Liberal or Conservative? Why? - General

I'm actually surprised that there is even this many social conservatives on FP, I've always considered this a heavily left-leaning site, considering I'm constantly ridiculed for my views on certain social issues :v:

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;43153064]I'm actually surprised that there is even this many social conservatives on FP, I've always considered this a heavily left-leaning site, considering I'm constantly ridiculed for my views on certain social issues :v:[/QUOTE] This isn't the SH forum so you're more likely to encounter sane individuals rather than reactionary lunatics.

I have a really mixed bag so I have no clue who to identify with (although I am decidedly not a republican or a libertarian). I espouse progressive stances on things like healthcare, taxation, defense, drug policy, and foreign policy, but I also hold conservative views on gun rights as well aspolitical structure and philosophy like with states' rights, federalism, reforming the fed, and a fairly strict interpretation of the constitution.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;43155584]I have a really mixed bag so I have no clue who to identify with (although I am decidedly not a republican or a libertarian). I espouse progressive stances on things like healthcare, taxation, defense, drug policy, and foreign policy, but I also hold conservative views on gun rights as well aspolitical structure and philosophy like with states' rights, federalism, reforming the fed, and a fairly strict interpretation of the constitution.[/QUOTE] Not sure how you can support the progressive idea of the things you mentioned and also state's rights.

Libertarianism a.k.a. classical liberalism. Modern liberalism is just a socialist circlejerk that believes everyone should be "equal" by force whether you like it or not.

Conservative. I believe that each man and woman should be responsible for themselves without the government interfering too much in their life. I don't believe a government should have the power to control a society, as you are your own person. You need to be able to put your life in your own hands and handle it without relying on the government. I also believe that the people should have the freedoms they deserve. Take the Bill of Rights, for example. Those Amendments give the people the freedom they deserve, want, and even sometimes need.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect someone else. I also think the government should be severely limited in what it can and cannot do. The various departments of the US government could really use a shuffling around and refocusing on their responsibilities.

I lean toward liberal because I wasn't fed with a silver spoon. I'm an immigrant to the US, but I know enough that anyone that thinks everyone is born equally and should fend themselves are deluding themselves. For example, the United States kidnapped and enslaves many Africans then subjected to poverty and slavery for over two centuries, then finally gave them rights after generations changed. But suddenly giving them civil rights won't undo the centuries of discrimination, segregation, and purposeful impoverishment, it's utterly fucking stupid to think that these people don't deserve government help. But Conservatives would say these people are in poverty by their own faults, history before 1950's don't exist to many of them. They bring up someone like Clarence Thomas who was supported by the Affirmative Action and other government social programs that helped him as if it that represents the entire group. It's just really stupid in my opinion.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43178701]I lean toward liberal because I wasn't fed with a silver spoon.[/QUOTE] This literally made me laugh out loud. It may be one of the most elitist things I've ever read that is trying to disguise itself as being humble.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43180858]This literally made me laugh out loud. It may be one of the most elitist things I've ever read that is trying to disguise itself as being humble.[/QUOTE] i never understood how liberalism is associated with elitism when they're the ones that want to help everyone lmao 'OMG LIBERALS SO ELITIST, THEY WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AND STRONG SAFETY FOR EVERYONE, ELITIST!!!'

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43182641]i never understood how liberalism is associated with elitism when they're the ones that want to help everyone lmao 'OMG LIBERALS SO ELITIST, THEY WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AND STRONG SAFETY FOR EVERYONE, ELITIST!!!'[/QUOTE] Please point to where I said liberalism is associated with elitism. (hint: I didn't. I called you elitist, individually)

[QUOTE=sgman91;43183696]Please point to where I said liberalism is associated with elitism. (hint: I didn't. I called you elitist, individually)[/QUOTE] i said i leaned toward liberal cause i wasn't fed with a silver spoon and that many people are disadvantaged due to circumstances in the past, therefore we should help them out, then you called me an elitist sorry that i misinterpreted what you said, but you're still wrong about 'elitism' bud, if i was elitist, i'd take the stance that poor people should fuck themselves :)

