fit into a true vs false scenario, but truth as an individual sees it at that point in time and subject to change at anytime.
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
Originally posted by: superstition
By expanding our conceptualization to a second, or better yet a third axis we can far more accurately begin to define political leanings.
Specifically, how would you do this?

It's also necessary to do away over-encompassing axes theories.
So, why expand/add in the first place?

Ideally we'd choose the three most important concepts of government and use those as the axes.
I thought we're doing away with axes theories? If not, what are those three concepts?

What those are would be a matter of fascinating debate, and the result would be a party system that could accurately represent the citizens.
If you haven't put the puzzle together, how do you know what it will be?
The ultimate ideal would of course be no parties at all, as they can only harm democracy in the long run (provided that you believe democracy is something we should be striving towards in the first place). However I find it unlikely that we'll manage to abandon parties any time soon, so the next best option is to achieve the best government possible using parties.

With the assumed goal of democracy the first thing we need then is multiple parties. All research/thought in this area tells us that between 5 and 9 is the 'sweet spot'. So how do we reason out those parties? I think there are only two options.

First is issue parties. Issue parties are formed around a single idea or political issue. An example of this might be the Green party, with its focus on environmental issues. Other serious issues might be a neocon party (with the stated goal of world domination), a reformed Constitution party (with the goal of establishing America as a Christian theocracy). I think this is a monumentally STUPID way to form parties, or to choose a vote in general.

Instead I would suggest theory parties. Theory parties are formed on the multi-axis idea I mentioned above. A two axis system will create a maximum of 5 parties (4 corners and a center). By adding a third axis not only do you expand the potential number of parties to 9 (8 corners and a center), but you have the chance to encompass more of the functions of government than with a more limited system.

I've been thinking about this for a number of years, and there are a large number of potential axes to choose from. Obvious ones are things like economic, social/domestic, governmental power, moral enforcement, and so on. It's easy to get trapped into imagining single issue axes as well (religion, taxation, immigration) but this should be resisted. The entire point of this system is to devise a cube of theory within which all single issues could be plotted based on the intersection of theories they represent. For instance:

Choose as your first axis the idea of government empowerment (it either should or should not act beyond its extremely finite purposes - ie liberalism, the idea the government can be an agent of action for the good of the people). For the second axis lets settle on collectivism/individualism (it should either act for the good of the whole, or the one). Just with these two you can plot many single issues of today. The patriot act, for instance, is clearly in the realm of those that believe the government should act beyond its scope, and it should act for the collective and not the individual. Hence the party which dwells on that corner of the system would probably support the Patriot act. The corners to either side, and the center, might or might not support it to varying degrees (focusing on the axis of specific disagreement), while the opposite corner would vehemently oppose it (on both grounds). Now move beyond that and add a third axis. For this example we'll choose a state/federal axis and the single issue will be healthcare. You now have not only those that think the government should get involved (and those who do not), but those who think that it should be at the state level instead of the federal (or vice versa), AND those that think it's about an individual right to equal healthcare (versus those who see healthcare as mattering only in so far as it affects the collective as a whole). With those three axes you cover all of the major points of contention in the debate today.

The problem is choosing three axes that encompass all that government may be involved in. But its a fun topic for debate.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Divide and conquer. Make the masses believe that Democrats/Republicans and Liberals/Conservatives are polar opposites... and they will follow willfully into ultimate demise.

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Need a do not reelect option for politicians when we vote. Just because someone has enough money to buy the party nomination, it does not mean that that is the man people want to vote for. I vote "No Confidence!"
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,949
6
81
Many people simply need to be told where they should stand on the issues because they never developed the thought processes necessary to make those kind of decisions themselves. Others simply may not care. Others may be very intelligent but are so busy trying to feed their families that they have no time to delve through the issues. This is why the republican and democratic parties still succeed in drawing the vast majority of the country's votes, in my opinion. I find it highly amusing that people tend to fall quickly into line with their party's beliefs even when presented with clear logic to the contrary.

