NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean? (This is the one I get the least. Why is it a problem for some conservatives when some people want to limit the amount of pollution that corporations put into our environment? *btw i am not generalizing, or am trying not to, because when I ask these questions it is aimed at the people who usually seem to oppose these things although I know not all people from these groups do so*)

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have? (Again, it seems that many conservatives think all poor peopel are lazy. This is surely not the case most of the time. Let's use my mom as an example. She is a very hard working woman, and when I was growing up she worked two jobs if they were available. My father left her and stole everything he could when i was about 1 year old. She still works her ass off and is about as poor as can be. She saves what she can but it's not really much. This is the rule and not this exception as I grew up in quite a few poor communities. When you hear some conservatives talk, it sounds as if they think liberals and democrats *who are not liberal in mine eyes* just want to tax all the rich and buy all poor people mansions. Personally I just want to see disadvantaged people get help. I don't think they should get money directly though... I think they should get counseling, job training, debt management, education, food and stuff like that)

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible? (I'm not talking about PETA so don't even go there. I think that the radicals who fight for animal rights are nutjobs too. I'm not talking about treating animals like they have the right to vote. In all my my questions please consider that I am taking a modersate standpoint on these issues and asnwer accordingly. I am not trying to defend extreemism and most liberals don't defend it either. For this question I am talking cruelty to animals such as keeping animals pent up in cages and never allowing them to move and things like that.)

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land? (Whether you want to believe it or not, minorities aren't given a fair shake at things. Yes I agree that affirmative action is not perfect, but I think it's on the right track and if we all work together maybe we can come up with better solutins instead of ripping each others throats out over this.)

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools? (I know there is a lot of contention over this. There are many viewpoints to consider and debating probably isn't going to change anyones mind but I am just looking for a moderate explanation on this, not... "OMFG the liberals are trying to destroy Christianity and stop people from practicing their faith". I don't give a damn if the president is religious and says a prayer before every press conference. I dont care if kids have their own special little clubs or prayer groups in public schools. Ijust dont want the President leading the whole nation in a prayer. I don't want the priciple having prayer time for the whole school. We, who are exercising our religious freedom in America, are not paying taxes so schools can spread Christian beliefs to our Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Pink Unicornies kids. Is that really so hard to understand? noone is trying to banish christianity from America. we just want it kept where it belongs - in private schools, homes and churches. Pray in public and wear your religious symbols whereever you want but stop trying to make this a theocracy and stop trying to force your beliefs on those of us who don't wish to believe as you do.)

I'll stop there because I want to go outside and play in the thunderstorm that is rattling my windows at the moment.

It seems liberal minded people get attacked as being brainless for having compassion for other people/animals/ecosystems... I know Conservatives get ruthlessly attacked for being heartless for their stance on things too so this is yoru chance to try to get some understanding. ASk us what is so wrong with whatever you are trying to accomplish.

I can understand that you would disagree with the way it is being dealt with. i bet if you stopped to listen to what a lot of liberals really had to say on this issue, you would see that many don't quite agree with all the tactics their party (or what have you) are using to fight these causes.

I'm guessing many conservatives don't fully agree with the way their party and whatnot are handling issues too right? I for one can fall behind some of the ideals conservatives are trying to foster, but oppose the way they are going about pursuing those goals (i.e Saddam, The War on Terror, Violent crime, drug abuse...).

Perhaps it is because we have a group of people with the same ideals and somewhat-similar ideas close to our on how to solve a problem and if we don't stand behind them then the chance of those goals being met become weakened so we fight diligently to defend things we really arent fully behind at our deepest core. What do you think?

btw - sorry about poor spelling/grammar/typos/nonsense/misrepresentation of your beliefs. - I suck. :fluffle:

I completely agree!

I share the same views as you, so I'm thinking the same thing...

Hm...

The conservatives may believe that economic gain supercedes environmentalism in a society. Because of this belief they do not wish to limit industrial growth and hurt the economy.

The reason why people do not feel very close to the poor is because many view the reason why they are poor are their bad choices. There are college scholarships for the deserving, there are opportunities to advance in many businesses if one proves worthy, clever people have risen to great places without college education(wasn't Bill Gates a college drop-out?). I believe that opportunities for help to build a better life should be given but I am more skeptical towards material aid(the goal is to make these people self-sufficient)

Some people do not see the need to care about animals. They only see the need for maximum animal productivity. Animals are just property and people can often see them as just property.

Giving minorities a better chance to some extent comes at a loss to the white people that may be more qualified for some things. Being a minority gives benefits in getting in to the college of choice and to getting a job of choice. White people tend to feel discriminated against because this reduces their opportunity for success and to some extent they are being discriminated against. Besides they are being discriminated against because of their success, only the poorly performing minorities such as hispanic people, and african americans receive this help while asians are seen to be the same as white people.

Many people do not understand the separation between church and state. They want to immerse their children in the loving lovingness of the Lord. These people want to have an environment that supports their beliefs and gets rid of the corruption of atheist thought and all sorts of other societal evils.

[QUOTE=Sumamba Buwhan]Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?

I don't oppose this one.

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?

Nothing

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?

They are animals. They are bred solely to be eaten, and have been for thousands of years. The common livestock animals such as cows, chickens, sheep, pigs etc. are so changed from their wild ancestors as to be a seperate species. Humane treatment is for humans, not for my dinner.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?

In Australia, there are so many asians coming to the schools that this is a non-issue. Unless you are Aborigine(sp?), but let's not go there. PS: nothing's wrong with it.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?

To explain this, let us examine Mesoamerica (Aztec & Inca specifically) pre-Cortez & Pizarro.
They had great societies & cultures, but had no writing. No coinage. No Iron or Bronze.
What kept them together was a common religion & language. The Inca also had wonderful road & courier systems.
Religion is a basic necessity of society. More specifically, something to believe in is basic. Religion answers the questions 'Why am I here?' 'What is my purpose?' 'Why should I be compassionate to my fellow man?'
That's why.

Thunderstorms make for good nude frolicking. As for the rest, I'm not one to argue. I don't think there's a single damn thing wrong with any of the goals you, I, we, fight for. And I think there's all manner of wrong with fighting against those things, or fighting to forestall those things.

I'm thinking about that time-travel thread that's happening now, and the bitch of it is, while you can't really travel through time in that pop sci-fi way we've all heard about, you also can't hold back the clock.

Sooner or later, change will and must come. The trick is in not resisting it.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?

To explain this, let us examine Mesoamerica (Aztec & Inca specifically) pre-Cortez & Pizarro.
They had great societies & cultures, but had no writing. No coinage. No Iron or Bronze.
What kept them together was a common religion & language. The Inca also had wonderful road & courier systems.
Religion is a basic necessity of society. More specifically, something to believe in is basic. Religion answers the questions 'Why am I here?' 'What is my purpose?' 'Why should I be compassionate to my fellow man?'
That's why.

Sure, religion is great and wonderful and all that jazz, but that doesn't answer the question. The fact is, at least in the U.S., there IS no common religion, and trying to artificially force one on people who don't want it accomplishes nothing.

Furthermore, why should the government tell us what to believe in? Can't our families and churches do that themselves without the government's help? Would you want the government to be able to overrule the lessons you choose to teach your children?

Thunderstorms make for good nude frolicking. As for the rest, I'm not one to argue. I don't think there's a single damn thing wrong with any of the goals you, I, we, fight for. And I think there's all manner of wrong with fighting against those things, or fighting to forestall those things.

I'm thinking about that time-travel thread that's happening now, and the bitch of it is, while you can't really travel through time in that pop sci-fi way we've all heard about, you also can't hold back the clock.

Sooner or later, change will and must come. The trick is in not resisting it.

You rook the words right out of my mouth. Especially thunderstorms on warm summer nights!

As for the rest, I know the ebb and flow will keep things changing but when it comes to things like the environment, thats where I worry the most.

Sure, religion is great and wonderful and all that jazz, but that doesn't answer the question. The fact is, at least in the U.S., there IS no common religion, and trying to artificially force one on people who don't want it accomplishes nothing.

Furthermore, why should the government tell us what to believe in? Can't our families and churches do that themselves without the government's help? Would you want the government to be able to overrule the lessons you choose to teach your children?
Governments in the past have enforced the nation's religion. A nation's religion gives all of the people in that nation a common ethical and moral belief system that people can all follow to seek societal good. The freedom of religion makes societal good harder to determine because cults and other extremely odd belief systems make societal good harder to determine. Our government respects scientology as a religion despite the fact that it is a get-rich scheme by a lousy science fiction author. Scientology because of its negative intentions does to a certain extent harm people because the monetary drains are greater than what most religions order their followers to do.

Scientology because of its negative intentions does to a certain extent harm people because the monetary drains are greater than what most religions order their followers to do.
Completely unlike the Church of the Subgenius™, where the thirty dollars you send "Bob" as a love offering will be returned to you, thrice over, no less, should you fail to receive Eternal Salvation. Not only a helluva bargain, but the only church in existence with a money-back guarantee.

But I digress.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?
They should be given an equal chance, not a better chance. They're no better than anyone else, and shouldn't be treated as such.

"societal good" does not trump all. You have the right to think and believe whatever you want. You can't force someone to think a certain way.

"values extracted at gunpoint do not lead to virtue; mouthings made at gunpoint are not truths." -Melkor Unchained

Also, personal rights win out in this area. As a human being, you have the abilty and right to develop your own values and opinions. To imply otherwise is to lower humans to meer cattle.

Fuck that.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?
They should be given an equal chance, not a better chance. They're no better than anyone else, and shouldn't be treated as such.

The point is that, many time, minorities start out disadvantaged, so it's more of a leveling of the playing feild.

But there is also another aspect to it. Right now, society is, intentionally or not, extremely stratified by race. Minorities, in many cases, live in greater poverty then their white counterparts. This is not good for society as a whole. Affermative action is a way to try to allow minorities to move up, so that society is not so stratified by race.

Also, it creates exposure to more different cultures and backgrounds and ways of life to college students. If you can't see the benefit in that, I don't know what to tell you.

And if you disagree with me.....to bad, I have the Supreme Court of the United States on my side :p

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?
They should be given an equal chance, not a better chance. They're no better than anyone else, and shouldn't be treated as such.


But societal racism (yes, it's still there folks) and less available funds mean that minorities do not have an equal chance. Affirmative action was meant to exist so that the playing field would truly be leveled.

exactly

Affermative action is a way to try to allow minorities to move up, so that society is not so stratified by race.So, giving better treatment to people because of their race is a good way of helping society to become less separated by race? What about people who are better qualified for a job that are overlooked because the other guy is black? How is it fair to them? How is it any better than what we had before?

Governments in the past have enforced the nation's religion. A nation's religion gives all of the people in that nation a common ethical and moral belief system that people can all follow to seek societal good.

That's just bullpoop. Just because something has been a standard procedure for a long time doesn't mean it's the best or even good at all. Times change and with it peoples habits, beliefs and so on. A nations religion you say...strange, last time I checked no country has only one religion among it's citizens (well...perhaps except the Vatican?). In sweden we have christians, protestants, muslims, budhists and so on...what's my nations religion hm? In the US I'm sure there are a lot of muslims to so which religion would you force upon the people there?

In Sweden the amount of the inhabitants who are religious (who genuinly believe I mean) are somewhere about but probably below 10% of the entire populace. Why the hell should our state force a religion upon us then? We have much less crime and violence than the states where they force feed the christian religion upon everyone so it seems we're better of without it. I see governments who havn't separated church from state as more primitive/lacking than those who have. I myself am atheist, so is my father and my mother is catholic. We are all good people, we are generally pretty kind to others and even though you may not believe it we are good citizens despite the fact that we're not slapped in the face with a bible every day for proper moral education. A person who need religion to be a moral and kind person is a really dumb person. Common sense is really enough.



The freedom of religion makes societal good harder to determine because cults and other extremely odd belief systems make societal good harder to determine. Our government respects scientology as a religion despite the fact that it is a get-rich scheme by a lousy science fiction author. Scientology because of its negative intentions does to a certain extent harm people because the monetary drains are greater than what most religions order their followers to do.

I agree on the scientology bit... I'd be wary of a religion created by a sci-fi author at any lenght ;)
But my viewpoint is still that the freedom to choose religion still is the better path. Besides scientology hasn't resulted in crusades, inquisitions, terrorism, mass murder or other not so nice situations. Unlike other, more widespread religions who still claim they are morally and ethically superior...

Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean? (This is the one I get the least. Why is it a problem for some conservatives when some people want to limit the amount of pollution that corporations put into our environment? *btw i am not generalizing, or am trying not to, because when I ask these questions it is aimed at the people who usually seem to oppose these things although I know not all people from these groups do so*)

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have? (Again, it seems that many conservatives think all poor peopel are lazy. This is surely not the case most of the time. Let's use my mom as an example. She is a very hard working woman, and when I was growing up she worked two jobs if they were available. My father left her and stole everything he could when i was about 1 year old. She still works her ass off and is about as poor as can be. She saves what she can but it's not really much. This is the rule and not this exception as I grew up in quite a few poor communities. When you hear some conservatives talk, it sounds as if they think liberals and democrats *who are not liberal in mine eyes* just want to tax all the rich and buy all poor people mansions. Personally I just want to see disadvantaged people get help. I don't think they should get money directly though... I think they should get counseling, job training, debt management, education, food and stuff like that)

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible? (I'm not talking about PETA so don't even go there. I think that the radicals who fight for animal rights are nutjobs too. I'm not talking about treating animals like they have the right to vote. In all my my questions please consider that I am taking a modersate standpoint on these issues and asnwer accordingly. I am not trying to defend extreemism and most liberals don't defend it either. For this question I am talking cruelty to animals such as keeping animals pent up in cages and never allowing them to move and things like that.)