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43184964]i said i leaned toward liberal cause i wasn't fed with a silver spoon and that many people are disadvantaged due to circumstances in the past, therefore we should help them out, then you called me an elitist sorry that i misinterpreted what you said, but you're still wrong about 'elitism' bud, if i was elitist, i'd take the stance that poor people should fuck themselves :)[/QUOTE] You attributed the entirety of conservative thought to being fed with a silver spoon. Your elitism comes from the fact that you think of yourself as not just right, but a moral giant. It's impossible for you to believe that a conservative might also care for the poor and disadvantaged, but think a different approach is more effective.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43185823]You attributed the entirety of conservative thought to being fed with a silver spoon. Your elitism comes from the fact that you think of yourself as not just right, but a moral giant. It's impossible for you to believe that a conservative might also care for the poor and disadvantaged, but think a different approach is more effective.[/QUOTE] that's still not elitism lmao, moral high horse or condescending? maybe, but that's still not being elitist mate its not that i dont believe conservatives might also care for the poor or disadvantaged, but that they're too sheltered to actually see less government will not magically solve everything nor compensate for creating the situation that made these people poor or disadvantaged in the first place

[QUOTE=sgman91;43185823]You attributed the entirety of conservative thought to being fed with a silver spoon. Your elitism comes from the fact that you think of yourself as not just right, but a moral giant. It's impossible for you to believe that a conservative might also care for the poor and disadvantaged, but think a different approach is more effective.[/QUOTE] A vast, vast majority of (US) conservatism is BOOTSTRAPS BOOTSTRAPS BOOTSTRAPS, i.e: fuck everyone, I've got mine. I don't particularly see conservative posters here ever supporting things that would allow for access to contraception, that gives women actual control over their bodies (anti-abortion stuff mostly). Nor do I ever see US right-wing candidates pushing schemes to try and help people out of work, or to help those with disability outside of maybe recognising they are disabled. A lot of conservatives seem to be the kind of people who have lived in relatively sheltered suburbs, in a mostly stable family, with reliable income. Sure you get outliers, poorer families who are conservative. But they tend towards being xenophobic, paranoid or just sorta, well, dumb. But they are nowhere near the majority of the conservatives you tend to see around here. This isn't to say conservatism is an inherently bad thing (even though I disagree with basically all the foundations of it), just that it seems to attract certain people who don't really care too much about less well-off people despite their claims.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43186122]that's still not elitism lmao, moral high horse or condescending? maybe, but that's still not being elitist mate its not that i dont believe conservatives might also care for the poor or disadvantaged, but that they're too sheltered to actually see less government will not magically solve everything nor compensate for creating the situation that made these people poor or disadvantaged in the first place[/QUOTE] You're missing the greater picture here though. Your philosophy is morally repugnant as you rely on force via the State to "help out" the disadvantaged. Biggest mistake: you have this blinding altruistic sense of justice and that all people are good and [B]entitled[/B] to other people's accomplishments... do you see the error here? You're supposed to listen to people's actions. What do the [B]actions[/B] of those "disadvantaged" say about them? Seems to me like you want to strip people of any kind of personal responsibility and make sure they can never develop a sense of perseverance and integrity and self-sufficiency, because why bother when the State will wipe your ass for any mistakes you make? It's quite honestly the biggest pipe dream I have ever heard simply because it goes against the meaning of human life. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;43186395]But they tend towards being xenophobic[/QUOTE] Xenophobia and racism are both innate to human nature, as well as virtually every other animal too.