Here's an overview of my beliefs and you will quickly see why the two party system we have frustrates me:

1. Against gun regulation--similar to the drug war, it's naive wishful thinking
2. For drug legalization with intelligent regulation (if you choose to do meth, you shouldn't get government aid for health care, etc...but you shouldn't go to jail either for putting a chemical into your body, that is just silly.)
3. Against the Iraq war (bankrupting our country we need that money to fix problems here at home)
4. Abortion--shouldn't even be an issue at the national level--and stop lumping everything into one basket, use some common sense--for example an abortion at one month and an abortion at 8 months are not even remotely the same thing and should stop being put on the same moral level--push birth control and you will remove the need for abortion as well--stop the abstinence only craziness, it's the same wishful thinking as gun control and the drug war.

By now you are thinking well you are just a libertarian...

5. For national single payer healthcare--Makes logical sense--makes economic sense--constitutionally supported clearly by general welfare clause and should be a foundation of our society in the same way free K-12 education is.

6. Shrink the federal government by getting rid of unneeded agencies like the DEA and ATF---stop worrying about someone making a machine gun, distilling their own vodka, or growing some shrooms in their apartment--the real crimes can get dealt with by the FBI and police departments.

Passion always rules reason sadly and there is no party that fits my needs heh. The OP is right, everything is put into polarizing black and white and people quickly fall in line on the issues they are supposed to fight about without putting much thought into their positions.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
:music:
And you still believe,
this aristocracy gives a fuck about you?!
They put the "mock",
in Democracy and you swallowed every hunk.
And the sad truth is,
You'd rather follow the school into the net...
Because swimming alone at sea is not the kind of freedom that you actually want.

:music:
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
This is ridiculous. Conservative and liberal are two names of opposing opinions. That's it. They're just names.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,991
3,485
126
I propose that politics is not left VS right. It isn?t a straight one dimensional line a follows:

Liberal -------- Conservative

Rather, I have come to believe it has 2 dimensions. There is left VS right, of course. Yet there is also the added dimension of pro individual or pro government. Libertarian VS Authoritarian. The old argument of left VS right completely ignores this vital struggle within politics.

Pardon the ascii but we need a visual representation.

Authoritarian
|
/ \
Socalist - / \ - Neocon
/ \
/ \
Liberal - / \ - Conservative
---------------
|
Libertarian

There are things on both the left and the right that I cannot agree with. That I consider being an abomination to our duty to serve the people. How did something like the Patriot Act get passed and survive several elections?

The answer is simple. There is a new alliance within politics between left and right. It appears as the top of my pyramid where socialists and neocons have worked together to undermine our liberty in favor of government power. The right will favor this power for security and religious programs, the left will favor this power for the enforcement of social contracts. Either way the liberty of the people is undermined and abolished so long as these two groups are in power.

On the other end of the spectrum, the base of this pyramid, liberals and conservatives need to come together. We need to hold off on our social differences if we are ever to mount a counter against the continued removal of our Bill of Rights. If both liberals and conservatives favor liberty over government then this is the time to put those beliefs to the test.

We must close the bottom of our pyramid or I believe we will lose the power of the individual that we hold dear.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Thump553
Personally I don't think either of the two major parties in the US are liberal or conservative. The GOP, at least for the last decade or so, is primarily authoritarian with a secondary emphasis on traditional conservative values (mostly applicable to cutting income tax rates). The Dems? Almost impossible to pin down as they have so many divergent viewpoints under their social umbrella. The Dem Party is more of a coalition of (sometimes) compatible interests than anything else.

And I agree with the OP that the conservative/liberal dichotomy is pretty much a waste of time. All of us have some of each in our makeup. What we are all looking for, when it boils down to it, is the most efficient solution to society's problems.
The problem with this post is that it neglects to notice the realities of how concentrated power corrupts the idealistic function of the parties it describes.