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land? (Whether you want to believe it or not, minorities aren't given a fair shake at things. Yes I agree that affirmative action is not perfect, but I think it's on the right track and if we all work together maybe we can come up with better solutins instead of ripping each others throats out over this.)

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools? (I know there is a lot of contention over this. There are many viewpoints to consider and debating probably isn't going to change anyones mind but I am just looking for a moderate explanation on this, not... "OMFG the liberals are trying to destroy Christianity and stop people from practicing their faith". I don't give a damn if the president is religious and says a prayer before every press conference. I dont care if kids have their own special little clubs or prayer groups in public schools. Ijust dont want the President leading the whole nation in a prayer. I don't want the priciple having prayer time for the whole school. We, who are exercising our religious freedom in America, are not paying taxes so schools can spread Christian beliefs to our Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Pink Unicornies kids. Is that really so hard to understand? noone is trying to banish christianity from America. we just want it kept where it belongs - in private schools, homes and churches. Pray in public and wear your religious symbols whereever you want but stop trying to make this a theocracy and stop trying to force your beliefs on those of us who don't wish to believe as you do.)

I'll stop there because I want to go outside and play in the thunderstorm that is rattling my windows at the moment.

It seems liberal minded people get attacked as being brainless for having compassion for other people/animals/ecosystems... I know Conservatives get ruthlessly attacked for being heartless for their stance on things too so this is yoru chance to try to get some understanding. ASk us what is so wrong with whatever you are trying to accomplish.

I can understand that you would disagree with the way it is being dealt with. i bet if you stopped to listen to what a lot of liberals really had to say on this issue, you would see that many don't quite agree with all the tactics their party (or what have you) are using to fight these causes.

I'm guessing many conservatives don't fully agree with the way their party and whatnot are handling issues too right? I for one can fall behind some of the ideals conservatives are trying to foster, but oppose the way they are going about pursuing those goals (i.e Saddam, The War on Terror, Violent crime, drug abuse...).

Perhaps it is because we have a group of people with the same ideals and somewhat-similar ideas close to our on how to solve a problem and if we don't stand behind them then the chance of those goals being met become weakened so we fight diligently to defend things we really arent fully behind at our deepest core. What do you think?

btw - sorry about poor spelling/grammar/typos/nonsense/misrepresentation of your beliefs. - I suck. :fluffle:


I completely agree with you. Sometimes I wonder about it myself...

So, giving better treatment to people because of their race is a good way of helping society to become less separated by race? What about people who are better qualified for a job that are overlooked because the other guy is black? How is it fair to them? How is it any better than what we had before?

The aim is to get to a point where such evening is not needed.

Sorry, these people start out with the shit end of the stick, many times. They deserve some advantages.

And I'm not talking about middle-class minority families. I'm also not saying they every black person is poor or discriminated against, and every white person is born with the silver spoon in their mouth. But take a walk through Southeast, then take a strole through Potomac, you'll see what I mean.

(For those of you not familiar with the area, Southeast is an extremely poor area, and is predominatly black.
Potomac is an affuent area of Maryland, and is missivly white.)

The aim is to get to a point where such evening is not needed.And trying to eliminate discrimination by through discrimination seems like a perfectly logical solution to you? And before you say that it isn't discrimination, here's the definition:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit

i couldnt be bothered reading it someone give me the gist

And trying to eliminate discrimination by through discrimination seems like a perfectly logical solution to you? And before you say that it isn't discrimination, here's the definition:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit

I wasn't going to claim that it wasn't discrimination.

There is ingrained societal discrimination, so to counter it, yes, sadly, we need some counter-discrimination.

So, giving better treatment to people because of their race is a good way of helping society to become less separated by race? What about people who are better qualified for a job that are overlooked because the other guy is black? How is it fair to them? How is it any better than what we had before?


Look, the point is, the white guys aren't going to have a problem getting the jobs. If the black guy doesn't get it though, I hate to raise these stereotypes, but he'll only be able to make money with a crappier job or selling drugs.

The truth of the matter is, our "Testing" for qualifications is biased to give favor to those who are wealthy. If you go to an expensive college, you get a better job. If you go to a rich high school, you go to the expensive college. If you can afford tutoring and don't have to work in high school (to take care of your family) or if your family pushes high standards of education on you, you will have better scores on these "tests" of ability.

Education means everything, and white people value it more and have more money to give a good education. If things start out being equal, then Affirmative Action is unfair. But things don't. They are incredibly slanted against minorities. And so, if some little white kid loses a job he "kinda" needs due to affirmative action giving it to a black kid who "really" needs it, I'm not doing any complaining. No one should.

In fact, fuck that little white kid! He didn't do shit except be raised in better situations!

And so, if some little white kid loses a job he "kinda" needs due to affirmative action giving it to a black kid who "really" needs it, I'm not doing any complaining. No one should.

In fact, fuck that little white kid! He didn't do shit except be raised in better situations!What about a 'little white kid' who needs the job just as much, if not more than the black guy? Is it still fair then?

I'm just going to go off on affirmative action for a minute, because I whole-heartedly believe that ultimately, it only hurts minorities chances of eventually enjoying the same rights as the majority. As I understand it, affirmative action is meant both to ensure minorities are represented in businesses/institutions and to compensate for the often inferior education/training/etc minorities often receive because of lower socio-economic status. You hear success story after success story of young men and women from the projects who got into an Ivy Leaque institution with the help of affirmitive action and when finally given the chance to excel, they step up to the challenge. Great. But if the problem is the fact that they were raised in the projects in schools too dangerous to keep teachers for more than a few months with outdated textbooks and parents (or perhaps just one) who are too exhausted after working two jobs (or in some cases too strung out) to be able to give them the help and attention they need, then how does affirmative action actually solve the problem? And what about all the caucasian children who are raised in the rural South in conditions that are equally impovrished? Though it works miracles for a few, what affirmative action does on a societal level is to make it seem like we are trying to solve a problem when we are actually only trying to cover it up with a great big band-aid.
The real solution is to get in the trenches and to truly provide every American with equal opportunities, especially equal education, and then let affirmative action ensure that positions are filled based on qualifications, not sex, nationality, skin color, etc. Why would anyone be opposed to such a noble thing? It would be extremely difficult, and extremely expensive. It would require massive cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, with each sharing credit with the other. And it would likely require the national goverment to interfere with the business of the states more than most of us would like.

I am a conservative Christian. I say that now so the rest of you can know to disregard everything I say because it is against the central dogma of you belief system.
What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?
Well, if schools don't endorse a god, they endorse the "no god" viewpoint. This does much the same thing as endorsing a god, but it has the added benefit of making any morals that were held into mere opinions. If my teachers can't tell me that there is a god, but they must tell me that there is no god, what do you think that will lead me to believe?
Once I believe in the "no god" view, why should I have a moral view? Why should I care about the environment? Or about others? Or animals?
The Bible says that we should help the poor, that we should care for the earth, that we shouldn't look down on people just because they are of a different social status than we are. It tells us not to play favorites, but to treat everyone fairly. It seems to me that getting the things that you want done accomplished would be a lot easier if everyone accepted the Bible.

I don't mean to say that everyone should be forced to believe Christianity. That was tried by Rome, and it didn't work. But I do think that if teachers were allowed to teach that the Bible is true and that, amazing as it seems, Darwin could have been wrong, the world might be a better place for it.

Helping the economy provides jobs. Jobs stop the poor from being poor, and allows them to help the economy out more. Plus, the money that would have gone to supporting the poor people can now be spent on other things. Like, perhaps, leveling the playing field for minorities.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?

Nothing. In fact, it is essential to our survival and to the survival of other species that inhabit the planet. I don't need to explain why our survival is importaint, and the most pragmatic way of explaining why the survival of other species is importaint is that any of them could hold the key to easily producing medicines and other valuable products. Many corporations that pollute the environment are willingly trying to clean up their operations, and if corporations agree that it is importaint then it takes one hell of a conservative to disagree.

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?

There's nothing wrong with the services you listed. I think the thing conservatives hate most is welfare. Many seem to think that Medicare and Medicaid are also questionable, but I think they've been around too long to be able to expect that we can recover from losing programs like those. I don't like the idea of welfare, but we can keep the things you listed. We're not hurting for money (or we wouldn't be, if we didn't waste it... I wish the Republicans in Washington would rally against wasteful spending).

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?

I didn't realize that it was difficult for farms to let their animals walk around. The softy in me says that the animals should be allowed to walk around a bit.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?

Sorry, but if I'm the most qualified man for a given job or a given college and a minority gets the position instead of me because the college or company has a quota to meet then I think there has been an injustice. You can feel sorry for the minorities that get slighted in favor of whites all you want, but where's the sorrow for the whites that are potentially being slighted? This is a problem that is not easily solved. I don't believe affirmative action is acceptable, but at the same time if it didn't exist then surely there would be much more racism in the work and college environment. How can the government combat it? They can't just walk up to an employer and say "I know that I can't prove that you only hired these white men because you're racist and not because of their qualifications, but I KNOW you're racist and we're taking you down!". Whether this is a role the government should play could even be questioned. I say, sure, as long as you can find a fair way to do it. Good luck.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?

This wouldn't be an issue if all schools were immediatly privatized! We should at least import the equivelent of our secretary of education from Japan and South Korea. Those Asian countries know what they're doing, no doubt about it. (Yes, it's a cultural issue. American kids are indignant, apathetic, and lazy. Betcha those Asians could solve the problem with a bit of corporal punishment! I'd love nothing more then to see one of those 'gangstas' get his ass whipped with a teacher's belt.) I don't think this is a conservative view point. This is a fundamentalist view point. A fundamentalist liberal, if there is such a thing (fundamentalist Christians tend to be attracted to the Republican party), would also be for the spreading of religion in schools by way of a religion class. I'd be against a class designed with the aim of teaching children why Christianity is the 'right' religion, but I don't mind a history class designed around Christianity. Even better would be a world religions class. Do those exist in high school?

I consider myself to be somewhere between conservative and libertarian, but I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying. Maybe I'm just more moderate then I fancy myself to be, or maybe there's just some vocal extremists. I have a feeling it's the former.

Well, if schools don't endorse a god, they endorse the "no god" viewpoint.

Can't the schools take the stance of 'we do not confirm or deny the existance of God or his equivalent in any religion."? I know some people would say that this is the same as taking no stance at all, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. I'd like to let my children decide for themselves what their beliefs will be. I'm the only person I trust to let them do that. I will explain to them why I believe in God and let them decide for themselves whether my reasoning is good, but I think they should make the final decision. It's too importaint of a decision to make to have someone force their opinions on a gullible kid.

Once I believe in the "no god" view, why should I have a moral view? Why should I care about the environment? Or about others? Or animals?

Humanism? Selfishness (If I don't kill that person no one will want to kill me in return. If I don't slaughter all those animals they'll reproduce and I'll have a food source. If I don't pollute that environment, my children will be assured the same privileges I have.)? Excellent question. The secular Western moral system is a direct descendent of the Christian moral system.

I am a conservative Christian. I say that now so the rest of you can know to disregard everything I say because it is against the central dogma of you belief system.
What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?
Well, if schools don't endorse a god, they endorse the "no god" viewpoint. This does much the same thing as endorsing a god, but it has the added benefit of making any morals that were held into mere opinions. If my teachers can't tell me that there is a god, but they must tell me that there is no god, what do you think that will lead me to believe?

I guess that's where you make the mistake. Schools aren't allowed to endorse any god, nor any religion. So, while a teacher is not allowed to tell you that there is a god, they're not allowed to tell you that there is no god, either. So, if you as a child are looking for a religion, a belief system or a religion, you simply will have to look for it outside school, as teachers are not allowed to answer those questions either way.


Once I believe in the "no god" view, why should I have a moral view? Why should I care about the environment? Or about others? Or animals?
The Bible says that we should help the poor, that we should care for the earth, that we shouldn't look down on people just because they are of a different social status than we are. It tells us not to play favorites, but to treat everyone fairly. It seems to me that getting the things that you want done accomplished would be a lot easier if everyone accepted the Bible.

If you are only nice to people and protecting the environment because the bible tells you to, without seeing the inherent good for society, the moral reward or the right way to handle things in an abstract way, your conscience is far less developed than that of any average atheist.
Have you ever noticed that not all the doctors and nurses in "Doctors without frontiers" are Christian? That not all Greenpeace activists are Christian? That Amnesty International is not a Christian organisation?


