NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you folks call me a liberal? I absolutely know I was a conservative when I first joined NS, but since then the narrow cage which engulfed my mind seems to have been shattered.

For instance I used to be against gay adoption, but the fact that 98% of child molesters were straight caused me to back-peddle. I then begin to look for one viable reason gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt children, and couldn't find any. I was defeated, and appropriately altered my views to coincide with logic.

But am I a liberal?

I don't know if a person's political leanings can be determined from a stance on a single issue.

I'm sorry, but the answer is yes. True conservatives do not ask themselves if they are liberal, because conservatives use the term "liberal" to refer to the generalized other, which by definition is not themselves.

I don't know if a person's political leanings can be determined from a stance on a single issue.

That's not the only issue. I've changed on plenty of issues since I joined NS.

Nudism.

Suicide.

Republicanism (I left the party, though I'm not a Democrat).

Racism. I think it is very possible that I was once racist. A few discussions on NS have altered that.

The Iraq War.

Drug use.

Christianity. I'm not even remotely Christian now. I used to be sorta/kinda.

Prostitution.

And many more!

Your instincts are conservative but because of a need to fit in with the general consensus on these boards, you're altering your views.

Way to sell out, just like liberals do - so maybe you are.

:)

Depends upon the context of the issue, the party, how you define the terms, and so on and so forth. Personally though, I'd say yes, because you reexamined your position and changed it. That's good too, because it means lots of hope for you yet. :)

*snip*

By which I am assuming you now hold the "liberal" stance on those issues.
I would say you are a "liberal" then.

By which I am assuming you now hold the "liberal" stance on those issues.
I would say you are a "liberal" then.

Ah, but I'm pro-capital punishment, anti gun-control, pro-lower taxes, anti-welfare, ect.

Oh, and I'm also pro-choice now. And I guarantee there is now way in hell I'd be if it weren't for NS.

Your instincts are conservative but because of a need to fit in with the general consensus on these boards, you're altering your views.

Way to sell out, just like liberals do - so maybe you are.

:)

I don't think so. Everyone I know personally is conservative. I don't feel any need to "fit-in" with them. And I still debate against the grain on many issues here (Israel for one).

Ah, but I'm pro-capital punishment, anti gun-control, pro-lower taxes, anti-welfare, ect.

Oh, and I'm also pro-choice now. And I guarantee there is now way in hell I'd be if it weren't for NS.

Moderate then?

My political philosophy is basically "I'll give you rights, but I won't give you money."

Wow. You changed as the result of debate? Thats awesome.

Even though I lost, I must agree. Changing my opinions to a more logical state is far more important to me then merely winning.

Wow. You changed as the result of debate? Thats awesome.

I then begin to look for one viable reason gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt children, and couldn't find any. I was defeated, and appropriately altered my views to coincide with logic.

But am I a liberal?

once you start down the road of acknowledging that stuff needs good reasons, and leave open the possibility that no such reasons will be forthcoming, you begin the march leftward. i'm sorry, but it is too late for you now.

You're a Libertarian from what I've read in this thread.

Liberal social views with Conservative economic views

Even though I lost, I must agree. Changing my opinions to a more logical state is far more important to me then merely winning.

I agree and I have been pushed out of my comfort zone in a few debates that have made me change my views. I thank the people I was debating as well for making me think

I'm against gay adoption, for the kids sake. I can see them being paid out so much in school.

Zaij;13237117']I'm against gay adoption, for the kids sake. I can see them being paid out so much in school.

So you are against kids having a loving supporting home because other kids are ignorant bigots?

Seems a rather lame excuse to me, think they honestly would be better off in the foster care system?

Did I say that? I'm looking out for the kids, I know their lives would be hell - "Hahaha you've got two dads/mums". Don't blame me for the way society is, I didn't make it this way.

Urrrg, I don't like liberals, I don't even allow them into my house, they ooze this yucky stuff all over my nice authoritarian carpet.

Would you folks call me a liberal? I absolutely know I was a conservative when I first joined NS, but since then the narrow cage which engulfed my mind seems to have been shattered.

For instance I used to be against gay adoption, but the fact that 98% of child molesters were straight caused me to back-peddle. I then begin to look for one viable reason gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt children, and couldn't find any. I was defeated, and appropriately altered my views to coincide with logic.

But am I a liberal?

If 2% of child molesters are gay, that means that child molesters are equally represented. About 2-3% of the population is gay.

I thought it was supposed to be one in ten.

But am I a liberal?I've compiled a "better" analysis of what a liberal is (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543369) over here. Perhaps that helps.

Zaij;13237123']Did I say that? I'm looking out for the kids, I know their lives would be hell - "Hahaha you've got two dads/mums". Don't blame me for the way society is, I didn't make it this way.

Seems like your in favor of perpetuating the bigotry instead of trying to make it go away...