It's right about what the people want, but it misses that the more important question currently isn't what the people want, but why the political system isn't more about that.

There is a permanent tension between the more general public interest, and the interests of whose who have disproportionate wealth and power. Each is convinced the pendulum has swung too far the other way. That doesn't mean that the pendulum is actually nicely in the middle, merely that the 'middle' is not even defined other than by the power distribution, with those having it getting to say where it'll go.

Just look at this forum, where wide ranges in the distribution of wealth, of taxation, of spending, all get the same basic factions saying the same basic things. Whether the top tax rate was 90% in the 1950's with a much smaller federal government and a large share paid by businesses, or is 35% today with a bigger government and the proportion paid by businesses and citizens reversed, you see the same basic political views being expressed.

My previous post talked about the quote saying politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO good for donors. Let's take an example.

Let's say you are with the insurance industry, one of the powerful groups in society. You have natural enemies, from the trial lawyers who want to take your money, to the do-gooders who want to reduce the need, or at least the cost, for insurance. What do you do to have the rules go your way?

One choice is not to get in politics; that choice means the other side gets their agenda passed, and you're screwed, so you don't want that.

So, you have to pick a party. Since a party can't really pass both agendas, as they're contradictory, you tend to see the two sides each align with one of the two parties.

The party's job is to serve you by getting power, which means getting the votes to win office. That's where you see the other side of the game. With you, it's all about 'so, what do you want in the insurance industry? Less regulation, tort reform?' But to get elected, it's all about the selling of the party to voters - telling those CONSUMERS what they want to hear to vote for you.

It's a simple anecdote, but I think a clarifying one - I recall visiting the country faire, and seeing stands for each party; each had handouts saying 'who is a (democract/republican)?'

Funny enough, most of the checklist items were on both forms, since the purpose wasn't to really differentiate, but rather to get the reader to think they are a member of the party who put out the handout. To exaggerate, 'Our party likes puppies, sunshine, and walks on the beach'. This is where a whole segment of politics comes in which is about pandering to the voters, without stepping on the toes of the real 'owners' of the party.

This is why you see the Republicans under Bush constantly talk one set of issues which have popular appeal, while quietly working on the substantive policies like the Medicare drug 'benefit' which was primarily about giving money to their top donor industry, big pharma, and yes, there are some analogous behaviors by the democrats.

It's healthy for people to get a clue about how this works, so they don't just spout how politics such, and understand how the power works, that the extent to which the parties serve their interests is connected to how much they can help the party gain power. In the past, politics might be about the local boss handing out patronage to your neghborhood or giving you a holiday ham, and expecting you would damn well vote as a bloc for the party; today, it's about promising you some marketing message (protect your guns, improve education) in exchange for your vote. One reason for the negative politics is that it's cheaper to promise to protect you from the other party (we'll stop those nanny government liberals and protect your guns/we'll stop those war-mongering right-wingers) than it is to promise to actually give away something - it's free, and yet motivates voters, so WOO HOO - demonize the other party and get elected based on that, freeing your resources for your donors.

This is why voters need to get that clue and realize that things like campaign finance reform aren't some esoteric whiny topic they should not pay attention to, but are rather central factors guaranteed to rob them of their power in the system until fixed. They can ignore the issue at their own peril.

There is power in organization, and weakness in a lack of it. This is why industries, who have very concentrated, well-funded agendas, get very disproportionate consideration compared to a bunch of citizens who don't get more involved in politics than to need a little pandering, some slogans and pictures of waving flags now and again.

If the people won't pass campaign finance reform, then they need to start paying their own money for the causes they want. They can say all day that the government SHOULD put the 'public good' ahead of the special interest, but when the special interest makes out the campaign check and the 'public interest' doesn't, the campaign ads the donation buys have a lot bigger impact on the voters than the party who just votes the right way. It's more about who has the budget to say they vote the right way.

