Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So these "wannabe" liberals that I have been bringing up..if they are not liberal extremists, what would you consider them ?
I would describe them as moderate liberals (I can't really judge their political views, but most self-described liberals are, naturally, somewhere in the middle of the bell curve) who also happen to be assholes as people. Or extreme on the social aspect of politics beyond the point of what is considered a viable political belief. Most likely the first... But then I don't know any of these people.
"Not to mention Death Raven, that there are many Liberals who think there is nothing wrong with Pedophilia, and that young children and older adults should be allowed to have sex, as long as a young child (like between ages of 8 and 12) gave consent.
If that is not extreme...i duno what else is"
I have heard of people like that as well, and I certainly agree with you that they are extremists. I don't think we have the same definitions of liberal. When I say liberal extremist, I mean someone in the Anarcho-Communist realm, which is based mostly on economics. However, like I said, most people I've met who fit into that classification have somewhat the same social political beliefs as I described earlier. I think that while the pedophilia thing is definitely a "liberal" belief, there are so few people who agree with it that it's almost better described as just "weird".
Originally posted by Darth Revan
I would describe them as moderate liberals (I can't really judge their political views, but most self-described liberals are, naturally, somewhere in the middle of the bell curve) who also happen to be assholes as people. Or extreme on the social aspect of politics beyond the point of what is considered a viable political belief. Most likely the first... But then I don't know any of these people."Not to mention Death Raven, that there are many Liberals who think there is nothing wrong with Pedophilia, and that young children and older adults should be allowed to have sex, as long as a young child (like between ages of 8 and 12) gave consent.
If that is not extreme...i duno what else is"
I have heard of people like that as well, and I certainly agree with you that they are extremists. I don't think we have the same definitions of liberal. When I say liberal extremist, I mean someone in the Anarcho-Communist realm, which is based mostly on economics. However, like I said, most people I've met who fit into that classification have somewhat the same social political beliefs as I described earlier. I think that while the pedophilia thing is definitely a "liberal" belief, there are so few people who agree with it that it's almost better described as just "weird".
I would have to say we do have different definitions of liberal extremist.
To me calling someone a Liberal is no less complicated than calling someone a "Christian".
All Christians are different. Some appreciate the idea of Free Will, others ignore the idea of free will. Some go by the book (Bible) word for word, others will tell you do not take the Bible literally. Some Christians are concerned with the well being of other people, other Christians are only concerned about not going to Hell. Some Christians practice tolerance of other people's cultures and decisions, other Christians do not beleive in the notion of "tolerance" only care about conversion.
There are so many different types of Christians, the same way there are so many different types of Liberals. Maybe I used the wrong term, but to me "Extremist" is anybody who will take a certain aspect of some belief and push it to its fullest extant.
Remember when you said that Liberalism is about cultural respect? Well, even THAT can be pushed to far. If ABSOLUTE RESPECT for all ideas and actions was required, i would protest. Because that would mean that I would HAVE TO RESPECT organizations like the KKK and Neo Nazis, and sorry but i could NEVER have respect for such people. I would have to respect thier opinions and points of views, even though thier points of views are hateful and only negative in my eyes.
I beleive firmly in Moderation in all cases. Extremism to me is dangerous no matter what case your talking about.
I would consider myself a traditionalist. I don't want the USA to be radically changed in any way. I'm not opposed to tweaks that arise with the changing times though. I'm not a Bible beater but I am starting to rediscover my Faith.
I'm against:
-unfettered abortion. I think that late term abortions should only occur in a medical emergency and that abortions in general should only occur after the woman has a counseling session.
-political correctness. It seems too much like "New Speak" from the novel 1984. I say call things the way you see them, but don't act racist, biased or judgmental.
-big government. The smaller the government the better.
-frivolous lawsuits. They are a waste of time and money. There should be a cost to a party initiating a lawsuit that has no chance of winning.
"To me calling someone a Liberal is no less complicated than calling someone a "Christian".
All Christians are different. Some appreciate the idea of Free Will, others ignore the idea of free will. Some go by the book (Bible) word for word, others will tell you do not take the Bible literally. Some Christians are concerned with the well being of other people, other Christians are only concerned about not going to Hell. Some Christians practice tolerance of other people's cultures and decisions, other Christians do not beleive in the notion of "tolerance" only care about conversion. "
hence the reason for denominations....