I don't mean to say that everyone should be forced to believe Christianity. That was tried by Rome, and it didn't work. But I do think that if teachers were allowed to teach that the Bible is true and that, amazing as it seems, Darwin could have been wrong, the world might be a better place for it.

Darwin could have been wrong, but please offer scientific explanation to prove that rather than an esoteric concept. After all, there are religions that claim that the world was created out of a turtle's shell. Why not teach those?
Either you teach religion - ALL religions, and don't try to pass any of them of a science, that's a different subject - or else you don't teach any religion at all.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?
They should be given an equal chance, not a better chance. They're no better than anyone else, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's what I mean, poor wording of the question *sorry* - Some have an equal chance at succeeding but those that grow up in poor areas need help at getting an equal chance no matter what color they are. It's really classism more than racism, but minorities are predominantly lower class.

But societal racism (yes, it's still there folks) and less available funds mean that minorities do not have an equal chance. Affirmative action was meant to exist so that the playing field would truly be leveled.

Personally, I don't think it truely does level teh playing field. Quotas only piss people off. I actually agree that affirmative action is unfair.

I believe that we shoudl work together to come up with ways to help poor and especially poor minorities by upgrading their education, giving them the chance at taking courses for free with will improve their job skills, resume writing tis and whatnot. I think it's important to teach people how to say and do all the right things on how to get a job. Education is key in my book but I am not pretending to know it all, I think we need to work together to come to an agreement that everyone is happy with.

So, giving better treatment to people because of their race is a good way of helping society to become less separated by race? What about people who are better qualified for a job that are overlooked because the other guy is black? How is it fair to them? How is it any better than what we had before?


I agree. Lets work together to come up with a better plan. :)

i couldnt be bothered reading it someone give me the gist


lol - just read the bolded parts and remember it's about moderate ideas - not extreemist points of view.

I agree. Lets work together to come up with a better plan. :)
The only better plan I can think of is simply improving the education system and giving out more need-based scholarship. I do not think very many people are opposed to either of those ideas(unless they are insanely afraid of taxes).

I'm just going to go off on affirmative action for a minute, because I whole-heartedly believe that ultimately, it only hurts minorities chances of eventually enjoying the same rights as the majority. As I understand it, affirmative action is meant both to ensure minorities are represented in businesses/institutions and to compensate for the often inferior education/training/etc minorities often receive because of lower socio-economic status. You hear success story after success story of young men and women from the projects who got into an Ivy Leaque institution with the help of affirmitive action and when finally given the chance to excel, they step up to the challenge. Great. But if the problem is the fact that they were raised in the projects in schools too dangerous to keep teachers for more than a few months with outdated textbooks and parents (or perhaps just one) who are too exhausted after working two jobs (or in some cases too strung out) to be able to give them the help and attention they need, then how does affirmative action actually solve the problem? And what about all the caucasian children who are raised in the rural South in conditions that are equally impovrished? Though it works miracles for a few, what affirmative action does on a societal level is to make it seem like we are trying to solve a problem when we are actually only trying to cover it up with a great big band-aid.
The real solution is to get in the trenches and to truly provide every American with equal opportunities, especially equal education, and then let affirmative action ensure that positions are filled based on qualifications, not sex, nationality, skin color, etc. Why would anyone be opposed to such a noble thing? It would be extremely difficult, and extremely expensive. It would require massive cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, with each sharing credit with the other. And it would likely require the national goverment to interfere with the business of the states more than most of us would like.

Very well said - if anyone skipped this guys post, please read it.

It's all about education people! If you haven't gone to a public school in a poor area then you have no idea what a crappy education those kids get compared to public schools in rich areas. I have had teh benefit of seeng the difference first hand as a student and the difference is DRAMATIC!

Sumamba Buwhan - Not a damn thing wrong with the way you think. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. In fact you should be admired for caring so much in such an uncaring world. I know I admire you. :)

The only better plan I can think of is simply improving the education system and giving out more need-based scholarship. I do not think very many people are opposed to either of those ideas(unless they are insanely afraid of taxes).


Oh you might be surprised!

"I'm the last registered Democrat... TAX AND SPEND - TAX AND SPEND", Last Registered Democrat on The Simpsons

oh sorry 'bout that.

I think you are right. How do we do that? In some areas (I'm not srure about all) they amount of money schools get is based on teh surrounding land value of the homes or something like that. Damn my brain. DAMN IT TO HELLLLLLLL!

I think that education is a right that should be upheld. I think that our school systems should be cleaned out and that all of the people who screw over our school systems should be shot. My school system has been very corrupt over the past few years, we have lost money with shady corporate dealings and the like. I am just glad that my school is not the crappiest one in the district, because the district is crappy and I have heard bad things about the other schools.

Sumamba Buwhan - Not a damn thing wrong with the way you think. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. In fact you should be admired for caring so much in such an uncaring world. I know I admire you. :)


Thanks! I am not ashamed for being a bleeding heart liberal (thats one of the biggest compliments I have ever received). I just want to see if there are any moderate conservatives on here that oppose these ideas and what their reasons are.

Also I want conservatives who are attacked for their goals to ask whats so wrong with what they are trying to accomplish (hopefully with qualifiers - similar to what I did).

That's what I mean, poor wording of the question *sorry* - Some have an equal chance at succeeding but those that grow up in poor areas need help at getting an equal chance no matter what color they are. It's really classism more than racism, but minorities are predominantly lower class.Well then, I completely agree with your views. It's nice to see that there's someone else who thinks the same way as me. :)

[QUOTE=Sumamba Buwhan]Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean? (This is the one I get the least. Why is it a problem for some conservatives when some people want to limit the amount of pollution that corporations put into our environment? *btw i am not generalizing, or am trying not to, because when I ask these questions it is aimed at the people who usually seem to oppose these things although I know not all people from these groups do so*)
QUOTE]
It's not that conservitives don't want to keep the enviornment clean. It's more that they don't believe a lot of the hype that liberals are building about it.
With Mixed evidence about global warming the backing is not there to support it. Once some clear uncontestible evidence is found I believe you will see conservs turn around on this issue.
No coorporation wants to layoff workers & if you bowed to every crazy liberal environmental demand based on their "scientific studies" it would cause a tremandous loss of jobs, profits and overall welfare of this country now.
What you have to realize when your dealing even with a middle of the road centrist. if your demands threaten the livelyhood of their families. They are not going to go for it.
Now be honest in your claims & people will come around.

You remind me in some ways why I am an authoritarian instead of an anarchist or some crap. The government needs to help this world become a better place, even by slaughtering dissenters in the millions, maybe even billions :) .

Well then, I completely agree with your views. It's nice to see that there's someone else who thinks the same way as me. :)

I bet that a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum can agree with this. I suspect that people fight for affirmative action so diligently because its already a law and the school system looks hopeless. I'm really using this thread to try to come to an understanding. I don't see what is so wrong with compromise.

The more people we help get a good education the more people will appreciate what they have gotten, love their country and have a greater ability to contribute back to that society. It's win win!

Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean? (This is the one I get the least. Why is it a problem for some conservatives when some people want to limit the amount of pollution that corporations put into our environment? *btw i am not generalizing, or am trying not to, because when I ask these questions it is aimed at the people who usually seem to oppose these things although I know not all people from these groups do so*)

It's not that conservitives don't want to keep the enviornment clean. It's more that they don't believe a lot of the hype that liberals are building about it.
With Mixed evidence about global warming the backing is not there to support it. Once some clear uncontestible evidence is found I believe you will see conservs turn around on this issue.
No coorporation wants to layoff workers & if you bowed to every crazy liberal environmental demand based on their "scientific studies" it would cause a tremandous loss of jobs, profits and overall welfare of this country now.
What you have to realize when your dealing even with a middle of the road centrist. if your demands threaten the livelyhood of their families. They are not going to go for it.
Now be honest in your claims & people will come around.

Do you or don't you agree that, without restrictions put on them, most corporate entities will dump their toxins and what have you wherever is cheapest without regard for the environment? Because it's not hype that it's been done time and time again. Sure there are always extreemists talking up the bullcrap and makign things sound worse than they are but that is not to say that problems do not exist. And most scientists around teh world see global warming as a problem - it's not fixing of facts. YOu really don't believe theres an issue there? Even Bush said global warming is a problem.

Better safe than sorry anyway. Possible polluters should be stopped before they start. Health isn't everything but everything is nothing without health.

You remind me in some ways why I am an authoritarian instead of an anarchist or some crap. The government needs to help this world become a better place, even by slaughtering dissenters in the millions, maybe even billions :) .


You are a scarey scarey person. How does slaughtering billions of dissenters make the world a better place. Well I do agree that the world woudl be a better place without humans. Now, I'm torn. :confused:

To explain this, let us examine Mesoamerica (Aztec & Inca specifically) pre-Cortez & Pizarro.
They had great societies & cultures, but had no writing. No coinage. No Iron or Bronze.
What kept them together was a common religion & language. The Inca also had wonderful road & courier systems.
Religion is a basic necessity of society. More specifically, something to believe in is basic. Religion answers the questions 'Why am I here?' 'What is my purpose?' 'Why should I be compassionate to my fellow man?'
That's why.
Actually, the Aztecs did have writing. As did many of the Mayan tribes that lived throughout the Aztec empire.

And other things can hold a society together other than religion. Religion is not the only answer to "why am I here".

You are a scarey scarey person. How does slaughtering billions of dissenters make the world a better place. Well I do agree that the world woudl be a better place without humans. Now, I'm torn. :confused:
Slaughtering dissenters removes their corrupting influence from the system. Without dissent it is easier to get things accomplished such as improving education, promoting equality, setting good environmental standards. I recommend that you start today by grabbing a gun and killing the person you agree with the least! :D

Corruption spreads quickly so start the purifying slaughter today!

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?
They should be given an equal chance, not a better chance. They're no better than anyone else, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Nor are they any worse...yet they have been treated as such. And continue to be treated as such.

So, giving better treatment to people because of their race is a good way of helping society to become less separated by race? What about people who are better qualified for a job that are overlooked because the other guy is black? How is it fair to them? How is it any better than what we had before?
Sorry. Better treatment is a myth. As is the idea that whites are losing jobs to less qualified minorities.

Some positive treatment is encouraged in order to balance out negative treatment.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?
Well, if schools don't endorse a god, they endorse the "no god" viewpoint.
No they don't. Schools don't teach from an atheist viewpoint. You may wonder why in science class they don't teach creationism...but that is simply because creationism is NOT SCIENCE. We learn about religion from a historical viewpoint, or a societal one. But we aren't 'indoctrinated' to believe in no god. Where the hell did YOU go to school?

The only better plan I can think of is simply improving the education system and giving out more need-based scholarship. I do not think very many people are opposed to either of those ideas(unless they are insanely afraid of taxes).
Which many people are.

Schools are funded by taxpayers. Poor people in poor areas have shitty schools. THAT is something we could change. Pool the taxes and make sure all schools meet certain standards in terms of infrastructure, materials and good teachers.

Actually, the Aztecs did have writing. As did many of the Mayan tribes that lived throughout the Aztec empire.

And other things can hold a society together other than religion. Religion is not the only answer to "why am I here".
All ideas on the reason that you are here can not be based on pure logic or reasoning. The only given fact is that you exist in some form or another(the nature of this existence is not known as you could be someone's dream or a brain in the Matrix) and that there appears to be a world outside of what is considered to be physically you(there is no proof that the world is not you or that you are not the world or even that the world is real). Based on the evidence given nothing can be determined(solipsism and nihilism are valid philosophies). Therefore a philosophy must form, this philosophy can take on many shapes, it can be selfish self-interest, or absolutist divine rules. This philosophy has a great impact on how you act in the world, how you perceive the world and how you react to the world. To a certain extent within a government it is very useful to have a homogenous belief system in order to foster agreement, remove incentive for disagreement, make rules that everyone can follow and increase general efficiency through policy. Now, a philosophy is similar to a religion in the fact that it emphasises importance on something that may not have any real significance at all(humanity, God, nature, drugs, leaders), this similarity is to a certain extent why it can be difficult to determine religious nature, die-hard communists are very similar to die-hard christians in that they both groups are somewhat homogenous and they both have beliefs based on the over-emphasis on a certain aspect of reality.

With Mixed evidence about global warming the backing is not there to support it. Once some clear uncontestible evidence is found I believe you will see conservs turn around on this issue.
Wow. I hadn't actually realised any non-extremists actually doubted global warming was happening. Hasn't this been put to rest by now? If not, with all the evidence out there, I doubt any further evidence is going to convince those that refuse to be convinced.

The conflict lies in the beliefs ABOUT global warming. Some think it's good. No seriously, they do. Or at least not all that bad. Kind of a huge thing to be guessing about, isn't it? Why err on the side of caution when there is money to be made in short-sightedness though.

Nor are they any worse...yet they have been treated as such. And continue to be treated as such.And they shouldn't, but further discrimination isn't the solution.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?

Nothing is wrong with any of these things. It's when people go too far (like blowing up labs and stuff), that they become a problem.

All ideas on the reason that you are here can not be based on pure logic or reasoning.
You underestimate the ability of scientists to be spiritual beings.

