NationStates Jolt Archive

Really people... Why is it that most left-wingers look at all conservatives as tyrannical, freedom-hating, war mongering authoritarians, and most conservatives look at all left-wingers as spineless, anti-moralistic, freedom-hating (Ain't it ironic?) cowards?

And why is it that both sides want to portray each side in the worst light possible?

Conservative: "Oh! Left-wingers are evil because they want our children to die before birth! And they want to screw with human nature with cloning! And they have no morals what-so-ever!"

Left-wingers don't want our children to die. They want choice. And they don't want to screw with human nature. They want to cure diseases. And morals are relative.

Left-wingers: "Oh! Conservatives hate giving freedom! And they want people to be able to shoot each other! And they want to make us into a police state!"

Conservatives don't hate freedom. They're just following what they think is right. They don't want us to be able to massacre each other. They want us to be able to defend ourselves and have freedom. They don't want to turn us into a police state. They want to keep us safe.

Really, can't we just all get along? And look past the stereotype of left-wingers and conservatives and look at people as people, not as a certain political wing, party, or group?

bit early for Christmas cheer?

And people hate people so what deep down the love is there:)

short answer: No
Long answer: Hell No

What? You were expecting maybe a Libertarian?

Really people... Why is it that most liberals look at all conservatives as tyrannical, freedom-hating, war mongering authoritarians, and most conservatives look at all liberals as spineless, anti-moralistic, freedom-hating (Ain't it ironic?) cowards?


Because they are.

So what you’re saying is people are ultimately good and we should get along and be happy?

I like you. :)

I'm liberal and I'm against abortion and cloning both. does that mean I'm not a liberal, just a person with liberal tendencies?

Fat chance. The right first deserves one mother of a comeuppance before anyone should be talking reconciliation.

No. I refuse to get along with authoritarians, bigots, and imperialists.

Not that I won't get along with them, if they're nice enough... but I'll feel guilty about it.

liberal =/= left wing

bit early for Christmas cheer?

Careful, around here. It's X'Mas cheers. We don't ever intend to be of forced uniform faith.

Really, can't we just all get along? And look past the stereotype of liberals and conservatives and look at people as people, not as a certain political wing, party, or group?Not right now. Talk to me in a month or so.

Careful, around here. It's X'Mas cheers. We don't ever intend to be of forced uniform faith.

lets just call it yuletide.

Careful, around here. It's X'Mas cheers. We don't ever intend to be of forced uniform faith.

Meh, the Christians are doing a beautiful job themselves at destroying christmas, what with all their pagan rituals, not knowing that Jesus was not actually his name, and not knowing what the "Star of Bethlehem" actually referred to, and so much more.

Here's to a great Yahushuamas.

I win all.

No. I refuse to get along with authoritarians, bigots, and imperialists.

Not that I won't get along with them, if they're nice enough... but I'll feel guilty about it.

hahaha...as you can see from my signature, I'm rather a leftist. my last room mates were a libertarian capitalist and an arch-republican. it's strange, I went to a tiny, conservative school and I got along great with the one guy so conservative even the rest of the school disliked him. ironic the most liberal and most conservative people in the whole place were friends.

the whole political system is just conducive to dehumanisation. it's frustrating. I second the spirit of this post - in complete recognition it will never actually happen.

what with all their pagan rituals

shh. we pagans appriciate the pagan rituals. don't alert them - soon the gay agenda will be met and the entire world will descend into eternal woodstock. you must not foil our plot!

never.

Remove powers from ALL radicals...BOOM...problem solved ;)

liberal =/= left wing

It depends. Here in the States, liberal generally means left-wing (although the mainstream American "left" is really more centrist.) European liberals sure aren't left-wing.

It depends. Here in the States, liberal generally means left-wing (although the mainstream American "left" is really more centrist.) European liberals sure aren't left-wing.

Well right now I'm referring to "here in the states".

Left-Wing/Right-Wing... Can't we all just get along?
NO!

It depends. Here in the States, liberal generally means left-wing (although the mainstream American "left" is really more centrist.) European liberals sure aren't left-wing.

thank you! when I hear people like kerry being called "liberal" it blows my little anarcho-syndicalist mind.

liberal =/= left wing

you're right! in canada, the Liberal Party is actually centrist, where the New Democratic Party is leftist.

Really people... Why is it that most liberals look at all conservatives as tyrannical, freedom-hating, war mongering authoritarians, and most conservatives look at all liberals as spineless, anti-moralistic, freedom-hating (Ain't it ironic?) cowards?Because when you have two virtually identical fascistoid parties competing only against eachother, they can't really attack eachothers policies without attacking themselves. That's why you end up with mudslinging & piss poor, but surprisingly effective propaganda.

And no, US Liberals are no more left-wing than I'm an evangelical wannabe-terrorist.

Because they are.

hear hear

Fine... It's edited to appeal to all your sensibilites.

thank you! when I hear people like kerry being called "liberal" it blows my little anarcho-syndicalist mind.

That's because anarcho-syndicalism is so out of the mainstream that it is generally considered to be irrelevant to most American politics.

