The most frequent posters on this website are so over-liberal. Not that politics has much to do with the fact that there is no god and religion is non-sense.

In general:

Liberals hate the second amendment of the United States constitution, the right to own firearms. Now I am Jewish according to heritage, and what do you want me to do when the nazis or the ku klux klan (or anybody) break into my home?

Liberals like to create victims. They whine and complain that there are so many poor people. So rather than find a way to put them to work, they would rather steel from productive people and give it to the unproductive poor people so they can continue to not work.

Global warming or climate change is imaginary. The average world temperature has not risen enough to make any difference, and the earth always heals itself. I am against air pollution as much as anybody else and the world is not going to turn into hell any time soon.

As for discussions about the confederate flag, I don't necessarily care whether it is displayed or not, and what about jim crow laws and prejudice against black people in the North? A flag is merely a piece of fabric until you check the owners pulse and give them a lie detector test, you don't know what kind of person they are. Just suddenly replacing one piece of fabric with a different piece of fabric with a different design doesn't mean whoever displays the new fabric with the new design has the attitudes you want them to have, is not prejudiced against some people, and so on.

I'm a more of a libertarian conservative than the typical republican dogma, and a small government conservative.

Everything that can at all possibly be handled by private organizations should be handled by private organizations and not the government.

Abortion is fine with me.

I'm fine with homosexuals getting married in the sense that I don't want to be prejudiced against homosexuals. From my viewpoint as a typical person, marriage shouldn't exist because it was invented in order for religions to make you have to get permission from the religion before you engage in man-woman relationship behavior because the religion wants you to have children and teach your children your religion. And you shouldn't have to get permission from a government before you engage in a man-woman relationship and the government shouldn't be prejudice against homosexuals and there shouldn't be such a thing as benefits you get after you get a piece of paper that says you are married that you can't just get without a piece of paper that says you are married. A lot of atheists still think about man-woman relationships like religious people do.

Liberals hate capitalism. They despise people who do work and make a lot more money than them. The more money rich people pay in taxes, the less money they have left to hire people. Have you ever worked for a poor person? All taxes are theft or extortion.

I'm sure there are more ways liberals want to screw up society but I think this is enough for one discussion.

Views: 2669

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why did you bother to start/ask this when it is abundantly clear from your OP that you have no intention of actually listening to/learning from any of the answers or rebuttals to your preconceived notions anyway?

As for the very core question I would answer simply, "because skepticism and empiricism, when rationally and logically followed through, generally lead to more 'liberal' conclusions."

But it's clear from your OP that you won't believe that no matter how much evidence I, or anyone else, put forth to support it, so this is likely the last you'll hear from me.  I try not to make a habit of talking to walls.

To put it another way, reality has a liberal bias, in a way, because of what liberalism has come to be categorized as, or because of what has come to be classified under liberalism.  Conservatism almost always involves the way things "ought to be" or the way they were, because of some dogmatic, cultural or religious reason.

Liberalism is generally what you get, when you start from a solution-based political approach.  If you take a social problem, such as poverty, and you examine possible solutions, from a scientific perspective, you almost always come to the liberal side of the issue.

The liberal approach to stimulating the economy is demand-side stimulation.  Give a bunch of a poor people a lot more money, and they'll run out and spend it on the basics of living, stimulating the retail sector massively.

The conservative approach to stimulating the economy is supply-side.  Give the richest people in the country more money, and they'll spend it creating more businesses ... despite the fact that there's no demand for those businesses, because the poor have no fucking money.  This is insane.  We've known since the 80's that trickle-down economics doesn't do shit and just increases income disparity between the rich and poor.  If there's no demand, the rich will just sit on their money and become more rich.

Modern conservatism fails the reality-test on the social side, too.  Liberalism asks the question: "Is there a very good reason that this social behavior should be prohibited?"

You examine the results of the behavior, from a society-wide, statistical analysis, and if the answer is no, then go have fun, children.  Conservatism says that we should continue banning social behaviors, because they've always been treated that way, and because our conservative religion says they should be prohibited.  That is not a good, rational way to construct a society.