Religion is generally organised, and in fact, that is what we are talking about here. Organised religion in our schools. To this, I say vehemently NO! It allows for ONE religion and ONE school of thought. Our world is much more diverse, spiritually, than this. I think it's amusing that many of the conservative Christians who want to meld church with state are the same ones that hate this in Islamic countries...

Atheism does not even mean you are not spiritual. I have no problem with religion or spirituality as long as no ONE religion is allowed to have the kind of preeminance in our nation as would happen with state religion.

And they shouldn't, but further discrimination isn't the solution.
I don't actually disagree with you. We don't push affirmative action in Canada to the extent the US does. But it isn't quite the great evil people make it out to be (A BLACK DISABLED GAY WOMAN STOLE MY JOB!). At its worse, it's a bandaid solution that doesn't actually get practiced that much, and causes more backlash than anything.

Nothing is wrong with any of these things. It's when people go too far (like blowing up labs and stuff), that they become a problem.
Kind of like blowing up abortion clinics goes too far?

We agree.

Wow. I hadn't actually realised any non-extremists actually doubted global warming was happening. Hasn't this been put to rest by now? If not, with all the evidence out there, I doubt any further evidence is going to convince those that refuse to be convinced.

The conflict lies in the beliefs ABOUT global warming. Some think it's good. No seriously, they do. Or at least not all that bad. Kind of a huge thing to be guessing about, isn't it? Why err on the side of caution when there is money to be made in short-sightedness though.Hey, all G8 leaders recognized that human behavior plays a big role in global warming. Pity that Undelia doesn't like Bush anymore... Would have reduced one of his arguments.

You underestimate the ability of scientists to be spiritual beings.

Religion is generally organised, and in fact, that is what we are talking about here. Organised religion in our schools. To this, I say vehemently NO! It allows for ONE religion and ONE school of thought. Our world is much more diverse, spiritually, than this. I think it's amusing that many of the conservative Christians who want to meld church with state are the same ones that hate this in Islamic countries...

Atheism does not even mean you are not spiritual. I have no problem with religion or spirituality as long as no ONE religion is allowed to have the kind of preeminance in our nation as would happen with state religion.
I also stated the benefits of homogenized morality. Homogenized morality improves society in many ways. It decreases conflict based on differing beliefs, it makes it easier to agree on certain policies, it makes people easier to motivate and encourage because they all agree on certain aspects.

Also, I said nothing about scientists! I did not say there was anything wrong with scientists! I love the sciences and wish to be an engineer because it is a well paying career that allows me to apply science, a subject that I am extremely good at. I just realize that science and philosophy are different and that science can not answer why we are here because it can not prove we are here. The scientific philosophy is to a certain extent based on the assumption that the world is real even though such a thing can not be proven.

SEXUAL FREEDOM

What about your battle for sexual openess, polygamy, fluid sexuality and better sex? I support that particular battle most of all...

I also stated the benefits of homogenized morality. Homogenized morality improves society in many ways. It decreases conflict based on differing beliefs, it makes it easier to agree on certain policies, it makes people easier to motivate and encourage because they all agree on certain aspects.Homogenized morality provides a bigger potential for uniting a society against outsiders, and not just for justifiable reasons. It can serve to decrease tolerance for other systems of morality, even if they differ only very little.

Homogenized morality provides a bigger potential for uniting a society against outsiders, and not just for justifiable reasons. It can serve to decrease tolerance for other systems of morality, even if they differ only very little.
Well, society has a duty to defend itself from all threats, including outsiders. Tolerance for other systems of morality is not a necessity, all that is necessary is that the citizens of the state are taken care of based on how much they do for society.

Do you or don't you agree that, without restrictions put on them, most corporate entities will dump their toxins and what have you wherever is cheapest without regard for the environment? Because it's not hype that it's been done time and time again. Sure there are always extreemists talking up the bullcrap and makign things sound worse than they are but that is not to say that problems do not exist. And most scientists around teh world see global warming as a problem - it's not fixing of facts. YOu really don't believe theres an issue there? Even Bush said global warming is a problem.

Better safe than sorry anyway. Possible polluters should be stopped before they start. Health isn't everything but everything is nothing without health.
Some corps without restrictions will dump toxins. Not most. This Black hat & mustache view of corporate america is a big part of the problem. Most business owners don't want to do something that is destructive to the communities. That's exactly part of the hype I was talking about. Many companies still use steam/boiler head for production purposes here in the midwest. Not because of pressures & regulations but because it was a safe sensible way of doing business

As for global warming. I think it needs more investigation before we take any extreme actions.
Moving to safer cleaner fuels can be done in slower steps until we know exactly what kind of problem we are dealing with.Which is one of the few cases that I agree with the conservatives with. The widespread poverty extreme action would cause could be just as damaging as rash & extreme action. Everyone wants a clean earth.

When you demand extreme action you doom yourself to failure. Lets take a look at another example. in the early to mid 80's legislation was passed in the US moving us from the english measurment system to the metric system. It failed in the business community because nobody took into consideration the astronomical costs on business to retool all their machinery to comply. Billions of dollars would have to be spent on the effort & with the gov expecting the bus community to eat those costs & convert it became impossible for most Co's to comply.
So now we have a great divide between the Sci & bus community in America all because of an unrealistic demand. Most american engineers caught in the middle of this still need to learn the english system so they can comply with the needs of the sci community & the needs of the bus community.

The only better plan I can think of is simply improving the education system and giving out more need-based scholarship. I do not think very many people are opposed to either of those ideas(unless they are insanely afraid of taxes).

What about the non-quota portions of affirmative action?

What about having students from a college go and tutor at inner-city or predominantly minority schools in order to encourage them? What about schools recruiting heavily in poorer areas where they don't usually receive applications? What about businesses making sure that their employment opportunities are known in minority communities?

Affirmative action is not simply the quota-based systems that most of us can agree are nothing but institutionalized racism. It is not about giving a slot to a less qualified minority instead of a more qualified majority. In fact, such systems have been ruled unconstitutional time and time again. Much of affirmative action involves the types of actions I described above. The most extreme tend to fall along the lines of giving a tie-breaker to a minority.

Well, society has a duty to defend itself from all threats, including outsiders. Tolerance for other systems of morality is not a necessity, all that is necessary is that the citizens of the state are taken care of based on how much they do for society.Well, America happens to contain a lot of those systems of morality. With the adoption of one specific system, and making this what is taught in schools, it alienates members of society, making them outsiders, and if worst comes to worst, society will turn against the "rogue elements".

yes another like minded person - why cant everyone be like that

Well, America happens to contain a lot of those systems of morality. With the adoption of one specific system, and making this what is taught in schools, it alienates members of society, making them outsiders, and if worst comes to worst, society will turn against the "rogue elements".
Yeah I know. Why can't people just accept that under certain circumstances it is right to let the government decide because people inherently have no rights? I am tired of being indoctrinated with "constitutional freedom" and "unalienable rights" and of course "right to freedom of speech" why can't these people open their minds and realize that anti-democratic institutions have some really good ideas?

Yeah I know. Why can't people just accept that under certain circumstances it is right to let the government decide because people inherently have no rights? I am tired of being indoctrinated with "constitutional freedom" and "unalienable rights" and of course "right to freedom of speech" why can't these people open their minds and realize that anti-democratic institutions have some really good ideas?
Let's stop talking around the subject, cause I think we're missing eachother. I honestly have trouble understanding what exactly you're playing at.

What about the non-quota portions of affirmative action?

What about having students from a college go and tutor at inner-city or predominantly minority schools in order to encourage them? What about schools recruiting heavily in poorer areas where they don't usually receive applications? What about businesses making sure that their employment opportunities are known in minority communities?

Affirmative action is not simply the quota-based systems that most of us can agree are nothing but institutionalized racism. It is not about giving a slot to a less qualified minority instead of a more qualified majority. In fact, such systems have been ruled unconstitutional time and time again. Much of affirmative action involves the types of actions I described above. The most extreme tend to fall along the lines of giving a tie-breaker to a minority.
Well, I have nothing against trying to not discriminate or encourage low performers to get better. It is just that most people think of affirmative action as being more quota based or giving minorities points for being a minority. I even read that some colleges give more bonus to a student for being black than for having a 1600 SAT score. The problem is that it is not important what their minority status is(there are rich black people) but instead what their income is(how poor they are). I am more for opportunities to help the poor our regardless of ethnicity than to help out certain ethnic groups despite their background.

Well, I have nothing against trying to not discriminate or encourage low performers to get better. It is just that most people think of affirmative action as being more quota based or giving minorities points for being a minority. I even read that some colleges give more bonus to a student for being black than for having a 1600 SAT score. The problem is that it is not important what their minority status is(there are rich black people) but instead what their income is(how poor they are). I am more for opportunities to help the poor our regardless of ethnicity than to help out certain ethnic groups despite their background.
These ethnicities tend to be poorer than whites though, on average, so in a way, it is justified and based on their income.

Let's stop talking around the subject, cause I think we're missing eachother. I honestly have trouble understanding what exactly you're playing at.
I am saying that from birth we are taught to a certain extent that a certain doctrine is correct while other doctrines are wrong by nature. We are being taught to some extent common morality. That is why the government exalts freedom and patriotism, that is why we tend to see certain people and ideas as evil, we do not know if Allah will really give them 20 virgins for blowing up a bus. We do not know if gays were sent by the devil or even sent by God. We do not know if there is or isn't a good, we do not know if scientology is correct, we do not know if China was created by Zeus himself. We discriminate against ideas that we are opposed to in some way or another, we say that those ideas are by nature evil and wrong then we spout out our words of learning that say our ideas are correct. No one can be completely open minded or otherwise they would not be able to know if they were being controlled by satanic forces or if their hair was really candy in some form of special disguise. We need some way to filter out what is good and what is bad and common morality is a good way to do so, because it is not very thrilling to live in a society that you disagree with the actions of. The liberals hate the conservatives for bringing God into politics, the religious right says that God belongs every where and that the liberals are wrong to try to abolish him, the libertarians want to get rid of most government authority, others think that the idea is stupid. Ultimately, one side has to win and the others must be disenfranchised and the bad losers on that side will of course cause problems like protests and of course get in the way of societal will which according to many theories of thought is superior to individuals while others disagree.

Ultimately what I am trying to say is that unified morality makes society more efficient at doing what it desires to do rather than flip-flopping and trying to silence some pathetic minority of disagreers and that in order for a society to work at all there has to be some common place of agreement which does have to be enforced at the cost of open mindedness by the masses.

These ethnicities tend to be poorer than whites though, on average, so in a way, it is justified and based on their income.
Not exactly. There are poor people of just about every ethnicity. I do not see why the poor people of one ethnicity should be favored over the poor people of any other ethnicity or even that the rich people of an ethnicity should be favored over the poor people of another ethnicity. Besides, I do not think that ethnicity is holding back the minorities anyway. The asians are as successful if not more than caucasians yet they were a minority that was oppressed in the past.

<snip>
Ultimately what I am trying to say is that unified morality makes society more efficient at doing what it desires to do rather than flip-flopping and trying to silence some pathetic minority of disagreers and that in order for a society to work at all there has to be some common place of agreement which does have to be enforced at the cost of open mindedness by the masses.
Ah, but the mass of different moralities ensures a degree of freedom. It also prevents society from becoming too efficient. The Nazis had a very effecient society, by what you said. The Nazi political doctrine was based on making everyone believe the same thing, and shooting the rest.
"Freedom is only ever the freedom of the dissenter." -Rosa Luxemburg

Not exactly. There are poor people of just about every ethnicity. I do not see why the poor people of one ethnicity should be favored over the poor people of any other ethnicity or even that the rich people of an ethnicity should be favored over the poor people of another ethnicity. Besides, I do not think that ethnicity is holding back the minorities anyway. The asians are as successful if not more than caucasians yet they were a minority that was oppressed in the past.
The point is that some ethnicities are as a whole much poorer than others, for instance blacks and native americans tend to be much worse off than white anglo-saxon protestants. Of course there are poor people in every ethnicity, but if you put all of the money each ethnicity had and handed an equal amount out to each of its members, the blacks and native americans would have far less than WASPs.

Thunderstorms make for good nude frolicking. As for the rest, I'm not one to argue. I don't think there's a single damn thing wrong with any of the goals you, I, we, fight for. And I think there's all manner of wrong with fighting against those things, or fighting to forestall those things.

I'm thinking about that time-travel thread that's happening now, and the bitch of it is, while you can't really travel through time in that pop sci-fi way we've all heard about, you also can't hold back the clock.

Sooner or later, change will and must come. The trick is in not resisting it.
What is so wrong with frockling naked in a thunderstorm?
Three words: water conducts electricity.
:)

Ditto the rest of your post.

Schools do endorse the "no god" view. I go to a public school, and my school tells me that I came from apes who came from mud. The only god that they can endorse is the god of Chance. By endorsing evolution, schools support one view over all others. I would like it if schools taught the Bible, but it would probably be best if schools a) left the issue alone outside of theology class, or b) represented both sides fairly. The only way the creation side can get any representation is if a student speaks up. Let's face it: students believe what teachers tell them more than what other students tell them.
And as for morality, sure you don't do things that others will punish you for. But by bringing up morality, you imply that there is a moral law. A moral law requires a law giver. By saying that there is morality, you need a god to say what "moral" is. Otherwise morality is something that is relative, and relative morality doesn't do anything for you. (eg I steal your car, you want me to give it back because stealing a car is wrong, and I say "stealing may be wrong for you, but its ok for me.)