The fact that the people reading this are among probably the top 5% more politically aware is an indication why the public is doomed to be treated like cattle.

Parties are merely the efficient organizations for the system we set up - a system which can be correctly criticized, but which does have the excellent attribute of the popular vote.

As corrupted as the political culture is so that our politics rarely discuss issues in any reasonable manner, the fact the public votes has a great moderating effect on corruption.

Sometimes the pendulum swings one way, as when the public under FDR increased in wealth, grew the middle class, and reduced the concentration of wealth; and sometimes the other as in the last 25 years when the middle class is under attack, average citizens are not sharing in the economy's growth and the concentration of wealth is shooting up; but our system still prevents the levels of serfdom that exist without the vote.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
Pardon the ascii but we need a visual representation.

                        Authoritarian
                                |
                              /   \  
           Socalist -    /      \  - Neocon
                           /         \  
                          /            \  
          Liberal -  /                \ - Conservative
                        ---------------
                                |
                        Libertarian
I've seen models like this before, but I'm not convinced they're much more helpful because a person's position on a particular issue may be vastly different from their position on another.

Also, truth doesn't come in six forms. There isn't a "libertarian" melting point for gold and a "neocon" melting point. So, such a framework further degrades our ability to put the truth first.

There really should only be two parties: The Rationality party and the Mythology party. The former would be the science party and the latter would be the religion party. Ideally, humanity wouldn't have the second party, because all morality is rational, fundamentally. Religion is simply the pre-science tool for explaining reality.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: superstition
Our current two-party political system has programmed people to think that there is a mystical "liberal" and "conservative" basis for all human thought, as if people are born with "liberal" or "conservative" stamped on their foreheads and there are "two sides to everything".

There is no "conservative" or "liberal" melting point for gold. It's a singular truth.

Every truth is singular in a rational reality. We have science to help us get as close to an understanding of reality as possible. There is no "liberal" scientific law and "conservative" scientific law. There are an endless number of opinions, scientific and otherwise, but all opinions are fundamentally quantifiable by their closeness to reality.

How true an opinion (also known as a hypothesis) is is not arbitrary. Our limitations in understanding reality don't create multiple realities. The melting point of gold, in reality, doesn't change if person A calls himself a conservative and gives it a number and person B calls himself a liberal and gives it a number.

So, please... please please please stop parroting this liberal/conservative nonsense! It's a complete waste of time and energy.

Sometimes I yearn for the days when there were three parties in the USA... Someone please bring back the Whigs. Maybe people might actually have to think for once:

"Those liberals... blah blah blah"
"Those conservatives...blah blah blah"
"Those... uh... non-conservatives... uh... non-liberals... uh.... error error does not compute!"

It's tempting to suggest that the liberal-conservative dichotomy is a manifestation of the binary 0 and 1, but that isn't the case. What matters is how accurate an opinion is.
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks "people are born with "liberal" or "conservative" stamped on their foreheads." So it appears you're arguing against no one at all.

Furthermore, I'm completely baffled by what you mean by "There is no "conservative" or "liberal" melting point for gold." You're using gold and its melting point as a metaphor for . . . what, exactly?

Edit: Oh, I get it. You're getting hung up on the science thing, again. Saying that physical properties are fixed, without a liberal or conservative slant. Well, see below for a little perspective even on THAT point.

As to your statement that "Every truth is singular in a rational reality," you're sadly mistaken. The "truth" for me - based on a somewhat "rational," somewhat irrational evaluation of my own life circumstances - is bound to be different (often entirely different) from that of someone else with their own experiences. Even if every human were 100% rational, they would disagree to a greater or lesser extent on everything, as their experiences would be quite different.

Even your statement, "We have science to help us get as close to an understanding of reality as possible," is in practice false. Most people don't WANT science to be true when the claims of science are at odds with their own preconceptions, and they'll find all sorts of ways to discredit science to defend their ideology.