Zaij;13237123']Did I say that? I'm looking out for the kids, I know their lives would be hell - "Hahaha you've got two dads/mums". Don't blame me for the way society is, I didn't make it this way.You could use the same argument against braces, having hobbies no one else does, being fat or fatter than other kids, having darker skin, having a lisp, having a foreign accent, having foreign parents, albinos, twins...

Zaij;13237123']Did I say that? I'm looking out for the kids, I know their lives would be hell - "Hahaha you've got two dads/mums". Don't blame me for the way society is, I didn't make it this way.

I see you've conviniently "forgotten" the Agenda's plan to turn your nations children into fag-loving freaks through cartoons like The Fairy Odd Parents and that yellow Sponge fella. Seriously, don't blame the children. The homos have already got to them. The only thing left to do is to put you hands on the table and lift your arse into the air..

The measure field for political thought is far larger than 2-dimensional. Conservitive v. Liberal has largely become a way for the media to attempt to polarize or obscure an issue with an outdated and limited framing. But if you're tired of thinking for yourself, you can always choose one or the other and let someone else think for you ;)

Seems like your in favor of perpetuating the bigotry instead of trying to make it go away...

Yes, so because I know how kid's at school would react, I'm a homophobe.

You could use the same argument against braces, having hobbies no one else does, being fat or fatter than other kids, having darker skin, having a lisp, having a foreign accent, having foreign parents, albinos, twins...

Sure, but braces a temporary and weight can be loss. Anyway, wouldn't you want to minimize the chance of your kid being teased? Wouldn't any responsible parent want to protect their kids from that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with a gay couple adopting a child, what I do think is that it's unfair on the kid in todays age to put them in a situation with such great potential for abuse (from school children, i'm not saying homosexuals molest kids). In another time when there isn't so much homophobia around, sure - go nuts.

So please, stop the remarks that paint me as a homophobe - I'm not. I'm realistically assessing the potential happiness of a gay couples child vs the hetero couple's child.

Just take the freaking political compass test.

2-3%?one in ten?off topic question,
what is the % of Gays?

Zaij;13237123']Did I say that? I'm looking out for the kids, I know their lives would be hell - "Hahaha you've got two dads/mums". Don't blame me for the way society is, I didn't make it this way.

You're looking out for kids by pandering to the people who bully them?

Ah, but I'm pro-capital punishment, anti gun-control, pro-lower taxes, anti-welfare, ect.

#2, #3 & #4 are liberal values, you know... Liberal, from Liberty, meaning more freedoms, more personal choice, less forced commitments.

No wonder there's always tons of controversy in your country. Your political parties and their respective values are all screwed up. Not that Germany is necessarily better... *Stabs Westerwelle to Death*

Anyone else agree that this is a perfect example of why basic polisci should be compulsory in high school ?

Zaij;13237544']Yes, so because I know how kid's at school would react, I'm a homophobe.

It depends on what school you're talking about. The kids in many schools couldn't care less. There are schools that would tease you if you were adopted by blacks...should blacks not be able to adopt other races?

Sure, but braces a temporary and weight can be loss. Anyway, wouldn't you want to minimize the chance of your kid being teased? Wouldn't any responsible parent want to protect their kids from that?

No. I was teased in the Boy Scouts because I was vegetarian. I stood-up for myself. If it came to fighting, I would still stand-up for myself. If you don't like your kids to be teased, then home school them.

So please, stop the remarks that paint me as a homophobe - I'm not.

But didn't you just say you were at the beginning of this post?

Possibly. You're still right of center, but then again, many liberals are.

off topic question,
what is the % of Gays?It seems to be about 6-7%.

But am I a liberal?
Do you support protection of individual liberties over the demands of the community-at-large?

Do you support state-enforced protection of private property and the non-violation of your body?

If so, then you are safely inside the liberal camp. Go put up posters of John Locke, Karl Popper, et al.

If not, then you're not a liberal, or you're misusing the term.


It seems to be about 6-7%.
Which, IIRC, is the same rough percentage as in the UK.

Incidently, 6-7% is also the same rough percentage of people who regularly attend church in the UK. Which always amuses me when people try and claim that the UK is a 'Christian country'.

If so, it's also a gay country.

Zaij;13237123']Did I say that? I'm looking out for the kids, I know their lives would be hell - "Hahaha you've got two dads/mums". Don't blame me for the way society is, I didn't make it this way.

But at least they would have families ... and it does no good to pander to the whims of idiots

You will just let them keep being idiots and grow up to pass that idiocy onto their kids so another group of people can be discriminated against because no one stopped them

Tell ya what we put some serious consequences for bullying of that sort ... maybe that will help the bullies learn. That or start putting punishments on their parents so that we send a clear message that this sort of thing is not accepted

But didn't you just say you were at the beginning of this post?

That was sarcastic. Read it again.

Tell ya what we put some serious consequences for bullying of that sort ... maybe that will help the bullies learn. That or start putting punishments on their parents so that we send a clear message that this sort of thing is not accepted

That's as likely to work as making the word "******" illegal. Societal change is needed, not new laws/rules.