Schools do endorse the "no god" view. I go to a public school, and my school tells me that I came from apes who came from mud. The only god that they can endorse is the god of Chance.
I take it you weren't paying attention in biology class. (It's okay, I won't tell.) ;)

By endorsing evolution, schools support one view over all others. I would like it if schools taught the Bible, but it would probably be best if schools a) left the issue alone outside of theology class, or b) represented both sides fairly. The only way the creation side can get any representation is if a student speaks up. Let's face it: students believe what teachers tell them more than what other students tell them.
What you suggest is teaching religion in biology class. I wouldn't mind at all schools having classes that taught religion, but if a child of mine were learning biology, I would expect that class to teach biology, not religion. That's what I'd be paying them for.

I take it you weren't paying attention in biology class. (It's okay, I won't tell.) ;)


What you suggest is teaching religion in biology class. I wouldn't mind at all schools having classes that taught religion, but if a child of mine were learning biology, I would expect that class to teach biology, not religion. That's what I'd be paying them for.
I agree. Evolution isn't a religion and it doesn't disprove God. It does however have a scientific foundation, which a literal interpretation of the Bible does not.

Schools do endorse the "no god" view. I go to a public school, and my school tells me that I came from apes who came from mud. The only god that they can endorse is the god of Chance.This may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but evolution doesn't disprove religion, or go against it, or contradict it; they can peacefully co-exist.

Schools do endorse the "no god" view. I go to a public school, and my school tells me that I came from apes who came from mud.

We don't come from apes. We just have the same ancestors... :rolleyes:
Personally I do believe that this theory is right - and yet I'm religious. I admire God for having been clever enough to invent evolution ;) The Bible's version of creation is just a symbol and not to be taken word by word.

Well, I have nothing against trying to not discriminate or encourage low performers to get better. It is just that most people think of affirmative action as being more quota based or giving minorities points for being a minority. I even read that some colleges give more bonus to a student for being black than for having a 1600 SAT score.

As I pointed out, those sorts of programs have been struck down as unconstitutional again and again. They simply aren't used at this point.

The problem is that it is not important what their minority status is(there are rich black people) but instead what their income is(how poor they are). I am more for opportunities to help the poor our regardless of ethnicity than to help out certain ethnic groups despite their background.

This is true, and I absolutely agree that we should probably do these things more on an income basis (which would end up helping proportionally more minorities).

SEXUAL FREEDOM

What about your battle for sexual openess, polygamy, fluid sexuality and better sex? I support that particular battle most of all...


You're right. But that is why I left this topic open for others to ask why their most pressing issues are perceived as wrong by their opposition.

Plus I am not sure how to frame the question on this one.

Ah, but the mass of different moralities ensures a degree of freedom. It also prevents society from becoming too efficient. The Nazis had a very effecient society, by what you said. The Nazi political doctrine was based on making everyone believe the same thing, and shooting the rest.
"Freedom is only ever the freedom of the dissenter." -Rosa Luxemburg
Society should be efficient. What is wrong with efficiency? We want our computers to be efficient, we want our businesses to be efficient, we want ourselves to be efficient but society should be inefficient. That does not make sense, we need to make a more efficient world. I also do not promote freedom at the cost of efficiency.

As I pointed out, those sorts of programs have been struck down as unconstitutional again and again. They simply aren't used at this point.

This is true, and I absolutely agree that we should probably do these things more on an income basis (which would end up helping proportionally more minorities).
Well, my only beef is with discrimination not what race someone is. I do not really care about the black people, the white people, the green people or any other people because people is people and we should try to improve society.

Schools do endorse the "no god" view. I go to a public school, and my school tells me that I came from apes who came from mud. The only god that they can endorse is the god of Chance. By endorsing evolution, schools support one view over all others.
Evolution is taught in biology. You don't start going into non-scientific descriptions of evolution in a science class. And no, you are not ALLOWED to endorse a 'no god' view in schools. Trust me, I'm a teacher, and an atheist, and I can make my atheism known, but I can not teach it as truth.


Let's face it: students believe what teachers tell them more than what other students tell them.
Wow. You have a very high estimation of teachers. I'm flattered. Too bad you're wrong.

And as for morality, sure you don't do things that others will punish you for. But by bringing up morality, you imply that there is a moral law. A moral law requires a law giver. By saying that there is morality, you need a god to say what "moral" is. Otherwise morality is something that is relative, and relative morality doesn't do anything for you. (eg I steal your car, you want me to give it back because stealing a car is wrong, and I say "stealing may be wrong for you, but its ok for me.)
Morality is usually brought up in many classes. Social studies, literature...history. It's called philosophy, and it can be and is studied within the context of religion and outside of religion. Now, if you think that ONLY CHRISTIAN philosophy must be taught in schools, you're going to have to provide a more compelling argument. Religion IS studied in schools...again, from a historical and social viewpoint rather than a dogmatic one.

Morality is usually brought up in many classes. Social studies, literature...history. It's called philosophy, and it can be and is studied within the context of religion and outside of religion. Now, if you think that ONLY CHRISTIAN philosophy must be taught in schools...

It's also just the entire basis of schooling. Socrates (a non-Christian) began the first Academy, and it was all to do with philosophy, questions of morality, history - the 'humanities', in essence.

You follow in a fine tradition, Sinuhue.

It's also just the entire basis of schooling. Socrates (a non-Christian) began the first Academy, and it was all to do with philosophy, questions of morality, history - the 'humanities', in essence.


Which is why I'm completely mystified as to how this person could have missed it...considering a large chunk of the core subject address these issues!

Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?



1. Absolutely nothing. In fact, there's a damn sight RIGHT with it.

2. :rolleyes: Tsk, tsk, didn't you know those pesky masses should know their place? ;)

3. Nothing, again.

4. Nothing, unless it's overdone.

5. Nothing. If I ever (God forbid) have children, I can teach them about God myself thank you.

SEXUAL FREEDOM

What about your battle for sexual openess, polygamy, fluid sexuality and better sex? I support that particular battle most of all... Ooh, wouldn't really be able to agree on that one. Except for "fluid sexuality", since I'm not quite sure what that means…

Ooh, wouldn't really be able to agree on that one. Except for "fluid sexuality", since I'm not quite sure what that means…
As in, not being afraid to be neither completely hetero or homosexual, but rather allow yourself to naturally be attracted to whomever you are actually attracted to.

Was wird Jesus gemacht?

My view on these issues:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?
Nothing, however I don't think everywhere should be covered in forests either. There is a balance.

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?
Nothing as long as they aren't lazy and are actually trying to get out of poverty. If they aren't going to spend it on booze and are going to use the help to rehabilitate themselves I'm fine with it.


What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?
That depends on what type of animal it is and for what purpose it is being used. For example, go ahead and butcher cows, chickens, pigs etc...because they are bred to be food and ultimately will end up dieing anyway. I don't have a problem with hunting either, it's necessary sometimes. I start believing in animal rights when it comes to things like greyhound racing, that's cruel. Ultimately, like I said it depends on what the animals purpose is for and how extreme the cruelty is.


What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?
Nothing would be wrong with it if the minorities actually used the help and stopped feeling sorry for themselves. We've given them so many benefits over the past forty years and from what I have observed they haven't done much with it. If we offer them the help and they don't use it because they would rather mop around thinking about how the white man has "oppressed" him, which by the way most of us haven't, is that our fault? NO! Is it our fault that these minorities are poor? NO! It's not. Also if you think about giving them benefits is actually not equal. Being equal would mean that white people and minorities have equal advantages or no advantages at all. A black person being chosen over a white person to go to a college is racist. "Oh, but they're a minority so it isn't racist" Yeah it is you stupid asshole. Besides many times the reason people are poor is because of a decision they have mad themselves. If minorities should be given benefits in white communities, whites should be given benefits in minority communities. Also, you are assuming that all minorities are poor which in itself if being prejudice. Great job moron.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?
I don't believe in shoving it down people's throats but I don't believe in banishing anything slightly Christian because it's exposed to a religion that doesn't believe in it. Guess what? This country was founded by Christians, George Washington, Christian. To go a little farther ahead on the timeline, Abraham Lincoln, Christian. In fact, his Christian values helped him see what is so wrong with slavery. God and religion help a person have morale values, that’s not wrong. I think the taking the "Under God" line from the pledge of allegiance is the most retarded thing ever. It's been there for years, and besides God could also apply to Judaism also. Jews believe in God. The pledge of allegiance is an American icon and nobody should change it.

Ok, look at it this way:
What's so wrong with me wanting to keep morality in the world? Atheism gives no valid reason to have a morality at all.
What's so wrong with schools teaching real science as opposed to the speculations of some guy who bred finches? Science is observation of phenomena, evolution is a speculation about the past.
What's so wrong with being conservative?
What's so wrong with not accepting what my science teacher tells me when it could easily be disproved in a week?
What's so wrong with a healthy economy?
What's so wrong with not giving gay people the rights of marriage? If something is wrong, we can't allow people to do it. What would happen if we decided to tolerate mass murderers?

Look guys I SAID I was talking about moderate viewpoints. You do have a right to espouse your extreemist far right beliefs but really thats all they are is extreemist points of view. They aren't worth anything in an intelligent conversation because extreemists cannot be reasoned with - at least in my experience.

You can hate the poor and think they are lazy, and hate gays because they are immoral and that everyone should be Christian but I explained my views on this in th very first post so I'm not going to bother with you.

Except for this: As for the Pledge of allegiance, if you think it should never have been changed then yes "Under God" should have been taken out.

Do all the conservative Republicans on this board agree with the two posters above me? Is this what the Republican party really stands for?

I am moderate enough on most things. Yes, I think we should help the poor. Yes, I think we should help the environment. Yes I think that minorities should have a chance in the world. Its just that with some things, like the switch from Christian morality to post modernist morality really bothers me, and I want to stop it. I don't think that the poor are lazy, but I don't think that giving them money instead of giving them jobs is a good idea. If you can explain to me WHY my views are wrong, why we should do things that the "liberal" party wants instead of what the "conservative" party wants, that would be good. But what I have seen so far is a group of liberals saying that it would be nice to help the poor. Maybe it would be best to stay off of the "God out of schools" thing, because I agree that it will be impossible for me to reason on that. But for the other things, which I am moderate on, I think that you may find me as easy enough to reason with. Can we please agree to stay with the environment, economic policies, helping the poor/minorities, etc. and leave the questions of what schools should say about faith out? I believe that this could help reasonable debate out.

So why do we need to change to a liberal view?

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have? I'm supposing you don't pay Taxes do you? Living part time in Canada, I will tell you, Canada has plenty of jobs to spare, especially in BC, and when people decide that instead of taking these jobs, they'll wait for the government to pay them off, it costs people like myself quite a bit of money in taxes...(that's what you get being a double citizen!)

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible? You'd rather we do it on humans? Some animals DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED, like seagulls, or ocean seals, or other animals whose population is spinning wildly out of control.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land? Because they don't want our help, I don't believe that we should help unless they ask for it, and I am completely alright with them asking for it.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?
Ok, this is a big one for me, let me put it as simply as I can.

I deny God.
A very simple saying in itself, it brings up a very large point, if I am hearing about God on a daily basis, in a very religious way, (AKA, not that God is a belief, but that he exists), it would be like saying that the sky is orange, we can prove that the sky is blue, we CANNOT prove that god is real, we should teach FACTS in public school, and THEORIES should remain THEORIES when being taught.

I am moderate enough on most things. Yes, I think we should help the poor. Yes, I think we should help the environment. Yes I think that minorities should have a chance in the world. Its just that with some things, like the switch from Christian morality to post modernist morality really bothers me, and I want to stop it. I don't think that the poor are lazy, but I don't think that giving them money instead of giving them jobs is a good idea. If you can explain to me WHY my views are wrong, why we should do things that the "liberal" party wants instead of what the "conservative" party wants, that would be good. But what I have seen so far is a group of liberals saying that it would be nice to help the poor. Maybe it would be best to stay off of the "God out of schools" thing, because I agree that it will be impossible for me to reason on that. But for the other things, which I am moderate on, I think that you may find me as easy enough to reason with. Can we please agree to stay with the environment, economic policies, helping the poor/minorities, etc. and leave the questions of what schools should say about faith out? I believe that this could help reasonable debate out.

So why do we need to change to a liberal view?

well then - I can agree with you because I said in the first post that we shoudlnt give the poor money. I gave a long list of ways that we should help them though.

And also like I said - Christianity is not being banned from the US - if you want your kids to learn christianity in school then send them to a christian school. Public schools are just that, for the public who are not wholly christian and if muslims, hindus atheists and the like are paying taxes and dont want their kids beign brainwashed into believing one certain religion then that is the way it should be.