Really people... Why is it that most liberals look at all conservatives as tyrannical, freedom-hating, war mongering authoritarians, and most conservatives look at all liberals as spineless, anti-moralistic, freedom-hating (Ain't it ironic?) cowards?

And why is it that both sides want to portray each side in the worst light possible?

Conservative: "Oh! Liberals are evil because they want our children to die before birth! And they want to screw with human nature with cloning! And they have no morals what-so-ever!"

Liberals don't want our children to die. They want choice. And they don't want to screw with human nature. They want to cure diseases. And morals are relative.

Liberal: "Oh! Conservatives hate giving freedom! And they want people to be able to shoot each other! And they want to make us into a police state!"

Conservatives don't hate freedom. They're just following what they think is right. They don't want us to be able to massacre each other. They want us to be able to defend ourselves and have freedom. They don't want to turn us into a police state. They want to keep us safe.

Really, can't we just all get along? And look past the stereotype of liberals and conservatives and look at people as people, not as a certain political wing, party, or group?

Neither party defends freedom. They just take away different ones.

Liberals- $$$, guns, religious expression
Conservatives- poor people's rights, :fluffle: rights, and the opposing religious views

No. I refuse to get along with authoritarians, bigots, and imperialists.

Not that I won't get along with them, if they're nice enough... but I'll feel guilty about it.

This confuses me. Why would you ever feel guilty about being nice to someone, and what does politics have to do with your relationships with other human beings?

Most people that support conservative politicians don’t even really understand the whole situation anyway. I don’t hold stupidity against people.

I'm not a conservative (libertarian actually), but it will be a very cold day indeed when I'm at all inclined for reconciliation and cooperation with leftists. Conservatives don't bother me nearly as much, most of the time.

I'm not a conservative (libertarian actually), but it will be a very cold day indeed when I'm at all inclined for reconciliation and cooperation with leftists. Conservatives don't bother me nearly as much, most of the time.

which completely and utterly destroys any claim to libertarianism you pretend to. like, beyond all possible recovery.

which completely and utterly destroys any claim to libertarianism you pretend to. like, beyond all possible recovery.

Not really, no. I just find that both conservativism and liberalism both want to impose their own societal views through government. However, on economics, conservatives are slightly more free-market. Hence, more tolerable for my pallette. (Plus, there's my political compass score in my sig.)

Edit: Oh yeah, foreign policy too, which doesn't really fit easily into either the social or economic axis.

This confuses me. Why would you ever feel guilty about being nice to someone,

Basically, what I feel guilty about is not so much being nice to them in and of itself as it is my toleration of a casual attitude towards other people's suffering.

and what does politics have to do with your relationships with other human beings?

It isn't "politics" so much - I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me for good reasons - it's a lack of moral decency.

Most people that support conservative politicians don’t even really understand the whole situation anyway. I don’t hold stupidity against people.

I hold bigotry against them, though.

However, on economics, conservatives are slightly more free-market.


How so?


Hence, more tolerable for my pallette.


Why is this the key factor or consideration?

I'm more inclined to notice the historical tendency for various communist, socialist, and social democratic political movements to have been at the forefront of such movements as, for instance, the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s United States, demanding liberation of Japanese Canadians from concentration ("internment") camps in that state in the 1940s, etc. I disagree with their economic policy, but I also tend to think that my ability spend money doesn't really mean much if I'm in a political gulag. Thus, you'll notice that the "social libertarian/authoritarian" position in my own political compass score is far more pronounced than that of economics, seeing as how it is by far the more important issue.

But still, an honest question: why does money command such a strong influence?

The reason, of course, fool, is that it's all a huge and unbelievably cunning conspiracy set up by the far-left/right nutjobs since the dawn of time involving Israel, Anthrax, Mickey Mouse, the preserved brain of Abraham Lincoln, and the British. Stupid gullible lefty/righty Britishers!!!

Yay! I made a sentence in which "left" is inter-changeable with "right". Aren't I a peacemaker?

*This message has been brought to you by your resident cynical Britisher. If I could vote, I'd go for Official Monster Raving Loony*

How so?

They're not as eager to introduce new regulations and taxes, for one. (Though they do like subsidies and government spending quite a bit, which makes any difference rather small).

But still, an honest question: why does money command such a strong influence?

It's ultimately the only difference between them. One wants to impose one view of society through government, and the other wants to impose their view of society through government. Free individual action is suppressed by what the two groups desire to implement through government. However, one allows for slightly more free individual action through property rights than the other. Since I am all for free individual action, and in the aggregate one offers a bit more freedom than the other, I will go for the one that has a greater aggregate of freedom.

Remove powers from ALL radicals...BOOM...problem solved ;)

Define "radical".

I get along with pretty much everyone except Nazis and other racists. I have centrist friends, left-of-center friends, right-of-center friends, libertarian friends, socialist friends, communist friends, and even a few fascist (but not racist) leaning friends. Our debates get a little heated at times, but we all like and respect each other fine.