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
"To me calling someone a Liberal is no less complicated than calling someone a "Christian".All Christians are different. Some appreciate the idea of Free Will, others ignore the idea of free will. Some go by the book (Bible) word for word, others will tell you do not take the Bible literally. Some Christians are concerned with the well being of other people, other Christians are only concerned about not going to Hell. Some Christians practice tolerance of other people's cultures and decisions, other Christians do not beleive in the notion of "tolerance" only care about conversion. "
hence the reason for denominations....
1) Please use the quote feature, thanks
2) Yes, that would very much explain the Christian denominations that have formed over the years.
I am most in touch with Franciscan tradition.....I went to a Catholic School that kept the Franciscan ideals...i LOVED IT ! Best high school i ever went to. Most open minded and loving Christians I ever met. 👆
Tough one for me, seeing as how I feel the same way about this as you do. However, I refuse to choose a side.
As far as the definition of Democrat and Republican, I think the terms no longer have any real definition. There no longer seems to be any middle ground, people are either on the Right or on the Left. That is to say, they are conservative or liberal and that's it.
The conservative usually hold beliefs that are more traditional, obsessively patriotic and support big corporations or big money. While liberals are also patriotic, the weight of their beliefs lies in tolerance. Tolerance for everyone and everything. They generally believe in helping others and you'd be hard-pressed to find them standing in line to support your favorite big corporation.
Over the last decade or so, it seems that the conservatives and the liberals have moved further away from each other, if for no other reason, to move farther away from each other. I think it used to look more like this: (L and R on each side represent Left and Right, m = middle; Lib and Con = Liberal and Conservative)
Agree with Fire on most of what he says.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I believe in a strict retribution towards all indifference.
I’m for freedoms under responsibility, for mutuality and a state that educates and deals with healthcare, pension plans, the environment, research(!) and redistribution of the common goods.
A state that teaches us our rights AND responsibilities, and also knows ITS rights AND responsibilities. So I’m a socialist - you know, one of those people who think that medical research should solely be conducted by the state, no one should profit from cures, remedies and medicine. I’m also a pragmatic, who thinks that current generations should not pay for the mistakes of their forefathers and mothers, but past mistakes and failures MUST be made right.
I think the world would be a much better place without racism, fanaticism, fascism and fundamentalism, be it political or religious.
Re: Liberalism, Conservatism, Extremism, and Moderation
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Let me clarify:First question: [B]Liberalism VS Conservatism
Are you a Liberal? Conservative? A little bit of both? Is one better than the other? If so, why? CAN you be a little bit of both, or do you have to be JUST one or the other?
ME: I'm more of a Liberal, but I still parallel a few Conservative-like mentalities. I am pro-gay rights. I am for freedom of expression, especially in Artistic ways. I am for equality between man and woman. I am against Racism and most forms of Discrimination. I am for most kinds of sexual liberation, and in the End I am always for choice. I am against use of Force to suppress a group of people. I am always for exploration and research on an issue before judgement. However, I am personally against Abortion and the Death Penalty. I think very few cases justify the act of killing.
What about You?
Political ideologies and the like aside, if this is in terms of general liberal/conservative ideals and stances then would be considered liberal on many issues social, cultural and technological. But at the same time I am practical. As a result I chose the path, I vote for the party, that has the most good to offer to the most people.
Thus, not an "extreme" with a world view where every thing can be dropped into a "liberal" camp and a "conservative" camp - I approach any issue or debate with an open mind and side with the view or stance that makes the most sense and would be the most beneficial and just. Thus for me it has always been more important to support something because it deserves to be supported, rather then supporting it just to toe a liberal/conservative line.
For example, various stances I support and disagree with from different aspects of society:
- I support homosexuals having equal, in fact the same, rights as heterosexuals. In fact I am for equality as a whole.
- I believe a DNA database for law enforcement would be beneficial
- I support legalising marijuana for medicinal use
- I believe there has to be a balance between the rights of the state and the rights of the people.
- I think a single world government would be a good thing.
- I support increased government spending for health care and educations.
- I believe that governments should insure the basic human rights, the most fundamental needs are always met - health care, food, water, housing, education.
- I support stem cell research, cloning research, genetic modification research.
- I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of artistic expression and so forth.
- I believe nations need to improve their immigration policies to make them fairer and quicker (Australia, yes, you)
-I think every person in a democracy should be legally required to vote.