[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;43190980]You're missing the greater picture here though. Your philosophy is morally repugnant as you rely on force via the State to "help out" the disadvantaged. Biggest mistake: you have this blinding altruistic sense of justice and that all people are good and [B]entitled[/B] to other people's accomplishments... do you see the error here? You're supposed to listen to people's actions. What do the [B]actions[/B] of those "disadvantaged" say about them? Seems to me like you want to strip people of any kind of personal responsibility and make sure they can never develop a sense of perseverance and integrity and self-sufficiency, because why bother when the State will wipe your ass for any mistakes you make? It's quite honestly the biggest pipe dream I have ever heard simply because it goes against the meaning of human life. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] Xenophobia and racism are both innate to human nature, as well as virtually every other animal too.[/QUOTE] how do you know it goes against human life how does it make things worse to help those who have no ability to help themselves? or in your mind do those people not exist? you are the example of the "bootstraps bootstraps bootstraps" logic we have today.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43191987]how do you know it goes against human life how does it make things worse to help those who have no ability to help themselves? or in your mind do those people not exist? you are the example of the "bootstraps bootstraps bootstraps" logic we have today.[/QUOTE] There are people who have no ability to help themselves. But you can't deny that there's a ton of people who can and won't.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;43192788]There are people who have no ability to help themselves. But you can't deny that there's a ton of people who can and won't.[/QUOTE] and we shouldn't help vulnerable people because of this "ton of people"?

I don't get social conservatism, in any place that isn't America, whenever you vote for stuff, you typically have voted for what they were doing economically and politically, not socially. Of course thats changing with the tea party and David Cameron and Stephen Harper being right twats.

[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;43190980]You're missing the greater picture here though. Your philosophy is morally repugnant as you rely on force via the State to "help out" the disadvantaged. Biggest mistake: you have this blinding altruistic sense of justice and that all people are good and [B]entitled[/B] to other people's accomplishments... do you see the error here? You're supposed to listen to people's actions. What do the [B]actions[/B] of those "disadvantaged" say about them? Seems to me like you want to strip people of any kind of personal responsibility and make sure they can never develop a sense of perseverance and integrity and self-sufficiency, because why bother when the State will wipe your ass for any mistakes you make? It's quite honestly the biggest pipe dream I have ever heard simply because it goes against the meaning of human life.[/QUOTE] But not just state, but the entire country already forced a lot of people to be disadvantaged. Do you not acknowledge that slavery and lack of rights made minorities disadvantaged? Do you not acknowledge there are so many disadvantaged people that was born under certain people that was oppressed by the country that didn't 'end' ( cause there still is several ways to oppress minorities ) and therefore have it worse than many people? What's the point of having these 'bootstraps' logic when nobody is born equal due to the actions in the past? What are these disadvantaged people to do exactly? What's your solution? Let them starve to death in the streets? Strong safety nets as shown throughout history and other countries help lessen the strain in our economy, it gives them a fighting chance rather than starving to death or being forced to commit a crime to eat for a living.

[QUOTE=mntwins7;43062888]Even though you are a liberal, it intrigues me that you aren't someone to blame the ar-15 on everything. I don't think I have ever heard any lib say they'd ban handguns over rifles. +1 for interesting opinion![/QUOTE] That's not even abnormal. Statistically speaking, a Republican woman is more likely to seek stricter gun control than a Democrat man. Women across the board are more supportive of gun control regardless of party affiliation, and Democrat men are still about 50/50, with Republican men something closer to 1/4 in favor. Party affiliation or even ideological leanings have little to do with gun control. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;43186122]that's still not elitism lmao, moral high horse or condescending? maybe, but that's still not being elitist mate its not that i dont believe conservatives might also care for the poor or disadvantaged, but that they're too sheltered to actually see less government will not magically solve everything nor compensate for creating the situation that made these people poor or disadvantaged in the first place[/QUOTE] This is also wrong. Liberals tend to be urban poor and minority poor, conservatives dominate the rural and white poor. Not about class and neither side is any more or less sheltered. You're strawmanning.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;43194250]I don't get social conservatism, in any place that isn't America, whenever you vote for stuff, you typically have voted for what they were doing economically and politically, not socially. Of course thats changing with the tea party and David Cameron and Stephen Harper being right twats.[/QUOTE] I'd like to think social conservatism amounts to making and enforcing laws banning people from acting like dickbags in public, and enforcing some sort of social standard of decency.