Since I am all for free individual action, and in the aggregate one offers a bit more freedom than the other, I will go for the one that has a greater aggregate of freedom.

the issue is that you've picked the completely and utterly wrong horse. and this is so obvious that it makes me doubt your claims of loving liberty at all.

edit: to fill this out a bit more, you'll find that in addition to regulating the fuck out of your beloved property rights every time they see a benefit to doing so, it's conservatives that uniformly line up behind some of the most horrendous anti-freedom proposals ever. and, in fact, they get pissy when their political leaders don't go far enough in attacking the darkies or torturing people for shits and giggles or whatever.

People are people so why should it be you and I shouldn't get along?

People are people so why should it be that you should hate me?





Because you're a fruity little bastard and you skip!

I'm not a conservative (libertarian actually), but it will be a very cold day indeed when I'm at all inclined for reconciliation and cooperation with leftists. Conservatives don't bother me nearly as much, most of the time.

Many libertarians are trying to reconcile their differences with the new left. It is very important that some movement grows that disrupts current mainstream politics which only entrenches the upper/upper-middle class more and more.

People are people so why should it be you and I shouldn't get along?

People are people so why should it be that you should hate me?





Because you're a fruity little bastard and you skip!

Oi oi I'll have you know that skipping is very, very manly!:D

Really people... Why is it that most left-wingers look at all conservatives as tyrannical, freedom-hating, war mongering authoritarians, and most conservatives look at all left-wingers as spineless, anti-moralistic, freedom-hating (Ain't it ironic?) cowards?

I guess they stereotpye for the same reason you just did - it's easier than looking at specifics.


And why is it that both sides want to portray each side in the worst light possible?

Demonization of the opponent is a common political tactic, always has been.

Conservative: "Oh! Left-wingers are evil because they want our children to die before birth! And they want to screw with human nature with cloning! And they have no morals what-so-ever!"

What about that is "conservative?" Looks like Republican.


Left-wingers: "Oh! Conservatives hate giving freedom! And they want people to be able to shoot each other! And they want to make us into a police state!"

What about that is "left-winger?"

Really, can't we just all get along? And look past the stereotype of left-wingers and conservatives and look at people as people, not as a certain political wing, party, or group?

The core problem is assuming there are only 2 groups. Conservatives and Liberals. These are assumed further to be the same groups as Republicans and Democrats. And Right Wing and Left Wing. Apparently each person in the entire world can now be categorized in one, or another, group - and that's it. Us vs Them. You're either us, or you're them.

And you wonder why no one can get along? No one is doing any critical thinking. It's just a big pissing contest.

I blame Football in highschool. It was always 1 team vs 1 other team. The other team was asshole druggie scumbags who suck. The home team is our beloved allstar heroes. Simplistic dichotomy taught from early age, ingrained in our culture, and now reflected in the political reality of the entire globe.

Oi oi I'll have you know that skipping is very, very manly!:D

Manly enough to become an interior decorater, yeah. =P

They're not as eager to introduce new regulations and taxes, for one. (Though they do like subsidies and government spending quite a bit, which makes any difference rather small).To this outsider, the Demopub/replicrat economic policies looks very, very similar. They're both opposed to free trade, both for massive industry subsidies, both for using military might to gain access to makets & resources, and both against taking measures to let national economic growth benefit the entire population.
One of them is slightly more reposnsible with spending & slightly less eager to keep the rich rich, but the difference is tiny, and it most definitely isn't an argument for voting against the more responsible closet-fascists.It's ultimately the only difference between them. One wants to impose one view of society through government, and the other wants to impose their view of society through government. Free individual action is suppressed by what the two groups desire to implement through government. However, one allows for slightly more free individual action through property rights than the other. Since I am all for free individual action, and in the aggregate one offers a bit more freedom than the other, I will go for the one that has a greater aggregate of freedom.Meaning... One wants to allow the have's to use their resources to oppress the have-not's just a tad more than the other, and wants to allow populist non-issues to overrule individual freedom just a tad more than the other...

Mate, if it's freedom you want, move to another country. The democrats are bad, the republicans are ever so slightly worse, and no-one else stands a chance.

To this outsider, the Demopub/replicrat economic policies looks very, very similar. They're both opposed to free trade, both for massive industry subsidies, both for using military might to gain access to makets & resources, and both against taking measures to let national economic growth benefit the entire population.
One of them is slightly more reposnsible with spending & slightly less eager to keep the rich rich, but the difference is tiny, and it most definitely isn't an argument for voting against the more responsible closet-fascists.Meaning... One wants to allow the have's to use their resources to oppress the have-not's just a tad more than the other, and wants to allow populist non-issues to overrule individual freedom just a tad more than the other...

Mate, if it's freedom you want, move to another country. The democrats are bad, the republicans are ever so slightly worse, and no-one else stands a chance.

I disagree. There is, very obviously, a slight difference between the two parties. But, like the average 1 degree the earth's temperature has risen over the last century, it has dramatic effects with such a slight change.

Compare eight years of Clinton to eight years of Bush. Compare the administrations they gathered for themselves. Compare the wars they've waged, and how effective they have or have not been. If you feel the need, you can even compare the number of scandals uncovered between the two - off the top of my head, I can be fairly certain that the ones from the Bush years have been more numerous and more devastating than Clinton's.