Thats why you have Christian schools. Thats why you have Churches. noone is being stopped from teaching their kids their personal religion. Noone is being stopped from praying in public on their own time or wearing their religious wear or symbols.

these are moderate views in my eyes. an extreemist view would be banishing religion.

I am not advocating anything extreemist. I am advocating moderation from both sides so we can come to an understanding and make compromises.

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have? I'm supposing you don't pay Taxes do you? Living part time in Canada, I will tell you, Canada has plenty of jobs to spare, especially in BC, and when people decide that instead of taking these jobs, they'll wait for the government to pay them off, it costs people like myself quite a bit of money in taxes...(that's what you get being a double citizen!)

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible? You'd rather we do it on humans? Some animals DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED, like seagulls, or ocean seals, or other animals whose population is spinning wildly out of control.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land? Because they don't want our help, I don't believe that we should help unless they ask for it, and I am completely alright with them asking for it.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?
Ok, this is a big one for me, let me put it as simply as I can.

I deny God.
A very simple saying in itself, it brings up a very large point, if I am hearing about God on a daily basis, in a very religious way, (AKA, not that God is a belief, but that he exists), it would be like saying that the sky is orange, we can prove that the sky is blue, we CANNOT prove that god is real, we should teach FACTS in public school, and THEORIES should remain THEORIES when being taught.

Yes I do pay taxes, why do you suppose I don't?
Also point out to me where I said we should give the poor money instead of jobs skills or education. I specifically said we shouldn't give them money.

As in, not being afraid to be neither completely hetero or homosexual, but rather allow yourself to naturally be attracted to whomever you are actually attracted to. Heh heh, my dog does that. But that's because he can't tell the difference between male and female… only blonde…

...you stupid asshole.
*snips*
Great job moron.
Niiiiiiiiiiice.

Niiiiiiiiiiice.

lol - my woman just finished reading this thread and got angry at that guy. she said "I'm gunna get him" lmfao!

It's nice that that is about the only flame and we're up to 7 pages so far though.

That's just 'cause you're lovely and everybody knows it. I start a thread, and it's 'man the trenches' time. I oughtta do more with my puppets, I tell ya.

But I'd end up missing the trolls, flames and sundry neofascist drivel. I know I would.

That's just 'cause you're lovely and everybody knows it. I start a thread, and it's 'man the trenches' time. I oughtta do more with my puppets, I tell ya.

But I'd end up missing the trolls, flames and sundry neofascist drivel. I know I would.


lol - I get the feeling that most people dont like me :P

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?

I think that the form you put your question into is misleading. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure that most conservatives would prefer a nice, clean environment. Anyone that comes to an intellectual (As opposed to a person that simply follows the Republicans blindly) position that would oppose government involvement in environmental matters has more nuance than that to their opinion. It's not the environment that is opposed, but government encroachment therein.

A lot of opposition comes from the government's sheer ineptitude at handling the environment. Any attempts at lobbying for enviromental policy change often goes unheard, and when it finally is, it can take years or decades for policy-makers to put the changes into effect. Even if the changes are put into place, those are diluted by compromises made because of political bickering. It's really more effective for people to encourage practical environmentalism to private citizens, and use market pressures (Boycotts, protests outside of factories, etc.) to persuade corporations to change. Granted, ten people with a dedicated cause won't get much done on that level, but a cause with only ten people is probably pretty fringe, anyhow.

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?

You phrase the question so as to seem that any conservative doesn't like other people. I speak for this question on behalf of those with more intellectual, not party-line, conservative views. Many conservatives do generalize the plight of poor people as one caused by laziness. While in many cases this is true, for many (Possibly, probably most cases) more, it is not, and this is where a thinking conservative can hit some mire.

Part of any good opposition to social welfare programs would have to do with, again, government ineptitude. Government programs often use five to ten percent of funds received just to pay for administrative costs. They're highly inefficient at finding, targeting, and helping people who need help. Private charity organizations have proved massively more efficient.

Another point against government welfare has to do with the age-old question of respect of private property rights. What if a person would rather not give to government welfare? It is true that a person would be more likely to spend the significant savings on a new TV, but it seems that enough people are fighting in the US for social welfare that there must be a vast majority of people who care enough about the poor people to do something, even if they're not forced to do so. It's fairly presumptuous of the government to tell people that they should give to the monopoly government charity even if they'd rather use that eighth of their income on another, more efficient program, or one with different aims. I personally would like to see my fellow citizens have the best life they could, but some don't want to do any work for it, so I'd rather give money to rehab and job-training programs that help people who want it, rather than freeloaders.

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?

Nothing, but that's something one should take up with the animal farms, rather than having the government force the farms to do it for one. Again, private protests are often more effective, faster, and more efficient than government coercion. I buy my meats from Whole Food stores, whose sources are organic farms. It's simple market pressures. If enough people did it, there'd be more market, and producers would want to produce more, because of corporate greed. Funny thing, that is.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?

Nothing, but it's your phrasing again. You seem to assume that there is rampant racism in our country. While there is some racism, schools and businesses recognize talent when they see it, regardless of race. Many employers have become colorblind because they want better workers, not necessarily white workers. I just got into a highly selective school recently, and I had to compete pretty vigorously against some very tough applicants. I noticed something on the interview day, though: The ones that got in were the smartest, and the ones with the best work ethic, and the ones that kept themselves up. Whites make up half the population of my new school.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?

Less than nothing. I would personally prefer that He be kept out of math and science entirely, for the sake of intellectual honesty. There is a legitimate place for discussion of God in few arenas: Religion and literature. My old school (A public high school) just introduced a new class that will teach the Bible as literature, and its role in history. I perfectly agree with that course in principle, and would have taken it, if not for extenuating social factors in my area that would completely pervert and distort it for that purpose. God has no place being forced at the point of the government's gun.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean?

I think that the form you put your question into is misleading. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure that most conservatives would prefer a nice, clean environment. Anyone that comes to an intellectual (As opposed to a person that simply follows the Republicans blindly) position that would oppose government involvement in environmental matters has more nuance than that to their opinion. It's not the environment that is opposed, but government encroachment therein.

A lot of opposition comes from the government's sheer ineptitude at handling the environment. Any attempts at lobbying for enviromental policy change often goes unheard, and when it finally is, it can take years or decades for policy-makers to put the changes into effect. Even if the changes are put into place, those are diluted by compromises made because of political bickering. It's really more effective for people to encourage practical environmentalism to private citizens, and use market pressures (Boycotts, protests outside of factories, etc.) to persuade corporations to change. Granted, ten people with a dedicated cause won't get much done on that level, but a cause with only ten people is probably pretty fringe, anyhow.

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have?

You phrase the question so as to seem that any conservative doesn't like other people. I speak for this question on behalf of those with more intellectual, not party-line, conservative views. Many conservatives do generalize the plight of poor people as one caused by laziness. While in many cases this is true, for many (Possibly, probably most cases) more, it is not, and this is where a thinking conservative can hit some mire.

Part of any good opposition to social welfare programs would have to do with, again, government ineptitude. Government programs often use five to ten percent of funds received just to pay for administrative costs. They're highly inefficient at finding, targeting, and helping people who need help. Private charity organizations have proved massively more efficient.

Another point against government welfare has to do with the age-old question of respect of private property rights. What if a person would rather not give to government welfare? It is true that a person would be more likely to spend the significant savings on a new TV, but it seems that enough people are fighting in the US for social welfare that there must be a vast majority of people who care enough about the poor people to do something, even if they're not forced to do so. It's fairly presumptuous of the government to tell people that they should give to the monopoly government charity even if they'd rather use that eighth of their income on another, more efficient program, or one with different aims. I personally would like to see my fellow citizens have the best life they could, but some don't want to do any work for it, so I'd rather give money to rehab and job-training programs that help people who want it, rather than freeloaders.

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible?

Nothing, but that's something one should take up with the animal farms, rather than having the government force the farms to do it for one. Again, private protests are often more effective, faster, and more efficient than government coercion. I buy my meats from Whole Food stores, whose sources are organic farms. It's simple market pressures. If enough people did it, there'd be more market, and producers would want to produce more, because of corporate greed. Funny thing, that is.

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land?

Nothing, but it's your phrasing again. You seem to assume that there is rampant racism in our country. While there is some racism, schools and businesses recognize talent when they see it, regardless of race. Many employers have become colorblind because they want better workers, not necessarily white workers. I just got into a highly selective school recently, and I had to compete pretty vigorously against some very tough applicants. I noticed something on the interview day, though: The ones that got in were the smartest, and the ones with the best work ethic, and the ones that kept themselves up. Whites make up half the population of my new school.

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools?

Less than nothing. I would personally prefer that He be kept out of math and science entirely, for the sake of intellectual honesty. There is a legitimate place for discussion of God in few arenas: Religion and literature. My old school (A public high school) just introduced a new class that will teach the Bible as literature, and its role in history. I perfectly agree with that course in principle, and would have taken it, if not for extenuating social factors in my area that would completely pervert and distort it for that purpose. God has no place being forced at the point of the government's gun.

Great first post my friend and great answers. Although I didn't mean to frame the questions in a misleading way. I am simply just not as adept as writing as you are. I also tried my best to add qualifiers to my questions to make sure people knew where I was coming from and that I wasn't generalizing the entire population of conservatives, but only the many here on NationStates that I felt were expressing extreemist points of view and I only hoped to find out if the majority of Conservatives on this board were against what I was proposing or if I was just mistaken. Honestly i am trying to find a middle gound. Compromise is an important goal in my book or else we shall remain divided and shouting extreeme views at each other because noone wants to come up with solutions together.

Environment: You may hold the general American public to a higher standard than I do. I think that if a corporation has a nifty ad campaign and cheap prices, most people won't care whose polluting what and most corporations will do whats needed to make the most money regardless of of whos river or air gets taineted with what toxic substance. I could be wrong but thats what it seems like to me and I think we need to have rules and HEAVY FINES in place that will keep these businesses from even considering it so that disposing of waste in an environmentally safe manner is cheaper in the long run.

Welfare: I think that people shouldn't have to put their taxes into welfare if they don't wish to. Perhaps just letting charities take care of it all would be best, I honestly don't know. I think that people should be able to decide what percentage of their taxes go to what expenses. I'd personally give 1% or less to the defense department and the rest would go to education, health and welfare (Theres probably more but I can't think of anythign right now). I also explained in my first post that I would want to give people job training, education, food and maybe vouchers to help pay rent (though I would hope that these would be a bitch to get) but NO money.

Animal cruelty: I am not so sure that I agree that private protest will do much in the face of multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Not so sure what else to say here. I guess I'm just a softy and can't stand to see animal suffering. You are new here I imagine, stick around and you will see that even if a friendly thread about vegetarian recipes come up, they will get flamed over and over and called hypocrits, idiots and all kinds of other names even if they haven't said anythign about why they are vegetarian or anythign about animal cruelty.

Affirmative Action: There isn't rampant racism in this country? Even as a white guy I see it all the time. Anyway, I did phrase that question poorly. I clarified later in the thread and explained that I think it's more a case of classism rather than racism. Also I am not for affirmative action in a sense that there should be racial quotas. I thought I did made that clear.

Govt. religion: *high five*

Atheism gives no valid reason to have a morality at all.
Ever heard of Game Theory?

What's so wrong with not accepting what my science teacher tells me when it could easily be disproved in a week?
Actually, the idea is that you are encouraged to try and disprove it. Chances are you can't, but unlike with Religion, no one is actually asking you to be unquestioning accepting of the absolute truth.

What's so wrong with a healthy economy?
What is so great about it if it doesn't benefit you?
Seriously, whether or not the economy is doing well, does it really matter to your private life? Unless you're unemployed...

Okay here is a thread for us to ask our opposers :p (sorry just having fun with words, I dont mean it) why they oppose the things we fight for politically. This thread is for all people from all parts of the political/religious/farming spectrum to ask/answer. I am looking for intelligent discussion here, so please don't even reposnd to those that come in here flaming/trolling/flaimbaiting. I look forward to trying to answer questions from conservatives too, but I'm a dumbasss so I would like you other liberals to help me out. :D

A few questions I want to ask are:

What is so wrong with wanting to keep our environment clean? (This is the one I get the least. Why is it a problem for some conservatives when some people want to limit the amount of pollution that corporations put into our environment? *btw i am not generalizing, or am trying not to, because when I ask these questions it is aimed at the people who usually seem to oppose these things although I know not all people from these groups do so*)

What is so wrong with wanting to help our fellow citizens have the best life they can have? (Again, it seems that many conservatives think all poor peopel are lazy. This is surely not the case most of the time. Let's use my mom as an example. She is a very hard working woman, and when I was growing up she worked two jobs if they were available. My father left her and stole everything he could when i was about 1 year old. She still works her ass off and is about as poor as can be. She saves what she can but it's not really much. This is the rule and not this exception as I grew up in quite a few poor communities. When you hear some conservatives talk, it sounds as if they think liberals and democrats *who are not liberal in mine eyes* just want to tax all the rich and buy all poor people mansions. Personally I just want to see disadvantaged people get help. I don't think they should get money directly though... I think they should get counseling, job training, debt management, education, food and stuff like that)

What is so wrong with wanting animal farms to treat animals as humanely as possible? (I'm not talking about PETA so don't even go there. I think that the radicals who fight for animal rights are nutjobs too. I'm not talking about treating animals like they have the right to vote. In all my my questions please consider that I am taking a modersate standpoint on these issues and asnwer accordingly. I am not trying to defend extreemism and most liberals don't defend it either. For this question I am talking cruelty to animals such as keeping animals pent up in cages and never allowing them to move and things like that.)