Sure, the liberals in this country have their excesses and irrationality, too, but it's a much smaller percentage of the issues.  For example, the anti-vaxx movement is supported by a lot of liberals as well, although their reasons might be a bit different than the those of the conservative anti-vaxxers.

In completely lazze-fair capitalism, the government does not give people anything and the government has nothing to do with the economy, not on the demand side, not on the supply side, not on any side; the government should not fix poverty or social problems. Services would be handled better by private organizations with oversight provided by other private organizations or professional organizations or guidelines.

I don't believe in vacations because to me stabbing sharp objects into people's bodies counts as assault or abuse. If the vaccines were all pills or nasal sprays I could think about changing my mind.

In completely lazze-fair capitalism, the government does not give people anything and the government has nothing to do with the economy, not on the demand side, not on the supply side, not on any side; the government should not fix poverty or social problems. Services would be handled better by private organizations with oversight provided by other private organizations or professional organizations or guidelines.

History and every scientific examination of societies demonstrate that you're wrong and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  If government doesn't handle the things you mentioned, the work doesn't get done.  Private organizations are never enough to take up all of the slack.

If you want private organizations to take over poverty-relief, then freaking line up those organizations and get it to the point that they'll take the load off of the government.  Until that time, forgive me if I don't want to preemptively strip away the government programs which actually do the job.

Completely laissez-faire capitalism deals with neither supply-side nor demand-side economic policy; you're right.  I didn't actually think you were insane enough to propose that as your actual end-goal, though.  If you're going to propose that we discuss things within the context of your social-darwinistic hell-world, then we can just let you go off to play make-believe with your fellow anarcho-capitalists.

We tried laissez-faire once.  It was a fucking nightmare, and with the massive, international economy of today, it would be even worse.

I don't believe in vacations because to me stabbing sharp objects into people's bodies counts as assault or abuse. If the vaccines were all pills or nasal sprays I could think about changing my mind.

I'm going to assume that you meant vaccinations there, in your first sentence.

I've never met anyone else who took a needle phobia to such absurd extremes.  It's time to grow up and learn to weigh the long-term benefits against the very brief discomfort, man.

Fortunately, the vast majority of our society is finally coming to its senses about this, even if it took several massive outbreaks of diseases that we should not be seeing in America, and a few deaths.  California is finally passing laws banning un-vaccinated children from attending public schools.  This won't prevent another outbreak like the measles outbreak at Disneyland, but it's a start.

You live in a society with other people, man.  If you want to move off into a cave somewhere and never interact with another person, you could have a case.  Until you're ready to do that, your actions can put the rest of us at risk, too.

Oh, and Jas:

Why did you bother to start/ask this when it is abundantly clear from your OP that you have no intention of actually listening to/learning from any of the answers or rebuttals to your preconceived notions anyway?

That's been Michael's modus operandi on this site, for years.  He came to the Atheist Singles group, looking for advice on how to make his singles-site profile more attractive to women.  But it rapidly became clear that he was just looking for confirmation that his profile was fine, and that all of the women on singles sites are just crazy, and there's something wrong with women in general.

His profile couched his preference in a mate in just about the most insulting terms I've ever seen.  A woman "should not be too fat," for example.

He then argued back obstinately, against the unanimous agreement of everyone who came to give him advice.

Michael, do you allow progressives into your world?

People use dogma (such as All taxes are theft or extortion) to protect themselves from reality.

Tom, you write correctly, "All taxes are theft or extortion" and I am guilty of using the "all" word ... and for effect. I agree with you about dogma. 

 

Whoops, I didn't make clear that All taxes are theft or extortion is Michael's favorite dogma. He has stated it in many of his posts.

My favorite ideas about dogma include:

  • Someone else's My karma ran over his dogma, and
  • My Changing dogmas is easier than giving up the need for dogma.

Tom, you nailed it again.

Thanks.

After 12 years in Catholic schools I was as dogmatic as Michael but I didn't advertise my condition.

Happily, several years in hardball politics knocked it out of me. Also happily, some therapy helped me clean up the mess.

I like the final line of Dan Barker's song "Beware of Dogma:"  "PLEASE!  Clean up after your dogma."

Just what I'd expect to here from a ''libertarian conservative''.

RSS

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service