Comparing essentially everything, a little bit better here and there makes a huge difference.

And morals are relative.


No, they are not

Here's a demonstration as to why

"So," says the owner, "everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong."
"That is a very interesting perspective," says the thief. "I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want."
The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man's face because he is wearing a ski mask.
"Don't shoot me," says the owner. "Please take whatever you want and leave me alone."
"That is exactly what I plan to do," says the thief.
"Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice."
"That is very unfortunate for you," says the thief. "Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you."
"You cannot do that," says the owner.
"Why not?"
"Because it is not right," pleads the desperate man.
"But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?"
"Yes, but I have a family, children, that need me, and a wife."
"So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And since if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry , but that will not do."
"But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so."
"As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me. It's all relative. Remember?"
"Please do not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!"
"I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance."
"But it is true!" I swear I'll tell no one."
"Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise because it is all relative. There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative. Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word. I cannot trust you.
"But it is wrong to kill me. It isn't right!"
"It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself."
"No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you."
"Begging makes no difference."
.... Bang....

Left-wingers don't want our children to die. They want choice. And they don't want to screw with human nature. They want to cure diseases. And morals are relative.


choice is bad. people make bad choices.

No, they are not

Here's a demonstration as to why

Wait, morals are not relative, because I would prefer not to be shot?

Stupid story. Doesn't prove absolute morality in any way.

Wait, morals are not relative, because I would prefer not to be shot?

Stupid story. Doesn't prove absolute morality in any way.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that nobody wants to be shot, and most would feel bad if someone else was shot. That doesn't answer the whole "gay people are inheritely evil" "moral" thing at all, though, because nobody is getting hurt.

I'm liberal and I'm against abortion and cloning both. does that mean I'm not a liberal, just a person with liberal tendencies?
It means you hate freedom.

No, they are not

Here's a demonstration as to why

thats a dumb story and proves nothing.

personally i dont act worrying about morals and ethics. use the term "right" for anything i consider productive. "wrong" for counter productive.

thats a dumb story and proves nothing.

personally i dont act worrying about morals and ethics. use the term "right" for anything i consider productive. "wrong" for counter productive.

Depends what you are producing and whose expense its at. For example, would you sleep with another man's wife if you knew you could get away with it. After all its productive in terms of your pleasure, and no one gets hurt if no one finds out.

Depends what you are producing and whose expense its at. For example, would you sleep with another man's wife if you knew you could get away with it. After all its productive in terms of your pleasure, and no one gets hurt if no one finds out.

i dont take a slice out of someone eles cake.

Depends what you are producing and whose expense its at. For example, would you sleep with another man's wife if you knew you could get away with it. After all its productive in terms of your pleasure, and no one gets hurt if no one finds out.

Survival of the fittest, really. But my main concern with 'morals' isn't in the basic rights and wrongs, but with the specific dogma given to us by religion, such as "gay people go to hell", and "don't have long hair".

I disagree. There is, very obviously, a slight difference between the two parties. But, like the average 1 degree the earth's temperature has risen over the last century, it has dramatic effects with such a slight change.It's only a 0.4 (+/-0.2) deg C increase, but other than that, you're pretty much repeating what I wrote, so I'm having trouble spotting the "I disagree" bit?Comparing essentially everything, a little bit better here and there makes a huge difference.Depends on the yardstick. If we're comparing what party benefits the most Americans the most, then the difference is so slight that I simply can't see the real world effect.

The policy of both parties seems to be "consolidate all power & wealth. Disenfranchise the citizens to the maximum possible extent without causing riots". The republicans simply believe they can screw people a bit harder by relying more on populism & decreasing social cohesion.

The scandals thing seems entirely besides the point. There's a two-party monopoly, and both parties are puppets of private economic interests. That's the scandal, and it's perfectly legal. Whatever else the fuckers get up to is but a drop in an ocean of corrupt filth. The national defecit is a joke. Democrats are just more nationalistic in a trans-national economy, whereas republicans are obviously beyond giving a shit (apart from securing resources, which both parties do).No, they are notHere's a simple test you can do to prove your point; stick Bush & Saddam in a lie detector & ask them if they are evil degenerates.

I'm betting they'll both gove you a completely honest & resounding "NO!".

Hell, look at Clinton's forign policy. Just the poverty he helped enforce killed millions, yet he's hailed as the most responsible American idiot in recent times & many people the world over consider the bastard a hero. And we're talking about a coldblooded murdering son of a bitch here, not just some smack adict with a gun & a pocket full of desperation.


Damn it's hard to like human beings.

specific dogma given to us by religion, such as "gay people go to hell", and "don't have long hair".

dont be a hippie! :)

It's only a 0.4 (+/-0.2) deg C increase, but other than that, you're pretty much repeating what I wrote, so I'm having trouble spotting the "I disagree" bit?Depends on the yardstick. If we're comparing what party benefits the most Americans the most, then the difference is so slight that I simply can't see the real world effect.