Finally, "How true an opinion (also known as a hypothesis) is is not arbitrary", is patently false. Consider:

One person, based on her religion, believes that everyone should be celibate until marriage. That pre--marital sex reduces the specialness of the marital bond.

Another person doesn't believe in the soul or God or anything religious. And thinks sex out of wedlock is just find.

Which of these two "opinions" is more "true." Well, both are completely true for the one holding them. Their "truthiness" is completely arbitrary.

You seem to be confusing the nature of physical reality with the nature of human values. And even the nature of physical reality has its arbitrary side, as one cannot completely separate out the highly subjective nature of the human mind.

Edit 2: Oh, a final point: Even if science were king, it wouldn't make much difference. At any point, scientific knowledge has huge gaps. There are so many things we don't know, yet we must often make decisions NOW. That's one place where left-versus-right comes in. And in general, when what's "true" isn't slam-dunk known - which is just about always - religion/ideology/politics/subjectivity hold sway.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
One person, based on her religion, believes that everyone should be celibate until marriage. That pre--marital sex reduces the specialness of the marital bond.

Another person doesn't believe in the soul or God or anything religious. And thinks sex out of wedlock is just find.

Which of these two "opinions" is more "true." Well, both are completely true for the one holding them. Their "truthiness" is completely arbitrary.
Religion is just the pre-science tool for explaining reality. As such, it's obsolete. Your reasoning is flawed.

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks "people are born with "liberal" or "conservative" stamped on their foreheads." So it appears you're arguing against no one at all.
You didn't grasp the metaphor.

Even if science were king, it wouldn't make much difference. At any point, scientific knowledge has huge gaps. There are so many things we don't know, yet we must often make decisions NOW.
Our limitations in understanding reality don't create multiple realities.
Just because our scientific knowledge, though expanding, is always imperfect and incomplete doesn't mean we should abandon it in favor of ignorance. We have to apply science as best we can because what science is is our understanding of reality, one that is predicated on accuracy, not mumbo jumbo.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Religion is just the pre-science tool for explaining reality. As such, it's obsolete. Your reasoning is flawed.
Religion and science explain two different areas. If you don't understand that, then you understand neither religion nor science.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
Religion and science explain two different areas. If you don't understand that, then you understand neither religion nor science.
What are these two areas and what makes them different? Two realities?
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,706
49
91
"The most expensive commodity we have in this country is ignorance. It's not gasoline, not rice, not wheat, not corn. The most expensive commodity we have is the ignorance of way too many Americans. It is ignorance that allows liberalism to prosper."
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: superstition

There really should only be two parties: The Rationality party and the Mythology party. The former would be the science party and the latter would be the religion party. Ideally, humanity wouldn't have the second party, because all morality is rational, fundamentally. Religion is simply the pre-science tool for explaining reality.
Buahahahaha!!! You radicals are a trip. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night... :p
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: superstition
Religion and science explain two different areas. If you don't understand that, then you understand neither religion nor science.
What are these two areas and what makes them different? Two realities?
It's almost impossible to discuss anything with someone like you because you're thinking is so distorted you don't even recognize basic concepts. You don't recognize, for example, that science applies to only the physical world. That there's no parallel to "objective reality" when it comes to values, love, spiritual truth/God' or which flavor of ice cream tastes best.

And you don't recognize that when scientific knowledge is incomplete, it's often next to worthless, even on a strictly physical plane. You think "we must do our best" with what we have, not recognizing that what's "best" isn't objective.

Maybe your brain got fried on acid. Maybe you had an accident. Maybe it's schizophrenia. I don't know, but there's definitely something "off" in your thinking.

That bolded question above is a case in point: You ask, "What are these two areas and what makes them different?" Do you recognize how bizarre that question is? And the phrasing is even more bizarre, "these two areas," as if they are something brand new to you. It takes a whole skull-full of misfiring neurons to come up with something like that.