[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;43190980] Xenophobia and racism are both innate to human nature, as well as virtually every other animal too.[/QUOTE] hark hark human nature You get 12 people in a room and they give you 12 views of human nature.

A lot of modern groups turned the idea of quaintness and social conservatism into "NO GAYS, NO GIRLS, NO DARKIES" in their own xenophobia and racism and all around bigotry.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43194559]I'd like to think social conservatism amounts to making and enforcing laws banning people from acting like dickbags in public, and enforcing some sort of social standard of decency.[/QUOTE] Problem with this is that what constitutes a dickbag and decent is completely subjective and as such the laws are made (and as is the rule of laws) when there must be something to legislate over. Often law is reaction. Chances are, and have always been, and will be, that it's the majority or the opulent minority making the decisions on that which doesn't bode so well if you're a Quaker, Irishman, Chinese, Japanese, Native, black man, homosexual, woman, communist, or anarchist.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43194603']Problem with this is that what constitutes a dickbag and decent is completely subjective and as such the laws are made (and as is the rule of laws) when there must be something to legislate over. Often law is reaction. Chances are, and have always been, and will be, that it's the majority or the opulent minority making the decisions on that which doesn't bode so well if you're a Quaker, Irishman, Chinese, Japanese, Native, black man, homosexual, woman, communist, or anarchist.[/QUOTE] There's a line behind which what constitutes as a dickbag is shared between nearly everyone who isn't far out their with their views, though. So then you get your public intoxication, lewdness, and "fighting words" laws. And other things that make life easier for some of the more vulnerable (mostly emotionally, partly physically) groups.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43194687]There's a line behind which what constitutes as a dickbag is shared between nearly everyone who isn't far out their with their views, though. So then you get your public intoxication, lewdness, and "fighting words" laws. And other things that make life easier for some of the more vulnerable (mostly emotionally, partly physically) groups.[/QUOTE] The fightings words laws ([I]Chaplinsky[/I]) was used to arrest a Jehovah's Witness that was being persecuted for going door-to-door as his religion dictated. The cop said that Chaplinksy called him a "a God-damned racketeer" and a "fascist". wow them fighting words Define emotionally vulnerable groups. The line is drawn all over the place and has always been to the benefit of white protestant men and has been only inclusive when those outside of the line fought and forced it to open itself. Conservatism isn't about maintaining decency, it's about maintaining status quo.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43194780']The fightings words laws ([I]Chaplinsky[/I]) was used to arrest a Jehovah's Witness that was being persecuted for going door-to-door as his religion dictated. The cop said that Chaplinksy called him a "a God-damned racketeer" and a "fascist". wow them fighting words Define emotionally vulnerable groups. The line is drawn all over the place and has always been to the benefit of white protestant men and has been only inclusive when those outside of the line fought and forced it to open itself. Conservatism isn't about maintaining decency, it's about maintaining status quo.[/QUOTE] Emotionally vulnerable can be: People with stress disorders, including victims of past crimes (both sexual and violent), people who've gone through a traumatic experience and can be triggered or something of the like by someone acting nastily or extremely abnormally in public. You have children and the elderly. Even people who just happen to be going through a high stress or depressive length of their life are exceedingly vulnerable to what others do in public. If conservatism is about maintaining a status quo and liberalism is about destroying it or heavily altering it, I guess I'm neither.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43194921]Emotionally vulnerable can be: People with stress disorders, including victims of past crimes (both sexual and violent), people who've gone through a traumatic experience and can be triggered or something of the like by someone acting nastily or extremely abnormally in public. You have children and the elderly. Even people who just happen to be going through a high stress or depressive length of their life are exceedingly vulnerable to what others do in public. If conservatism is about maintaining a status quo and liberalism is about destroying it or heavily altering it, I guess I'm neither.[/QUOTE] Well liberalism tends to be more about inclusive status quo or reform when that isn't possible. And that whole "protect the children and elderly from the horrors of sex/drugs/swearing/what have you" doesn't really work all that well and ends up being more restrictive than not.