The policy of both parties seems to be "consolidate all power & wealth. Disenfranchise the citizens to the maximum possible extent without causing riots". The republicans simply believe they can screw people a bit harder by relying more on populism & decreasing social cohesion.

The scandals thing seems entirely besides the point. There's a two-party monopoly, and both parties are puppets of private economic interests. That's the scandal, and it's perfectly legal. Whatever else the fuckers get up to is but a drop in an ocean of corrupt filth. The national defecit is a joke. Democrats are just more nationalistic in a trans-national economy, whereas republicans are obviously beyond giving a shit (apart from securing resources, which both parties do).Here's a simple test you can do to prove your point; stick Bush & Saddam in a lie detector & ask them if they are evil degenerates.

I'm betting they'll both gove you a completely honest & resounding "NO!".

Hell, look at Clinton's forign policy. Just the poverty he helped enforce killed millions, yet he's hailed as the most responsible American idiot in recent times & many people the world over consider the bastard a hero. And we're talking about a coldblooded murdering son of a bitch here, not just some smack adict with a gun & a pocket full of desperation.


Damn it's hard to like human beings.

I can't think of a president, aside from -maybe- Carter, who couldn't be considered a murderer for one thing or another.

I'm talking about how the president affects the country, and thereby, the world. When Clinton was president, I remember everyone walking a little happier because there wasn't an idiot with his finger on the button. Even Bush Sr. spawned good memories because during his administration was the greatest years of SNL, and his character (along with Garth) pretty much gave Dana Carrey a career.

So it just seems to me, the farther right the president has been, the more depressing things in general have felt.

Survival of the fittest, really. But my main concern with 'morals' isn't in the basic rights and wrongs, but with the specific dogma given to us by religion, such as "gay people go to hell", and "don't have long hair".

Whether or not homosexual sex is a sin is irrelevent. The Bible tells us not to judge people because of sins, as we all have sins and thus no one should treet people differntly because of them.

Whether or not homosexual sex is a sin is irrelevent. The Bible tells us not to judge people because of sins, as we all have sins and thus no one should treet people differntly because of them.

Regardless, the idea that you should even have something to not treat someone differently for is idiotic to me. Those morals do not apply to my beliefs, therefore there is no universal set of morals.

I can't think of a president, aside from -maybe- Carter, who couldn't be considered a murderer for one thing or another.I wish more people would remember that when they think of American presidents. Hell, I wish they'd remember it when they think of state leaders in general. Or just states, for that matter. I'm talking about how the president affects the country, and thereby, the world. When Clinton was president, I remember everyone walking a little happier because there wasn't an idiot with his finger on the button.I don't know that I agree. It's pure illusion. Reagan raped the Americans, Bush took up where Reagan left off & Clinton somehow managed to convince both America & the world that it was "good". Now you all have fond memories of the presidents that mismanaged America so bad that some urban areas have a standard of living you'd expect to find in a 3rd world country.

Which is worse? A president whose fuck-ups you can ignore, or one that confronts you with them? I'm not sure I know the answer. So it just seems to me, the farther right the president has been, the more depressing things in general have felt.Well.. It seems to be the rule that the fanatics spend a few years dismanteling your country, and the slightly more moderate extremists that take over, spend years calling changes "good". But yea, there's no argument things disintegrate faster the more fanatical right-winged the president is. Perhaps one could say the Dems embraces a sort of bastardised neo-lib/fascist economic approach & tries not to screw with the social equilibrium, while the Reps just go all out fascist/populist.

Odd how Americans seems to think the Reps more conservative than the Dems, init? Oh well...

It's too bad you can't elect moderate right-winger, though what you really need are some post-lefties (and so do we).

Whether or not homosexual sex is a sin is irrelevent. The Bible tells us not to judge people because of sins, as we all have sins and thus no one should treet people differntly because of them.And it'd be so nice if that was the whole truth. Unfortunately there's always a BUT. In this case, the "but" is that the Bible commands Christians to put people to death for certain sins. Homosexuality is one of them.

I wish more people would remember that when they think of American presidents. Hell, I wish they'd remember it when they think of state leaders in general. Or just states, for that matter. I don't know that I agree. It's pure illusion. Reagan raped the Americans, Bush took up where Reagan left off & Clinton somehow managed to convince both America & the world that it was "good". Now you all have fond memories of the presidents that mismanaged America so bad that some urban areas have a standard of living you'd expect to find in a 3rd world country.

Which is worse? A president whose fuck-ups you can ignore, or one that confronts you with them? I'm not sure I know the answer. Well.. It seems to be the rule that the fanatics spend a few years dismanteling your country, and the slightly more moderate extremists that take over, spend years calling changes "good". But yea, there's no argument things disintegrate faster the more fanatical right-winged the president is. Perhaps one could say the Dems embraces a sort of bastardised neo-lib/fascist economic approach & tries not to screw with the social equilibrium, while the Reps just go all out fascist/populist.

Odd how Americans seems to think the Reps more conservative than the Dems, init? Oh well...

It's too bad you can't elect moderate right-winger, though what you really need are some post-lefties (and so do we).