Maybe I can construct a fake conversation that has the same "feel," to let you see where I'm coming from:

Me: Wow, did you see that bullfrog?!
You: Why are you talking about what's in the pond when you could instead be looking at the reflection of the sky?
Me: I see the reflection, but that frog really got my attention.
You: You can't "see a reflection;" you can only see what's being reflected.
Me: Sounds like semantics to me. But when I see a big frog make a big splash like that, it's pretty neat, especially since I don't see frogs very often.
You: Maybe you should look at the reflection of frogs.
Me: I'd rather see real frogs.
You: The reflection of the sky might contain a frog-shaped cloud.
Me: Why are you hung up on the reflection of the sky?
You: Why are you hung up on frogs?

And you'll go on and on, thinking there's profundity beneath your insanity.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,829
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: superstition
By expanding our conceptualization to a second, or better yet a third axis we can far more accurately begin to define political leanings.
Specifically, how would you do this?
At the very least, you need two perpendicular measures:

- Economic [Left (Communism) <---> Right ("Neo-Liberalism"]
- Social [Authoritarian (Facism) <---> Libertarian (Anarchism)]


With this, you can create a grid that better encompasses the variations of most political leanings.

And with this current grid in mind, I think many people would be surprised to see that 95% of all our candidates and politicians fall within the same quadrant (Authoritarian/Right,) and are just spinning their slight differences as being on opposite side of the spectrum.
Meaningless labels of different grades of slavery.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I propose that politics is not left VS right. It isn?t a straight one dimensional line a follows:

Liberal -------- Conservative
Instead of left -> right, I've always imagined a number line - negative numbers -> positive numbers. Therefore, it follows that conservative -> liberal - ie. negative (you can't do this or that) -> positive (you can do this or that and more).

---

What the apparent strict binary interpretation ignores is that most people belong in their own third category that includes some leftist and rightist elements (and maybe some new ones). I haven't decided yet if this binary interpretation is promulgated by the media and/or politicians to make it easier to describe in simple terms or to set the stage for divisiveness.

It's interesting that a discussion of such a fundamental concept is met with such fury. Some seem to be on a hair-trigger.
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,650
0
0
Originally posted by: superstition
Our current two-party political system has programmed people to think that there is a mystical "liberal" and "conservative" basis for all human thought, as if people are born with "liberal" or "conservative" stamped on their foreheads and there are "two sides to everything".
Our parties are not extremes on the scale of liberalism/conservatism.

Originally posted by: superstition
There is no "conservative" or "liberal" melting point for gold. It's a singular truth.
That's like saying there's no spoon for space exploration. It doesn't make sense because liberalism/conservatism is a scale of ideological thought.

Originally posted by: superstition
Every truth is singular in a rational reality.
Truth is singular? Perhaps, on your definition of truth. However, morality is relative.

Originally posted by: superstition
We have science to help us get as close to an understanding of reality as possible. There is no "liberal" scientific law and "conservative" scientific law. There are an endless number of opinions, scientific and otherwise, but all opinions are fundamentally quantifiable by their closeness to reality.
Again, applying an ideological scale to scientific law is like saying there's good science and bad science. Science can be applied morally through "good" and "evil" means, but it is inherently a process void of moral judgment (at least through the process of the Scientific Method it is).

Originally posted by: superstition
How true an opinion (also known as a hypothesis) is is not arbitrary.
Opinion != hypothesis, at least in scientific terms. A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomena or phenomenon. An opinion is when a thought has a applied perspective used to make some form of judgment.

Hypothesis: The universe is constantly expanding and contracting using means of .. etc.
Opinion: I think you're wrong.

Originally posted by: superstition
Our limitations in understanding reality don't create multiple realities.
Ok. Just because we don't comprehend an explanation doesn't mean it can't be true. I agree.

Originally posted by: superstition
The melting point of gold, in reality, doesn't change if person A calls himself a conservative and gives it a number and person B calls himself a liberal and gives it a number.
Agreed.