What is so wrong with wanting to give minorities a better chance at succeeding in our predominantly white land? (Whether you want to believe it or not, minorities aren't given a fair shake at things. Yes I agree that affirmative action is not perfect, but I think it's on the right track and if we all work together maybe we can come up with better solutins instead of ripping each others throats out over this.)

What is so wrong with wanting to keep God out of government/public schools? (I know there is a lot of contention over this. There are many viewpoints to consider and debating probably isn't going to change anyones mind but I am just looking for a moderate explanation on this, not... "OMFG the liberals are trying to destroy Christianity and stop people from practicing their faith". I don't give a damn if the president is religious and says a prayer before every press conference. I dont care if kids have their own special little clubs or prayer groups in public schools. Ijust dont want the President leading the whole nation in a prayer. I don't want the priciple having prayer time for the whole school. We, who are exercising our religious freedom in America, are not paying taxes so schools can spread Christian beliefs to our Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Pink Unicornies kids. Is that really so hard to understand? noone is trying to banish christianity from America. we just want it kept where it belongs - in private schools, homes and churches. Pray in public and wear your religious symbols whereever you want but stop trying to make this a theocracy and stop trying to force your beliefs on those of us who don't wish to believe as you do.)

I'll stop there because I want to go outside and play in the thunderstorm that is rattling my windows at the moment.

It seems liberal minded people get attacked as being brainless for having compassion for other people/animals/ecosystems... I know Conservatives get ruthlessly attacked for being heartless for their stance on things too so this is yoru chance to try to get some understanding. ASk us what is so wrong with whatever you are trying to accomplish.

I can understand that you would disagree with the way it is being dealt with. i bet if you stopped to listen to what a lot of liberals really had to say on this issue, you would see that many don't quite agree with all the tactics their party (or what have you) are using to fight these causes.

I'm guessing many conservatives don't fully agree with the way their party and whatnot are handling issues too right? I for one can fall behind some of the ideals conservatives are trying to foster, but oppose the way they are going about pursuing those goals (i.e Saddam, The War on Terror, Violent crime, drug abuse...).

Perhaps it is because we have a group of people with the same ideals and somewhat-similar ideas close to our on how to solve a problem and if we don't stand behind them then the chance of those goals being met become weakened so we fight diligently to defend things we really arent fully behind at our deepest core. What do you think?

btw - sorry about poor spelling/grammar/typos/nonsense/misrepresentation of your beliefs. - I suck. :fluffle:

It's not the ideals. Nobody can argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce pollution, or improve the general quality of life for everyone.

It's your methods.

Most Older conservatives used to be very "Liberal" (even by today's standards) until they saw the unintended consequences of the shallow, quick-fix mentality that attempts to get it all done, right now, the same way, without regard for consequences.

Most of the problems you've listed are not problems that can be addressed by hurling legislation and money at them-but legislation and money are the only tools besides raw, naked, abusive force the Government has to offer.

Dealing with government outside of the classroom is a different proposition than in the laboratory-clean-environment of a think-tank, or Poly-sci building (or here on Nationstates!). Why? because people are fallible, and governments are made of people. (as are corporations, though one could argue both are soulless entities.)

Regulations meant to defend the environment tend to wind up negatively impacting those unable to afford to pay off fines or pay for compliant equipment, for instance-this in turn creates externalities that radically favour the largest businesses and corporations at the expense of potential competitors that might otherwise have kept them honest in their dealings. As attempts to correct this are put in place, the confusing morass of regulations, set-asides, conflicting antitrust laws, and tax-beaurocracies simply serve to act as additional shielding for the most ruthless and corrupt organizations. Clearly, on the Environment, one size does not fit all... but Government has to comply with the method known as "Equal Protection" under the law-it can't outlaw or regulate a single business entity without applying those same regs to every other entity without violating its own operating principles.
In the case of OSHA, this comes to the point of micromanagement that does more harm than good. In the case of the EPA, it creates a situation where a polluter can be compliant to the law, and still dump things that would scare the hell out of you if you saw how much you were drinking into the environment.

On the subject of Affirmitive Action: How do you do this without creating a negative environment, how do you enforce it without quotas, while adhering to equal-protection? In theory, it works one way-but "token" positioning, and min/maxing by high-placed bigots (most of whom are terrified of being labeled such in today's society) pretty much turns what should be a genuine improvement effort into a system of patronage and minimum-compliance that keeps your minorities at the fringes.
Further, by introducing the idea of it as LAW, it is taken out of its rightful place as "Morality". Law does not equal moral, but those who lack morality can claim that they are being moral by being law-abiding.

Welfare... Welfare is charity. to a certain extent in any civilized society, you have to have some form of charity in operation, but don't fool yourself into thinking it won't be abused. It is, both by recipients (less often) and by those whose careers are based on it (much, much, more often.) With the power of the LAW behind it, this form of charity takes on a whole new dimension-the ability to compel contribution by force and threat of death (taxation and redistribution) without any sort of guarantee that the system is doing or performing as advertised. even very careful oversight fails here. The larger and more complicated you make your "Civil Service" the more un-civil and non-service it becomes. There is no motivation on Social Workers to actually provide more than token assistance in exchange for more money than many of the people paying into their coffers see in a year.


Government Expansion:

With our "Civil Servants" unionized, it's impossible to fire them, or to demand results of any sort from them. Complaints about bad service tend to result not in punishment for the Beaurocrat, but in the complainant being labeled a troublemaker. I have experienced this, I know others that have experienced this, 'tis not hyperbole, 'tis a fact of life.
The more control you hand in to the Government, the more it wants, and the less it does of benefit. Some of this is pure arrogance on the part of those anointed few whose paycheck comes from the city, state, or federal level, and some of it is purely a function of friction-the more you ask of them, the more they have to keep track of, and the more they have to keep track of, like anyone, the less effective they are.

What works for nine million Swedes in Sweden probably won't work for three hundered million Americans of various races, native languages, economic, political, and religious backgrounds, spread out across an area from the southern tip of Texas to the northern coast of Alaska.

gun-laws that may be common sense in central Chicago are stupid if you live somewhere like Southern Colorado, land-use regs that fit fine in Maryland are suicidal in central Utah, etc. etc... yet Liberals tend to want to impose single-user solutions to local problems nationwide. Imagine living in an area with less than 3% black or hispanic, trying to comply with a Nationally-mandated 11% black or hispanic component in your company...in order to remain in business.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Flip side: imagine running an outfit in border-south New Mexico where your local population is 80% Latino, but you have to hire proportionally to the national average to retain your contracts: Where are you planning to get that 60% anglo component?

Drop out rates for Minorities in State-run universities ought to be a scandal. They average much higher than Asians or Anglos under the same conditions. University graduation is critical to obtaining high-paying positions in businesses. University tends to be a place filled with left-leaning and liberal ideas. It simply is-likely because the environment appeals to left-leanning people as a career choice. Why are minority students doing less well in that environment? Well... they also tend to drop out of high School much more often, and with Affirmitive Action set-asides, tend to have an easier time getting in (proportionally). When you put someone who really can't do the work into a classroom, they're going to fail. But why can't they? I don't know many Minorities that are of below-average intelligence (any, as a matter of fact-outside the special-ed classes in grade school...) It's not 'oppression', it's "Culture". If your peer-group looks down on educational achievement, values educational and legitimate success less, you're not going to be as prepared to succeed in an environment that demands such things as a prerequisitite for success. The 'Gangsta Culture' of the innner Cities has done more harm to the Black community than all the hate-groups you can name.

Like it or not, English is the language of business in the United STates. Fluency is critical to upward mobility. Those that choose to ignore this, are putting millions of their fellow americans into a bad situation (because it's easy to believe a lie that tells you it's someone else's fault.) There is no need for a legally-mandated language, but there is likewise no need to coddle someone who can't be bothered to learn the language used by 99% of the people around them. Europe can afford it, because europe is made of several hundered different countries. the U.S. is, like it or not, a monocultural environment where the better parts are absorbed and incorporated and the baggage is best left at the door.
(this is also how Indian immigrants of the Hindu Faith and Pakistani immigrants of the Islamic faith can live on the same street without shooting at one another. or Bosnian Americans and Serbian Americans can live together in the same building without waging a local war.)
Assimilation is the key to what domestic tranquility we enjoy.

On Feminism:

Equal Pay for Equal Work is fine. I agree with this in principle. In application, she'd better be working the same hours, at the same pace, that I am, if she wants the same pay. MOST "Conservatives" would agree with this.
There are, of course, the Fred Phelps of the world...just as there are in any nation on earth. Such men are unworthy of notice and only gain power through their infamy.

On Secularism:

This one is overplayed and often used as a straw-man by both sides. It's an obnoxious argument best left to the Fallwellites and Phelpsian whiners, and their dedicated detractors on the left. There are limits, however. When a piece of land is Federalized, and it has a cross put up as a memorial, you leave the damn thing alone.

It's not the ideals. Nobody can argue that we shouldn't be trying to reduce pollution, or improve the general quality of life for everyone.

It's your methods.

Most Older conservatives used to be very "Liberal" (even by today's standards) until they saw the unintended consequences of the shallow, quick-fix mentality that attempts to get it all done, right now, the same way, without regard for consequences.

Most of the problems you've listed are not problems that can be addressed by hurling legislation and money at them-but legislation and money are the only tools besides raw, naked, abusive force the Government has to offer.

Dealing with government outside of the classroom is a different proposition than in the laboratory-clean-environment of a think-tank, or Poly-sci building (or here on Nationstates!). Why? because people are fallible, and governments are made of people. (as are corporations, though one could argue both are soulless entities.)

Regulations meant to defend the environment tend to wind up negatively impacting those unable to afford to pay off fines or pay for compliant equipment, for instance-this in turn creates externalities that radically favour the largest businesses and corporations at the expense of potential competitors that might otherwise have kept them honest in their dealings. As attempts to correct this are put in place, the confusing morass of regulations, set-asides, conflicting antitrust laws, and tax-beaurocracies simply serve to act as additional shielding for the most ruthless and corrupt organizations. Clearly, on the Environment, one size does not fit all... but Government has to comply with the method known as "Equal Protection" under the law-it can't outlaw or regulate a single business entity without applying those same regs to every other entity without violating its own operating principles.
In the case of OSHA, this comes to the point of micromanagement that does more harm than good. In the case of the EPA, it creates a situation where a polluter can be compliant to the law, and still dump things that would scare the hell out of you if you saw how much you were drinking into the environment.

On the subject of Affirmitive Action: How do you do this without creating a negative environment, how do you enforce it without quotas, while adhering to equal-protection? In theory, it works one way-but "token" positioning, and min/maxing by high-placed bigots (most of whom are terrified of being labeled such in today's society) pretty much turns what should be a genuine improvement effort into a system of patronage and minimum-compliance that keeps your minorities at the fringes.
Further, by introducing the idea of it as LAW, it is taken out of its rightful place as "Morality". Law does not equal moral, but those who lack morality can claim that they are being moral by being law-abiding.

Welfare... Welfare is charity. to a certain extent in any civilized society, you have to have some form of charity in operation, but don't fool yourself into thinking it won't be abused. It is, both by recipients (less often) and by those whose careers are based on it (much, much, more often.) With the power of the LAW behind it, this form of charity takes on a whole new dimension-the ability to compel contribution by force and threat of death (taxation and redistribution) without any sort of guarantee that the system is doing or performing as advertised. even very careful oversight fails here. The larger and more complicated you make your "Civil Service" the more un-civil and non-service it becomes. There is no motivation on Social Workers to actually provide more than token assistance in exchange for more money than many of the people paying into their coffers see in a year.


Government Expansion:

With our "Civil Servants" unionized, it's impossible to fire them, or to demand results of any sort from them. Complaints about bad service tend to result not in punishment for the Beaurocrat, but in the complainant being labeled a troublemaker. I have experienced this, I know others that have experienced this, 'tis not hyperbole, 'tis a fact of life.
The more control you hand in to the Government, the more it wants, and the less it does of benefit. Some of this is pure arrogance on the part of those anointed few whose paycheck comes from the city, state, or federal level, and some of it is purely a function of friction-the more you ask of them, the more they have to keep track of, and the more they have to keep track of, like anyone, the less effective they are.

What works for nine million Swedes in Sweden probably won't work for three hundered million Americans of various races, native languages, economic, political, and religious backgrounds, spread out across an area from the southern tip of Texas to the northern coast of Alaska.

gun-laws that may be common sense in central Chicago are stupid if you live somewhere like Southern Colorado, land-use regs that fit fine in Maryland are suicidal in central Utah, etc. etc... yet Liberals tend to want to impose single-user solutions to local problems nationwide. Imagine living in an area with less than 3% black or hispanic, trying to comply with a Nationally-mandated 11% black or hispanic component in your company...in order to remain in business.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Flip side: imagine running an outfit in border-south New Mexico where your local population is 80% Latino, but you have to hire proportionally to the national average to retain your contracts: Where are you planning to get that 60% anglo component?

Drop out rates for Minorities in State-run universities ought to be a scandal. They average much higher than Asians or Anglos under the same conditions. University graduation is critical to obtaining high-paying positions in businesses. University tends to be a place filled with left-leaning and liberal ideas. It simply is-likely because the environment appeals to left-leanning people as a career choice. Why are minority students doing less well in that environment? Well... they also tend to drop out of high School much more often, and with Affirmitive Action set-asides, tend to have an easier time getting in (proportionally). When you put someone who really can't do the work into a classroom, they're going to fail. But why can't they? I don't know many Minorities that are of below-average intelligence (any, as a matter of fact-outside the special-ed classes in grade school...) It's not 'oppression', it's "Culture". If your peer-group looks down on educational achievement, values educational and legitimate success less, you're not going to be as prepared to succeed in an environment that demands such things as a prerequisitite for success. The 'Gangsta Culture' of the innner Cities has done more harm to the Black community than all the hate-groups you can name.

Like it or not, English is the language of business in the United STates. Fluency is critical to upward mobility. Those that choose to ignore this, are putting millions of their fellow americans into a bad situation (because it's easy to believe a lie that tells you it's someone else's fault.) There is no need for a legally-mandated language, but there is likewise no need to coddle someone who can't be bothered to learn the language used by 99% of the people around them. Europe can afford it, because europe is made of several hundered different countries. the U.S. is, like it or not, a monocultural environment where the better parts are absorbed and incorporated and the baggage is best left at the door.
(this is also how Indian immigrants of the Hindu Faith and Pakistani immigrants of the Islamic faith can live on the same street without shooting at one another. or Bosnian Americans and Serbian Americans can live together in the same building without waging a local war.)
Assimilation is the key to what domestic tranquility we enjoy.

On Feminism:

Equal Pay for Equal Work is fine. I agree with this in principle. In application, she'd better be working the same hours, at the same pace, that I am, if she wants the same pay. MOST "Conservatives" would agree with this.
There are, of course, the Fred Phelps of the world...just as there are in any nation on earth. Such men are unworthy of notice and only gain power through their infamy.

On Secularism:

This one is overplayed and often used as a straw-man by both sides. It's an obnoxious argument best left to the Fallwellites and Phelpsian whiners, and their dedicated detractors on the left. There are limits, however. When a piece of land is Federalized, and it has a cross put up as a memorial, you leave the damn thing alone.


Thanks for the long, thoughtful detailed post. Now I must ask - did you read what I wrote after each question? And when you say "it's your methods" I'm guessing you mean "liberals", because they certainly aren't my personal methods - don't you think you are generalizing a bit? Do you think that all liberals agree with all the "liberal legislation" that has been passed? Do you agree with all conservative legislation that has been passed? You aren't critical of anything the conservatives do? I thought I made clear that I am trying to come to a compromise - I am NOT advocating extreemist liberal views or legislation.

I don't believe in charity, I believe in education, job skill training, food distribution too but I don't think anyone shoulg get money. I don't believe in quotas AT ALL but there are other aspects to affirmative action that are very good. Dempublicents points those things out in this thread.

Yes there are people that fight against these things but I wanted to see if it was teh majority of conservatives or just the extremist conservatives. What do you suggest be done about these issues if you are in favor of the ideals being fought for? YOu don't seem to believe the govt. can do anythign about it. Should there be no environmental protection laws? Should there be no laws that protect people based on race, age, disability, sexual orientation and whatnot? What do you propose?

Environment: You may hold the general American public to a higher standard than I do. I think that if a corporation has a nifty ad campaign and cheap prices, most people won't care whose polluting what and most corporations will do whats needed to make the most money regardless of of whos river or air gets taineted with what toxic substance. I could be wrong but thats what it seems like to me and I think we need to have rules and HEAVY FINES in place that will keep these businesses from even considering it so that disposing of waste in an environmentally safe manner is cheaper in the long run.


Many large corporations do have deep pockets that they can use to combat negative publicity, even if the opposition's claims are true. But really, their attention would be more on downplaying the outrage of their opponents, rather than a great ad campaign. A loud enough group of protesters, so long as they don't give themselves a bad name by freeing caged animals or other over-the-top protesting, can bring enough attention to the bad things that a company does to cause the company to voluntarily reverse its position.

A few months ago, PETA bought billboard space above (As I recall, correct me if I'm off) the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City. They used the ad space to place a large picture of the bleeding rear of an australian sheep to illustrate what they perceived as cruelty to the sheep. PETA, along with several other groups, protested this practice very loudly. Not long thereafter, Abercrombie and Fitch announced that they would not have any dealings with Australian wool companies that used this practice on their sheep. It only took a few months, there was not any comprimising of the principle for the sake of politics, and it was done completely voluntarily. This is just one example of the ability of protest not to government that worked far better than government protest ever could have.


Welfare: I think that people shouldn't have to put their taxes into welfare if they don't wish to. Perhaps just letting charities take care of it all would be best, I honestly don't know. I think that people should be able to decide what percentage of their taxes go to what expenses. I'd personally give 1% or less to the defense department and the rest would go to education, health and welfare (Theres probably more but I can't think of anythign right now). I also explained in my first post that I would want to give people job training, education, food and maybe vouchers to help pay rent (though I would hope that these would be a bitch to get) but NO money.

The idea is not so much choosing which government department to send your money to, but more of eliminating the unnecessary governmental departments altogether and allowing the private sector to take care of the problem efficiently. Many states have begun removing money from the welfare equation and have started simply using vouchers for rent and education to cover the expenses (To ward off Welfare Kings and Queens that use the money to milk the system and buy new Cadillacs). This step in the right direction has proved phenomenally successful for the states that have begun implementing this. However, the same government problems still exist: There is a massive administrative overhead that wastes money, and help still goes to people that are playing the system to their advantage at the taxpayers' detriment.

The Sixth Edition Cato Handbook on Policy gives statistics that show that states that:
1) Do not give out more benefits for having more children
2) Require unmarried mothers under 18 to live with a responsible adult
3) Tighten the definition of "Work" to mean something closer to having a job, as opposed to just looking for a job, for example
4) Use diversion techniques such as one-time help with debts to keep people off the welfare rolls to begin with
5) Set stricter time limits on how long benefits may be gotten
6) and more strictly enforce all existing and the above restrictions

All have experienced not just drastic drops in welfare rolls, but higher employment altogether and fewer people living in poverty of any kind. There are may ways that welfare programs can be helped, and in the end I hope that private organizations can take over. Right now, though, welfare needs serious reform before society can be able to handle the shock of government welfare elimination.


Animal cruelty: I am not so sure that I agree that private protest will do much in the face of multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Not so sure what else to say here. I guess I'm just a softy and can't stand to see animal suffering. You are new here I imagine, stick around and you will see that even if a friendly thread about vegetarian recipes come up, they will get flamed over and over and called hypocrits, idiots and all kinds of other names even if they haven't said anythign about why they are vegetarian or anythign about animal cruelty.

There is a lot of anti-vegetarian sentiment floating around, mostly brought on by more extremist types that break into companies to free animals. People respond better to peaceful protest, and it works. See the above example about Abercrombie and Fitch. Anecdotally, last school year, my girlfriend became a vegetarian for a few months to see how she liked it. In addition to health reasons, she loves animals and can't stand the thought of animal cruelty. She passed around stickers with various anti-cruelty slogans: "Pigs are friends, not food," and "Kentucky Fried Cruelty." I was skeptical at first, but it actually caught on, much to my amazement. Soon enough, people were sending out for their own rolls of stickers, one could see them everywhere, and not too few vegetarians and vegans tried to hit on my girlfriend. Protest works best when you impact people, not the government.


Affirmative Action: There isn't rampant racism in this country? Even as a white guy I see it all the time. Anyway, I did phrase that question poorly. I clarified later in the thread and explained that I think it's more a case of classism rather than racism. Also I am not for affirmative action in a sense that there should be racial quotas. I thought I did made that clear.


There is racism, I know; I live in the deep South. Firsthand, I see a lot of it, sometimes in my own home, and it sickens me. I can only hope that my generation and future generations slowly erase it on their own. But where it really matters, and in the only places that the government can really do anything about it, is in education and the workplace. In those places, it is far, far less pervasive. Schools and employers want talent, and many realize that talent supercedes race. Businesses that ignore talent because of bigotry are the first to fail, and people, even racists, realize that their pocketbooks are more important than their prejudices. Those that don't, don't survive.

Many large corporations do have deep pockets that they can use to combat negative publicity, even if the opposition's claims are true. But really, their attention would be more on downplaying the outrage of their opponents, rather than a great ad campaign. A loud enough group of protesters, so long as they don't give themselves a bad name by freeing caged animals or other over-the-top protesting, can bring enough attention to the bad things that a company does to cause the company to voluntarily reverse its position.

A few months ago, PETA bought billboard space above (As I recall, correct me if I'm off) the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City. They used the ad space to place a large picture of the bleeding rear of an australian sheep to illustrate what they perceived as cruelty to the sheep. PETA, along with several other groups, protested this practice very loudly. Not long thereafter, Abercrombie and Fitch announced that they would not have any dealings with Australian wool companies that used this practice on their sheep. It only took a few months, there was not any comprimising of the principle for the sake of politics, and it was done completely voluntarily. This is just one example of the ability of protest not to government that worked far better than government protest ever could have.

Wow PETA actually did something non-stupid? I'm not a fan and didn't know of that case. Good for them but personally I'd still feel better with laws making people think twice about how they treat animals and have legal recourse to take when they go against those rules. I'm not talking about going overboard, just stopping unnecessary cruelty in the name of profit.

The idea is not so much choosing which government department to send your money to, but more of eliminating the unnecessary governmental departments altogether and allowing the private sector to take care of the problem efficiently. Many states have begun removing money from the welfare equation and have started simply using vouchers for rent and education to cover the expenses (To ward off Welfare Kings and Queens that use the money to milk the system and buy new Cadillacs). This step in the right direction has proved phenomenally successful for the states that have begun implementing this. However, the same government problems still exist: There is a massive administrative overhead that wastes money, and help still goes to people that are playing the system to their advantage at the taxpayers' detriment.

The Sixth Edition Cato Handbook on Policy gives statistics that show that states that:
1) Do not give out more benefits for having more children
2) Require unmarried mothers under 18 to live with a responsible adult
3) Tighten the definition of "Work" to mean something closer to having a job, as opposed to just looking for a job, for example
4) Use diversion techniques such as one-time help with debts to keep people off the welfare rolls to begin with
5) Set stricter time limits on how long benefits may be gotten
6) and more strictly enforce all existing and the above restrictions

All have experienced not just drastic drops in welfare rolls, but higher employment altogether and fewer people living in poverty of any kind. There are may ways that welfare programs can be helped, and in the end I hope that private organizations can take over. Right now, though, welfare needs serious reform before society can be able to handle the shock of government welfare elimination.

Good points and I agree with all those measures. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Gah, almost nothing pisses me off more than poor people popping out several kids. I guess all we can do is push for ways to fix the things we see wrong with things and when problems arise with those fixes we refine them. Still I would like to decide what my taxes go into.


There is a lot of anti-vegetarian sentiment floating around, mostly brought on by more extremist types that break into companies to free animals. People respond better to peaceful protest, and it works. See the above example about Abercrombie and Fitch. Anecdotally, last school year, my girlfriend became a vegetarian for a few months to see how she liked it. In addition to health reasons, she loves animals and can't stand the thought of animal cruelty. She passed around stickers with various anti-cruelty slogans: "Pigs are friends, not food," and "Kentucky Fried Cruelty." I was skeptical at first, but it actually caught on, much to my amazement. Soon enough, people were sending out for their own rolls of stickers, one could see them everywhere, and not too few vegetarians and vegans tried to hit on my girlfriend. Protest works best when you impact people, not the government.

Yeah there are alwyas a few idiots ruiining it for the majority. :( That is kuhl that your gf did that. I'm not the type to try to get other people to go vegetarian just because I am though. I respect other peoples right to choose their own diet. But damn I get a lot of hell for being a vegetarian. Family, friends, strangers... it's a freakin nightmare.

There is racism, I know; I live in the deep South. Firsthand, I see a lot of it, sometimes in my own home, and it sickens me. I can only hope that my generation and future generations slowly erase it on their own. But where it really matters, and in the only places that the government can really do anything about it, is in education and the workplace. In those places, it is far, far less pervasive. Schools and employers want talent, and many realize that talent supercedes race. Businesses that ignore talent because of bigotry are the first to fail, and people, even racists, realize that their pocketbooks are more important than their prejudices. Those that don't, don't survive.

Yeah I agree that many, maybe even most employers want talent and will hire accordingly and I am not for quotas whatsoever. I am for helping the disadvantaged in other ways. Education is the key factor in my eyes.

It's nice to see a rational mind here. :)