I mostly agree. I know that the system itself is fucked, in every way possible - from how much money it requires to run to how much money is funneled from corporations to lobbyists to senators to how you have to use a memorized speech everytime you talk or else nobody takes you seriously - but in a very admittedly childish way, in general I prefer the feeling of a democratic president over the republican.

in general I prefer the feeling of a democratic president over the republican.As do I, as do I. But Dog I wish you could get something better.

As do I, as do I. But Dog I wish you could get something better.

Well yeah - I wish people could get along, I wish politicians didn't have to be made entirely of bullshit to be elected, I wish there was no such thing as religion, and I wish we cared more about the education and healthcare of the people on a worldly scale rather than the fear of being attacked. I wish all those things, but I know damn well it's all a dream.

It's not about left or right wing...it's about on some days we act like assholes, and on other days, people acting like assholes annoys us.

So.....don't you just hate centrists?:p

So.....don't you just hate centrists?

Personally? I don't think there is such a thing. Any 'centrist' here is probably just a republican lite or democrat lite. A centrist would be a robot who takes no emotion into consideration and weighs only the proven facts - as such, a logical contraption as that has no place in the illogical world of politics.

Personally? I don't think there is such a thing. Any 'centrist' here is probably just a republican lite or democrat lite. A centrist would be a robot who takes no emotion into consideration and weighs only the proven facts - as such, a logical contraption as that has no place in the illogical world of politics.

cool i'm a robot.

cool i'm a robot.

Ooh....do some robot dancing!

Ooh....do some robot dancing!

*puts on safety dance*

Personally? I don't think there is such a thing. Any 'centrist' here is probably just a republican lite or democrat lite. A centrist would be a robot who takes no emotion into consideration and weighs only the proven facts - as such, a logical contraption as that has no place in the illogical world of politics.

i'm not sure i see why a reliance on reason and evidence alone would be what makes one a centrist. it wouldn't really make you anything at all, as such things will never give rise to any particular action at all without an added push.

i tend to think of centrists as those who either hold inconsistent views, don't think in terms of issues at all, or whose moral sense just happens to place them in the 'middle' position of what they perceive to be two opposing sides (though the last, tends to be either only on particular issues, or an outgrowth of the earlier ones)

cool i'm a robot.

Missed the point entirely. If you have any emotion or bias at all, you can never be a true centrist. You can never be a true neutral in DnD unless you're of biomechanical construct (I always thought it odd that people could choose to be TN when their character is human).

PS: FS - to be left or right in any degree is to have a bias. To not have a bias, you mustn't have any prerecorded opinions. To do that, you must either be able to know nothing about politics and then in an instant process it all at the same time so that you're not affected by sway, or be a robot with no emotion and no moral or political bias. Barebones logic.

Personally? I don't think there is such a thing. Any 'centrist' here is probably just a republican lite or democrat lite. A centrist would be a robot who takes no emotion into consideration and weighs only the proven facts - as such, a logical contraption as that has no place in the illogical world of politics.

Well, there's so little difference between the parties there really isn't much room between them for centrists.

Missed the point entirely. If you have any emotion or bias at all, you can never be a true centrist.

why is emotion needed when making a decision? i based my opinions on how i think not how i feel.

Missed the point entirely.Agreed. But then, centrists are never actually center to anything but their own point of view.

Swedish centrists, for example, fall in two camps. Either they're moderate Liberals, or their main political concern is upper-middle class nuclear families... And compared to American centrists, they're gun toting anarchist revolutionaries.

why is emotion needed when making a decision? i based my opinions on how i think not how i feel.

If you think at all, there's feeling involved. The only processing that doesn't include feeling would be calculation, which robots do well.

FS - to be left or right in any degree is to have a bias. To not have a bias, you mustn't have any prerecorded opinions. To do that, you must either be able to know nothing about politics and then in an instant process it all at the same time so that you're not affected by sway, or be a robot with no emotion and no moral or political bias. Barebones logic.

i don't see where bias comes into it. under the definition of bias that appears to be operating here, someone at the exact center would also have a bias towards their own position.

why is emotion needed when making a decision?

because reason alone is incapable of motivating action

If you think at all, there's feeling involved. The only processing that doesn't include feeling would be calculation, which robots do well.

i try to work out problems without considering my feelings, to see which is best for me. what out come leads me to be richer.

i try...to see which is best for me

why?

i try to work out problems without considering my feelings, to see which is best for me. what out come leads me to be richer.

You try. Unless you eat specifically to maintain life, and have sex specifically to procreate, you're adding in personal preferences, which comes from feelings and opinions.

Simple, both sides want thier version of America but the other view is a thorn in thier side.

In other words, no.

You try. Unless you eat specifically to maintain life, and have sex specifically to procreate, you're adding in personal preferences, which comes from feelings and opinions.

opinion and emotion are two completely different things.
example. homesexuals automatically stir up an inhatred inside me. but rationally i shouldnt have anything against them. so i dont do anything that intentionally harms or support any group that does.

edit: primary function of sex, is to procreate. if i didnt need to eat food i wouldnt.

opinion and emotion are two completely different things.
example. homesexuals automatically stir up an inhatred inside me. but rationally i shouldnt have anything against them. so i dont do anything that intentionally harms or support any group that does.

edit: primary function of sex, is to procreate. if i didnt need to eat food i wouldnt.

Opinion comes from personal choices. Personal choices comes from, even subconsciously, your upbringing, what you watch on TV, the friends you do or don't make, and every little thing you've ever had a thought about.

You can rationalize that you shouldn't have anything against homosexuals, but little by little, that automatic kneejerk reaction affects every little thing you decide, tilting your judgement slightly one way or the other.

And you're right about the sex - primary function is to procreate, but I doubt you'd ever consider procreation abilities over sexual attraction when considering a mate. In this, you are also biased to your personal, illogical preferences.

The food, I doubt. You wouldn't ever have an awesome-tasting burger or slice of cake ever? Obviously, we wouldn't eat as much if it weren't required for survival, but we still enjoy it, unless the only thing you ingest is astronaut supplements and dietary vitamin pills. :p

opinion and emotion are two completely different things.Hardly, but I guess it depends on how you define it.edit: primary function of sex, is to procreate. if i didnt need to eat food i wouldnt.Or perhaps the primary function of sex is to create happiness & social ties. After all, sex is a terribly inefficient way to procreate.

Whatever the ase is, your assertion is baseless. You can't empirically demonstrate your claim is right, and you can't logically deduce it. That means it's your opinion, and that you arrived at that opinion based on something besides sex. I wonder.. Could it be emotional bias?

And you're right about the sex - primary function is to procreate, but I doubt you'd ever consider procreation abilities over sexual attraction when considering a mate. In this, you are also biased to your personal, illogical preferences.

The food, I doubt. You wouldn't ever have an awesome-tasting burger or slice of cake ever? Obviously, we wouldn't eat as much if it weren't required for survival, but we still enjoy it, unless the only thing you ingest is astronaut supplements and dietary vitamin pills. :p

1-i do actually.

2-dont like chocolate very much. bread is my favourite food.

Hardly, but I guess it depends on how you define it.Or perhaps the primary function of sex is to create happiness & social ties. After all, sex is a terribly inefficient way to procreate.

Whatever the ase is, your assertion is baseless. You can't empirically demonstrate your claim is right, and you can't logically deduce it. That means it's your opinion, and that you arrived at that opinion based on something besides sex. I wonder.. Could it be emotional bias?

one can have an opinion not based on emotion.
ag ain i say, i judge things on how they serve me, i.e. more money.

one can have an opinion not based on emotion.
ag ain i say, i judge things on how they serve me, i.e. more money.

Because you're greedy, which is based on emotion.

Because you're greedy, which is based on emotion.

how does that make me greedy? i need money for food, shelter, hospital bills and some day a large mountain.

You try. Unless you eat specifically to maintain life, and have sex specifically to procreate, you're adding in personal preferences, which comes from feelings and opinions.

Not "unless." Both the maintenance of life and procreation are "personal preferences."

Not "unless." Both the maintenance of life and procreation are "personal preferences."

We're drawing a line at "wanting to live" being a preference, and considering it a necessity.

Because they are.

You're a moron.

We're drawing a line at "wanting to live" being a preference, and considering it a necessity.Why?

Why?

Because it's the base upon which all other instincts and logics are derived. Without this, there is no reason or purpose, and therefore no decisions, logical or otherwise.

Because it's the base upon which all other instincts and logics are derived. Without this, there is no reason or purpose, and therefore no decisions, logical or otherwise.That's completely silly. I very much want to live, and since I'm a chainsmoker, it's all but inevitable that I at some point will very much want to die. If living was a necessity, I probably wouldn't be smoking. If living was a necessity, people in extreme, cronic suffering probably wouldn't be desperate to die.

Because it's the base upon which all other instincts and logics are derived. Without this, there is no reason or purpose, and therefore no decisions, logical or otherwise.

except that we know various animals can and do act against it. so it isn't in fact necessary, just a very strong preference in most times and places.

Because it's the base upon which all other instincts and logics are derived. Without this, there is no reason or purpose, and therefore no decisions, logical or otherwise.

Um, no.

I have very little desire to procreate, ever - but I make decisions all the time.

And there's no reason to suppose that a desire to maintain one's life is necesssary, either. All kinds of preferences are possible that don't involve maintaining one's own life - valuing the life of another, for instance, could involve sacrificing one's life.

And even if it is a preference that is a prerequisite for all other preferences, it is still a preference; it is not rationally founded.

except that we know various animals can and do act against it. so it isn't in fact necessary, just a very strong preference in most times and places.

That's completely silly. I very much want to live, and since I'm a chainsmoker, it's all but inevitable that I at some point will very much want to die. If living was a necessity, I probably wouldn't be smoking. If living was a necessity, people in extreme, cronic suffering probably wouldn't be desperate to die.

Animals act against it because of emotion. They're not entirely logical, and are at the mercy of illogical emotions just as much as humans are.

It's this emotion that keeps Simi smoking - he enjoys it, and keeps doing it, even though he knows it will make most likely make him die sooner than if he didn't do it. It's an emotional and illogical choice, but it's his.

the issue is that you've picked the completely and utterly wrong horse. and this is so obvious that it makes me doubt your claims of loving liberty at all.