Originally posted by: superstition
So, please... please please please stop parroting this liberal/conservative nonsense! It's a complete waste of time and energy.
It sounds like your priorities are that of science and not of politics. Politics is the art of applying moral judgments to certain situations for certain reasons.

Originally posted by: superstition
Sometimes I yearn for the days when there were three parties in the USA... Someone please bring back the Whigs. Maybe people might actually have to think for once:
I wish the Libertarian party would make a comeback. :( We could use some more freedom.

Originally posted by: superstition
"Those liberals... blah blah blah"
"Those conservatives...blah blah blah"
"Those... uh... non-conservatives... uh... non-liberals... uh.... error error does not compute!"

It's tempting to suggest that the liberal-conservative dichotomy is a manifestation of the binary 0 and 1, but that isn't the case. What matters is how accurate an opinion is.
Opinions cannot be accurate because opinions are not absolute, they are relative and vary per person.

Think of the following scenario and create a solution:

The majority of a population are threatened. Let's say this population has over a million people. Their lives are in jeopardy and the only way to save them is to kill an innocent boy.

Is it ok to kill the boy for the lives of the majority? Or would allowing millions to die the right thing? What's right and wrong? If you were the boy how would you feel? If you were someone in the population how would you feel?

Right and wrong can only be determined through perspectives and applied through certain situations that arise.

Liberalism is a word to describe liberal ideology. It usually represented new ideas and new systems like the concept of providing health care for everyone.

Conservatism describes conservative ideas. They have generally resented systems and embraced individualism more so than the idea of a "greater good."

Instead of thinking of it as if people are born into ideologies, think about how one person's perspective can be effected by certain ideas.

Picture a poor person barely making money. If the idea of health care was brought up he would probably be for it. In his perspective, there is a better chance of affording health care through a giant pool than affording it himself. He would probably align his ideals more towards liberalism if it effected him for the better.

Picture a rich person. In his perspective, he can most likely afford quality health care so the idea of being forced to pay for a different form of health care would not sit too comfortably with him. He would probably align with the conservative idea of a laisez-faire health care system.

Picture a gay person. In his perspective, he would benefit from being able to marry other gay individuals. He would promote the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
Originally posted by: superstition
One person, based on her religion, believes that everyone should be celibate until marriage. That pre--marital sex reduces the specialness of the marital bond.

Another person doesn't believe in the soul or God or anything religious. And thinks sex out of wedlock is just find.

Which of these two "opinions" is more "true." Well, both are completely true for the one holding them. Their "truthiness" is completely arbitrary.
Religion is just the pre-science tool for explaining reality. As such, it's obsolete. Your reasoning is flawed.
Yup isn't it 95% of the worlds people believe in some God? Wasn't that in Contact or something. saw it elsewhere to. :)

So How did Jesus get out of that tomb again? Love hearing this part. ;)
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
isn't it 95% of the worlds people believe in some God?
Perhaps, although I don't think the percentage is nearly that high for monotheism ("some God"). Polytheism and non-deity religions exist, and there are a lot of non-practicing people who are called part of a religion (like in Catholicism where you have to ask to be ex-communicated or you're counted a Catholic).

In any case, even if there is a biological basis for religion, that doesn't mean it's a credible way of explaining reality. It's just the pre-science method and, as such, it's obsolete.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: superstition
Buahahahaha!!! You radicals are a trip. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night... :p
Ad hominem isn't an argument or evidence for an argument.
Eh? I was simply stating that people like you are a trip to read. You like to attempt to belittle people of faith and then attempt to claim they should be irrelevant. That's great if you believe that but just because you do - doesn't mean everyone else has to or should. Radicals are the ones that believe only they are right and everyone else is wrong. Both sides of this particular issue have radicals and you seem to be doing a good job of putting yourself on the extreme end of one side...
But like I said....whatever helps you sleep at night...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY