I think both the Conservatives and Liberals have dumb ideas about Israel. Two groups of people have butchering each other over the same tiny piece of land for some sixty odd years and the Quartet thinks a two state solution is possible? The world needs to read more Hobbes and Thucydides. It’s like trying to convince two angry bears that are competing over the same piece of meat not to rip each other apart. The only way peace is going to hit the holy land is until one side goes and wipes out the other.
Of course to be honest, I can’t stand either liberals or conservatives (although on most social issues I lean liberal). Conservatives are usually right wing nuts that seem to want to kick the shit in of anyone who disagrees with them. Conservatives are also stuck in the past, refusing to change and adapt. Then we have liberals. Now, I actually have some liberal friends, but as far as I’m concerned, they all have their heads stuck in the clouds. They go on all the time about: peace, enlightenment and making the world a better place. First off, peace is not some awesome thing that is going to make a better world. A world without war would be a shitty place to live. War brings change and innovation. Conflict is natural, it’s like taking a piss; humanity needs it. Just look at the Greek city states. The bastards beat the shit out of each other all the time and they managed to thrive. Not to say that war should happen all the freaking time and for stupid reasons [read: Conservative war hawks], moderation is a good thing IMO. Right now, we have stagnation, a bloated society just waiting for a good reason to tear apart.
You could sum it down to this (in an exaggerated way, I’m generalizing obviously). Right wingers are idiots that have gone gun crazy and want to start wars every day while left wing air heads want save everyone and make everyone happy.
EDIT
Originally posted by Nephthys
Happy mother's day Y'all. I know that technically none of you are my biological mother (I checked) but I feel that in some way you've all had a hand in my development, so I thank you.guitarcat garaavi
Mother's Day? UK?
Originally posted by Autokrat
I think both the Conservatives and Liberals have dumb ideas about Israel. Two groups of people have butchering each other over the same tiny piece of land for some sixty odd years and the Quartet thinks a two state solution is possible? The world needs to read more Hobbes and Thucydides. It’s like trying to convince two angry bears that are competing over the same piece of meat not to rip each other apart. The only way peace is going to hit the holy land is until one side goes and wipes out the other.Of course to be honest, I can’t stand either liberals or conservatives (although on most social issues I lean liberal). Conservatives are usually right wing nuts that seem to want to kick the shit in of anyone who disagrees with them. Conservatives are also stuck in the past, refusing to change and adapt. Then we have liberals. Now, I actually have some liberal friends, but as far as I’m concerned, they all have their heads stuck in the clouds. They go on all the time about: peace, enlightenment and making the world a better place. First off, peace is not some awesome thing that is going to make a better world. A world without war would be a shitty place to live. War brings change and innovation. Conflict is natural, it’s like taking a piss; humanity needs it. Just look at the Greek city states. The bastards beat the shit out of each other all the time and they managed to thrive. Not to say that war should happen all the freaking time and for stupid reasons [read: Conservative war hawks], moderation is a good thing IMO. Right now, we have stagnation, a bloated society just waiting for a good reason to tear apart.
You could sum it down to this (in an exaggerated way, I’m generalizing obviously). Right wingers are idiots that have gone gun crazy and want to start wars every day while left wing air heads want save everyone and make everyone happy.
EDIT
Mother's Day? UK?
Yes it's Mothering Sunday in the UK. A load of bull in my opinion.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Conservatism's plethora of definitions does not require religious conservatism in order to be identified as "conservative." It's economic basis is classically mercantile yet modernity has it pegged as free-market. It's cultural side is focused towards tradition and maintenance of what works (not always mind you). Ironically enough, a generally cultural-liberal would view such ties when applied to religious ideals as "fanatical" or erroneously "fascist," despite religious tolerance typically being a part of their mandate.
A conservative's economic beliefs are not necessarily grounded within religion, but even that has some degree of religious subtext into it- particularly their denial of an environment's effects upon an individual's psyche.
Their social side? It's pure religious imperialism. Their opinions on drugs, sex ed, abortion, gay marriage, the concept of 'good and bad' cultures is inherently based upon biblical ideas of decency and good; in fact, they take these religious and old-fashioned values and attempt to claim them as being more than a simple subjective faith. It is impossible for a country to have full religious freedom when a certain religious value is completely dominating politics; it discriminates against other religious and faiths (yes, even 'atheism' is a form of religion) by forcing them to conform to inherently subjective ideals.
Sexy, I wasn't even trying to get into the details of liberalism. All I did was note the general conception the two sides have of the other and then explained how all of our ambitions are naturally 'dreams', but dreams that can ultimately brought into existence through years of perseverance and modernization. That's it. Though, here are some things for you to consider:
1. I don't believe people are fundamentally good or bad. I believe people are what they are shaped to be, by the combination of nurture and nature; morality is an inherently unnatural thing. You are not born with a personality.