Yes, because I'm not also an incoherent Marxist who slavishly worships the ground that your preferred flavor of statists walk upon, I hate freedom.

edit: to fill this out a bit more, you'll find that in addition to regulating the fuck out of your beloved property rights every time they see a benefit to doing so, it's conservatives that uniformly line up behind some of the most horrendous anti-freedom proposals ever. and, in fact, they get pissy when their political leaders don't go far enough in attacking the darkies or torturing people for shits and giggles or whatever.

I think I'll play it safe and assume that this is some mix of hyperbole and emotive hysteria, as opposed to an actual argument, seeing as how you don't make a single relevant point.

I think I'll play it safe and assume that this is some mix of hyperbole and emotive hysteria, as opposed to an actual argument, seeing as how you don't make a single relevant point.

well, you could look at the polling data. you know, the stuff that consistently shows that it's conservatives overwhelmingly supporting actual anti-freedom measures - like building walls and cracking down on foreigners, or disappearing people without charge or trial indefinitely, or massive government surveillance on everybody, or using torture, or starting wars of aggression, etc.

Animals act against it because of emotion. They're not entirely logical, and are at the mercy of illogical emotions just as much as humans are.

It's this emotion that keeps Simi smoking - he enjoys it, and keeps doing it, even though he knows it will make most likely make him die sooner than if he didn't do it. It's an emotional and illogical choice, but it's his.

so how does that mesh with

Because it's the base upon which all other instincts and logics are derived. Without this, there is no reason or purpose, and therefore no decisions, logical or otherwise.

?

Yes, because I'm not also an incoherent Marxist who slavishly worships the ground that your preferred flavor of statists walk upon, I hate freedom.

I think I'll play it safe and assume that this is some mix of hyperbole and emotive hysteria, as opposed to an actual argument, seeing as how you don't make a single relevant point.

I cannot stand modern liberals who would trade away all of our freedoms to big business so that it can tuck us in at night, but even I would agree that conservatives who trade all of our freedoms away to big business so that it can enslave us during the day are worse.

You seem to be appealing for compromise. That is a good idea, but in terms of America, the Republicans have turned so much of their ideology and agenda into policy without regard for the opinions of others that you can hardly expect compromise from the other side (nor is it desirable... if liberal Democrats take power their will be a lot of policies to reverse).

Yes, because I'm not also an incoherent Marxist who slavishly worships the ground that your preferred flavor of statists walk upon, I hate freedom.

you don't know me very well, do you?

Whether or not homosexual sex is a sin is irrelevent. The Bible tells us not to judge people because of sins, as we all have sins and thus no one should treet people differntly because of them.
Indeed, I'm sick of people who think that all Christians want to smell the burning flesh of gay people.

And it'd be so nice if that was the whole truth. Unfortunately there's always a BUT. In this case, the "but" is that the Bible commands Christians to put people to death for certain sins. Homosexuality is one of them.
This is not true, because a more important message is that only those without sin may execute, thus no human may execute.

OP *snip*

Right wingers and Left wingers are fundamentally oppossed to each other. We will never learn to get along.

This is not true, because a more important message is that only those without sin may execute, thus no human may execute.

But this does not make the position acceptable.

Really, can't we just all get along? And look past the stereotype of left-wingers and conservatives and look at people as people, not as a certain political wing, party, or group?
I'd be none the sadder if most people who fit these stereotypes were to all die the next die. It'd certainly help lighten the planet's load. Other than that, they are irrelevant to me.

Basically, what I feel guilty about is not so much being nice to them in and of itself as it is my toleration of a casual attitude towards other people's suffering.



It isn't "politics" so much - I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me for good reasons - it's a lack of moral decency.



I hold bigotry against them, though.
Most conservatives I know are not morally lacking, they just aren’t aware of the real situation, and most are not bigots anymore than liberals.

It's this emotion that keeps Simi smoking - he enjoys it, and keeps doing it, even though he knows it will make most likely make him die sooner than if he didn't do it. It's an emotional and illogical choice, but it's his.

thats funny i thought it was the nicotine.

(omissis)
And why is it that both sides want to portray each side in the worst light possible? Really, can't we just all get along?

The mere fact that we all (left-, centre- and right-wingers) debate here in the forums, although sometimes in quite harsh tones, instead of shooting at each other in the streets, proves that we're already getting along... and we use often harsh tones because we care a lot about politics.

The mere fact that we all (left-, centre- and right-wingers) debate here in the forums, although sometimes in quite harsh tones, instead of shooting at each other in the streets, proves that we're already getting along... and we use often harsh tones because we care a lot about politics.

aslong as we all want the same thing. opinions dont really matter. we just have work together to decide what is best for our countries then the world.
but the right are probably closest! he he.

but the right are probably closest! he he.
No way, you (insert any stereotypical definition for right-wingers here) smeghead! ;) :D

No way, you (insert any stereotypical definition for right-wingers here) smeghead! ;) :D

hey its not called the wrong-wing!