You're looking out for kids by pandering to the people who bully them?

That's hardly the case. Would you name your kid Pooky L. Wiiflebottom, dress them up in the geekiest clothes you could find, give them glasses, braces, the whole lot and fatten them up before going to school? That's a bullying case ready to happen. Obviously this is an extreme example, but I don't know why anyone would want to increase the chance of harm coming to a kids life.

Zaij;13238709']That was sarcastic. Read it again.



That's as likely to work as making the word "******" illegal. Societal change is needed, not new laws/rules.



That's hardly the case. Would you name your kid Pooky L. Wiiflebottom, dress them up in the geekiest clothes you could find, give them glasses, braces, the whole lot and fatten them up before going to school? That's a bullying case ready to happen. Obviously this is an extreme example, but I don't know why anyone would want to increase the chance of harm coming to a kids life.
And taking them away from a loving family is doing LESS harm then the possibility of being bullies?

And taking them away from a loving family is doing LESS harm then the possibility of being bullies?

Once kids reach school, they are among the cruelest people to walk the planet. Plus, it's not taking them away from a loving family it's stopping them from going there in the first place. But yes, I see your point (I've seen it all along) and all it stems down to is picking the lesser of the two evils -
Possibly Loving family, bullying at school.
Possibly No Family, reduced risk of bullying at school.

You might be a Libertarian.

That's not the only issue. I've changed on plenty of issues since I joined NS.

Nudism.

Suicide.

Republicanism (I left the party, though I'm not a Democrat).

Racism. I think it is very possible that I was once racist. A few discussions on NS have altered that.

The Iraq War.

Drug use.

Christianity. I'm not even remotely Christian now. I used to be sorta/kinda.

Prostitution.

And many more!


I'm curious as to what your views on nudity are :D

Zaij;13238756']Once kids reach school, they are among the cruelest people to walk the planet. Plus, it's not taking them away from a loving family it's stopping them from going there in the first place. But yes, I see your point (I've seen it all along) and all it stems down to is picking the lesser of the two evils -
Possibly Loving family, bullying at school.
Possibly No Family, reduced risk of bullying at school.

And sense as far as I ever heard the second scenario has the potential for more harm and that allowing the bullying to go on is a more (in my view) morally displeasing thing to do ...

i dont think that anyone should classify their political ideas into one single catagory. we all have different views on different issues, and we may be conservative or liberal depending on the situation.

i am liberal myself, mostly....
but i dont always take the liberal side to every issue

I don't know if a person's political leanings can be determined from a stance on a single issue.

I'd have to agree with Bann-ed, a stance on a single issue doesn't an entire political philosophy.

I KNOW that I am a conservative (american-style), yet I ferverently support gay rights.

I'd have to agree with Bann-ed, a stance on a single issue doesn't an entire political philosophy.

I KNOW that I am a conservative (american-style), yet I ferverently support gay rights.

sound like a damn liberal hippie to me :)

If 2% of child molesters are gay, that means that child molesters are equally represented. About 2-3% of the population is gay.

About 10% + of the population is gay, and that may well be a conservative estimate, since it is still so hard for gays to come out in so many places.

About 10% + of the population is gay, and that may well be a conservative estimate, since it is still so hard for gays to come out in so many places.

Not to put down on gays, but the 2-3% for men and 1-2% for women seem to be more accurate. Their reluctance to reproduce would naturally limit their numbers to largely first generation gays (those who recieved it from two straight parents).

Not to put down on gays, but the 2-3% for men and 1-2% for women seem to be more accurate. Their reluctance to reproduce would naturally limit their numbers to largely first generation gays (those who recieved it from two straight parents).

Allot of gay and lesbian people have kids, mostly because they never admit to being homosexual

In many cultures it was ok to have a wife and boy friends

Sorry, but there still are gonna a large number of homosexuals who reproduce seeing as society still looks down upon them so they remain the closet.

You'd think then, that all the people against gay marriages and those who just despise homosexuals, would be real nice to them so they stop reproducing and go down in number.

Not to put down on gays, but the 2-3% for men and 1-2% for women seem to be more accurate. Their reluctance to reproduce would naturally limit their numbers to largely first generation gays (those who recieved it from two straight parents).

Sorry, but there still are gonna a large number of homosexuals who reproduce seeing as society still looks down upon them so they remain the closet.

But am I a liberal?

Try not to be confined by labels. Just keep putting your views out there and listening to what others have to say.

Not to put down on gays, but the 2-3% for men and 1-2% for women seem to be more accurate. Their reluctance to reproduce would naturally limit their numbers to largely first generation gays (those who recieved it from two straight parents).No. While there were problems with Kinsey's methods of determining that the rate was 10%, 2-3% is incredibly low.
Furthermore, the current belief about homosexuality is not that it is purely genetic, but rather that it is determined by hormone levels in the mother's womb. Thus, whether or not homosexuals reproduced (and homosexuals certainly can reproduce) probably wouldn't affect anything.