2. I believe in affirmative action as a very sad necessity in order to ensure equal opportunity and reduce the possibility of favoritism. It will, eventually, be abolished; its removal, however, should be gradual and not sudden.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
A conservative's economic beliefs are not necessarily grounded within religion, but even that has some degree of religious subtext into it- particularly their denial of an environment's effects upon an individual's psyche.Their social side? It's pure religious imperialism. Their opinions on drugs, sex ed, abortion, gay marriage, the concept of 'good and bad' cultures is inherently based upon biblical ideas of decency and good; in fact, they take these religious and old-fashioned values and attempt to claim them as being more than a simple subjective faith. It is impossible for a country to have full religious freedom when a certain religious value is completely dominating politics; it discriminates against other religious and faiths (yes, even 'atheism' is a form of religion) by forcing them to conform to inherently subjective ideals.
Sexy, I wasn't even trying to get into the details of liberalism. All I did was note the general conception the two sides have of the other and then explained how all of our ambitions are naturally 'dreams', but dreams that can ultimately brought into existence through years of perseverance and modernization. That's it. Though, here are some things for you to consider:
1. I don't believe people are fundamentally good or bad. I believe people are what they are shaped to be, by the combination of nurture and nature; morality is an inherently unnatural thing. You are not born with a personality.
2. I believe in affirmative action as a very sad necessity in order to ensure equal opportunity and reduce the possibility of favoritism. It will, eventually, be abolished; its removal, however, should be gradual and not sudden.
1. You claim to believe in humanity. Humanists by definition, believe people are inherently good and that all evil was the cause of outside factors, not by the people responsible for it. And everything you've said leads me to believe that YOU think people are inherently good, because you are QUICK to blame society or factors other than individuals responsible.
2. Affirmative action is a joke. It gives someone who is less qualified more opportunity than someone who is more qualified. You think I want a doctor who is a product of affirmative action? Yea, I'll trust that like I trust cyanide.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
1. You claim to believe in humanity. Humanists by definition, believe people are inherently good and that all evil was the cause of outside factors, not by the people responsible for it. And everything you've said leads me to believe that YOU think people are inherently good, because you are QUICK to blame society or factors other than individuals responsible.
I think you have the definition of humanists confused. Humanists are simply people who believe that ethical decisions can be made without following any particular religious viewpoint. Last I checked humanists don't believe that humans are inherently good or evil.
Originally posted by Master CrimzonThe beautiful thing about this type of conservatism is that, in a democracy, if the majority don't like it, it can be changed (Obama's support of Stem Cell research FTW). To the majority goes the pandering. This type of conservatism in an autocracy however... well, if the people there like it anyways then who cares?
Their social side? It's pure religious imperialism. Their opinions on drugs, sex ed, abortion, gay marriage, the concept of 'good and bad' cultures is inherently based upon biblical ideas of decency and good; in fact, they take these religious and old-fashioned values and attempt to claim them as being more than a simple subjective faith. It is impossible for a country to have full religious freedom when a certain religious value is completely dominating politics; it discriminates against other religious and faiths (yes, even 'atheism' is a form of religion) by forcing them to conform to inherently subjective ideals.
Originally posted by Autokrat
I think you have the definition of humanists confused. Humanists are simply people who believe that ethical decisions can be made without following any particular religious viewpoint. Last I checked humanists don't believe that humans are inherently good or evil.
Yea you're right I thought about I typed it out. My mistake. Ok so my point goes for people who think humans are inherently good, but humanists are just as retarded in my mind.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
1. You claim to believe in humanity. Humanists by definition, believe people are inherently good and that all evil was the cause of outside factors, not by the people responsible for it. And everything you've said leads me to believe that YOU think people are inherently good, because you are QUICK to blame society or factors other than individuals responsible.
Except you haven't looked upon the other side of the situation. I believe humans are born as blank pages- personality and thoughtless. Their personality, whether it is "good" or "evil" (I use quotation marks because I don't believe in an absolute good or evil, as you would know), is developed by the way their natural traits interact and interpret environmental ones. Thus, if an individual becomes evil, he is, to an extent, a failure of society for affecting him and shaping his psyche in a negative manner. You've got that part right. However, if an individual becomes a good, functioning member of society, then he is, to a degree, a societal success. See?
And there is NOTHING in the world more condescending than the conservative rhetoric of 'people are mostly stupid, evil, and in need of being told what is good for them'. Why? Because, as an individual with political positions, you probably view yourself as smart and good. Most people do. However, by doing both that and claiming that most humans are dumb creatures, you, in a certain way, put yourself above the rest of humanity and act as if you yourself are not part of the 'sheepish majority'. Scorning the rest of humanity is an arrogant, ugly thing.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
2. Affirmative action is a joke. It gives someone who is less qualified more opportunity than someone who is more qualified. You think I want a doctor who is a product of affirmative action? Yea, I'll trust that like I trust cyanide.