- I think the media needs to find a way to be more aloof from popular opinion and corporate/political influence. In essence more objective and less subjective.
- I don't support the death penalty
- I think the state should be in charge of pharmaceutical research and production rather then big pharma companies who profit often at the cost of the ill.
- I don't think religions belong in the classroom or government
- I think less should be spent on defense funding
- I think politicians should be held more accountable, with less scapegoating
- I think that while freedom of speech is important, there are limits as to what one should say when it can cause harm
- I dislike extremism, bigotry and racism
- I think to much patriotism is a bad thing
- I think ignorance should be combated at every opportunity
Likewise I pretty much agree with the opinions expressed by Storm.
Originally posted by The Omega
Agree with Fire on most of what he says.This one… this one sentence I like VERY much!
I’m for freedoms under responsibility, for mutuality and a state that educates and deals with healthcare, pension plans, the environment, research(!) and redistribution of the common goods.
A state that teaches us our rights AND responsibilities, and also knows ITS rights AND responsibilities. So I’m a socialist - you know, one of those people who think that medical research should solely be conducted by the state, no one should profit from cures, remedies and medicine. I’m also a pragmatic, who thinks that current generations should not pay for the mistakes of their forefathers and mothers, but past mistakes and failures MUST be made right.
I think the world would be a much better place without racism, fanaticism, fascism and fundamentalism, be it political or religious.
I can't argue with anything you've stated, I pretty much agree. 😉
Originally posted by El_NINO
🤨
Yes El Nino, Fidel Castro is considered Socialist by many, and a Communist only by United States Government "standards"
Fidel Castro has been a great fighter against Racism and Poverty in Cuba. Before his seat in power, there were only two classes: The extremely rich and the extremely poor. All of the rich were white hispanic, while most of the poor were black Cubans or any other minority.
Fidel Castro has alleviated racism in economy, because now everyone gets paid around the same amount of $$$. Not to mention the government in Cuba now provides every family with thier own cars.
Education is free, Universities are free even under the economic strain that Cuba is undergoing due to United States' and many other nations's embargos.
WAtch more interviews, see more point of views. You are only hearing the points of views of people who dislike Castro due to the fact that they can't strike it "rich" in his country, and probably from Americans who just don't like him for his form of government.
The only negative I can think of is that many people are compelled to take certain career paths, even if they don't want to, but that is only what I heard i dont even know if that is true.
Now, El Nino, my freind, I would appreciate if you sent me a PM as to why you would disagree. Thanks.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes El Nino, Fidel Castro is considered Socialist by many, and a Communist only by United States Government "standards"Fidel Castro has been a great fighter against Racism and Poverty in Cuba. Before his seat in power, there were only two classes: The extremely rich and the extremely poor. All of the rich were white hispanic, while most of the poor were black Cubans or any other minority.
Fidel Castro has alleviated racism in economy, because now everyone gets paid around the same amount of $$$. Not to mention the government in Cuba now provides every family with thier own cars.
Education is free, Universities are free even under the economic strain that Cuba is undergoing due to United States' and many other nations's embargos.
WAtch more interviews, see more point of views. You are only hearing the points of views of people who dislike Castro due to the fact that they can't strike it "rich" in his country, and probably from Americans who just don't like him for his form of government.
The only negative I can think of is that many people are compelled to take certain career paths, even if they don't want to, but that is only what I heard i dont even know if that is true.
Now, El Nino, my freind, I would appreciate if you sent me a PM as to why you would disagree. Thanks.
Then when you say "That's why many hispanics admire him." You make it sound as if mostly hispanics admire him, when he is adored from all parts of the world and of course there is also that the wording makes it seem as if you think the only reason hispanics like him is because he is socialist, and that is obviously wrong.
And for someone that makes such long posts as yourself about Castro's dictatorship, it's... odd that you would ask "Isn't Fidel Castro socialist as well?".
First off, liberals are not anarchists. Anarchy is a totally different breed.
Communists, however, is acceptable.
Most of my views as of yet are liberal. However, I can sympathize a lot of the time with the conservative view. I consider mself objective; I will go the way that my concience tells me, not one political party or the other.
No idea can exists without an opposite. Hence, Chaos and Order are supplemental, and rely on each other for survival.
If I had to pick one extreme, I'd pick chaos. The Giver scares the shit out of me.