Like I said, I don't like affirmative action, either. But think of the following: if two people of equal qualification compete for a job, and one is black and the other white, it is extremely likely that the one doing the judging will, even on a subconscious level, select the one that he feels closer to and safer with; generally the white guy.
Originally posted by DSI wouldn't call myself humanist, but I am fully willing to randomly state that I consider you a complete and irredeemable idiot, because apparently we don't need to worry about offending anyone.
but humanists are just as retarded in my mind.
Crimzon, you're a slow learner. I don't understand what you think you have to gain by drawing this shit out.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Except you haven't looked upon the other side of the situation. I believe humans are born as blank pages- personality and thoughtless. Their personality, whether it is "good" or "evil" (I use quotation marks because I don't believe in an absolute good or evil, as you would know), is developed by the way their natural traits interact and interpret environmental ones. Thus, if an individual becomes evil, he is, to an extent, a failure of society for affecting him and shaping his psyche in a negative manner. You've got that part right. However, if an individual becomes a good, functioning member of society, then he is, to a degree, a societal success. See?
And there is NOTHING in the world more condescending than the conservative rhetoric of 'people are mostly stupid, evil, and in need of being told what is good for them'. Why? Because, as an individual with political positions, you probably view yourself as smart and good. Most people do. However, by doing both that and claiming that most humans are dumb creatures, you, in a certain way, put yourself above the rest of humanity and act as if you yourself are not part of the 'sheepish majority'. Scorning the rest of humanity is an arrogant, ugly thing.
Like I said, I don't like affirmative action, either. But think of the following: if two people of equal qualification compete for a job, and one is black and the other white, it is extremely likely that the one doing the judging will, even on a subconscious level, select the one that he feels closer to and safer with; generally the white guy.
Originally posted by Eminence
I wouldn't call myself humanist, but I am fully willing to randomly state that I consider you a complete and irredeemable idiot, because apparently we don't need to worry about offending anyone.Crimzon, you're a slow learner. I don't understand what you think you have to gain by drawing this shit out.
That's wonderful. You consider me an idiot, I consider secular humanists morons, we could all have a giant orgy now. Unless of course you have more philosophical aspects to teach me.
Originally posted by Eminence
Nope. You're irredeemable. And I don't care that it's a rude thing to say because of free speech and I can say whatever I want and be an inconsiderate ass!
And I hold no grudge against you because you are exercising your 1st amendment rights, nor does your opinion of me make me lose any kind of sleep. And "irredeemable" is sorta ambiguous but ok.
Originally posted by Eminence
Your irredeemability [there's no squiggly red line!] means I think you're a lost cause, which means that I no longer care about influencing you one way or another. Yep.People posted a lot in the past week.
Seeing as how you've never brought up anything to influence me over, or make me come to your side (whatever that is since you have never actually made an argument for anything), I don't know why you're posting here. I don't care about influencing you either, whether you're an idiot or not. Everyone has their own opinions but there's usually a right and a wrong.
Hey MC one question for you since you're one of the only ones who don't actually critisize without actually debating.
How can you firmly believe in both humanity and socioeconomic/external factor? Wouldn't that be a contradiction?
Liberals always spout about humanity and then when something happens, throughout the course of history they have always blamed socioeconomic factors rather than the individuals responsible. How can one believe in humanity when one believes that we aren't individuals, we're just a product of our society? Everything is we do is just because of society. I was just thinking about that so answer me when you want.
We're all individuals. While, fundamentally, our personalities are a product of our societal and environmental influences, the way these immediate influences interact with an individual's already pre-born traits and general psyche is unique. That's why no two individuals are the same; their interpretation of the environmental forces all differ.
The interpretation part is the key. It is unique to every individual and thus defines us as having a degree of free will. EVERYTHING we do is a form of response to environmental and socioeconomic factors; however, our method of response is up to us, to a degree. I don't think we have the 100% free will we would like to, but there is definitely a form of it.
So why do I preach about how we must act with compassion regarding terrorist organizations and such? Because the environmental factors, largely supplied by us, are the alter-able factor. By changing it, we can change the individual's interpretation of it, too, and thus his method of action.
I don't admittedly have a completely satisfactory answer to it all, but that's pretty much what I believe.
Fair enough for now but I don't think you can change anyone's interpretation. I think your belief is really a "hope", which while great, isn't based on history. I know you would argue that because history is the way it is, we clearly haven't done much right but I'll argue that people are stubborn and ignorant (whether inherently or not), and trying to change something will lead to other, bigger problems. Terrorist organizations and radicals are by definition, not open to change unless it is 100% on their terms. That's what makes them who they are.
And I believe we 100% free will. While external factors CAN play a role, there's a reason why the majority of people choose NOT to do evil.