Liberal or Conservative? Why? - General

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43195001']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.[/QUOTE] Sex and drugs doesn't really count unless you've decided to do them in front of an unwilling person or in public or something, or you doing this or that affects your immediate family and friends. I have no problem with "restrictive" when it means a more stable/smooth time in public. I don't have anything against actual non-JESUSWILLSAVEYOU sex/drug education as long as people agree to it and you aren't specifically encouraging anything in general.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43195093]Sex and drugs doesn't really count unless you've decided to do them in front of an unwilling person or in public or something, or you doing this or that affects your immediate family and friends. I have no problem with "restrictive" when it means a more stable/smooth time in public. I don't have anything against actual non-JESUSWILLSAVEYOU sex/drug education as long as people agree to it and you aren't specifically encouraging anything in general.[/QUOTE] People do drugs in front of other people all the time. Cigarettes, chew, in many places public drinking. What's the harm if it's marijuana? And now you're just being indecent by suggesting that we can have sex ed that deviates from religious-based abstinence. You ought to be restricted.

[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 you're claiming that this fault of theirs is entirely theirs and no one else has ever effected them to be this way men are not islands and the sooner you drop the notion that they are, the better. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] [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] then your view on the status quo is what? one of apathy? clearly not if you're discussing the topic. as a person who has suffered severe depression for many years, yes, you can be massively affected by those outside yourself in any situation. I don't see a viable way to fix this without being a totalitarian.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43195159']People do drugs in front of other people all the time. Cigarettes, chew, in many places public drinking. What's the harm if it's marijuana? And now you're just being indecent by suggesting that we can have sex ed that deviates from religious-based abstinence. You ought to be restricted.[/QUOTE] NYC has laws prohibiting public drinking (restricting it to bars counts as restricting it to private places), and smoking in the denser areas. They set a good example of what I mean by enforcing laws like those. Jesus abstinence no no touch the girly sex education doesn't really count as "reasonably decent" considering it factually does more harm than good, and isn't behind that "line" of what practically every culture or society considers decent and indecent.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43195392]NYC has laws prohibiting public drinking (restricting it to bars counts as restricting it to private places), and smoking in the denser areas. They set a good example of what I mean by enforcing laws like those. Jesus abstinence no no touch the girly sex education doesn't really count as "reasonably decent" considering it factually does more harm than good, and isn't behind that "line" of what practically every culture or society considers decent and indecent.[/QUOTE] Any sex is indecent. We need to promote abstinence. And further we need to restrict sodomy, because it is also indecent. This is the reasonable norm. (but seriously, it was this way until the 1970s at the earliest. Your line is silly and arbitrary and does nothing but restrict. It's all fine and dandy when you're the one making the decency argument but what's decent or majorly acceptable to you is not the same for everyone and you are literally arguing that we need to shit on the minority to support the majority's views of decency that they define)

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43195332]then your view on the status quo is what? one of apathy? clearly not if you're discussing the topic. as a person who has suffered severe depression for many years, yes, you can be massively affected by those outside yourself in any situation. I don't see a viable way to fix this without being a totalitarian.[/QUOTE] Well, maybe instead of being apathetic I would like to see it altered heavily or rebuilt. But I wouldn't want to see it altered or rebuilt to fit an entirely liberal viewpoint, and it's bad enough as it is today. You can really only change a status quo instead of destroying it. Destroying it would mean removing the concept of society and law entirely. I'd be fine with something much more authoritarian with an absolutely gigantic amount of socially and legally enforced "safeguards" to try and prevent damaging incidents from happening using force, but then you get corruption and dissidence; ultimately a system like that would fail without question. So, if I agree with something liberals present or try to fight for, I'll go along with them. if I agree with something conservatives present or try to fight for, I'll go along with them. But usually all these different things come with extra baggage that I might disagree with or outright detest, so I'm stuck on the picket fence with a long wooden wedge stuck up my asshole. [editline]16th December 2013[/editline] If we're gonna argue about arbitrary, too, I'll go ahead and say that all law, in and of itself, is arbitrary as well. It can either be viewed as a system to allow society to run its course with minimal friction (there is no objective reason why we should or should not run the way we do besides our own will to do so), or a system of morals to dictate what people should (arbitrary, subjective) and should not (arbitrary, subjective, too) do. A law is always going to be protecting or rejecting some majority or minority, less or more restrictiveness just means the scales are tipping in favour of one group or another.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43195591] If we're gonna argue about arbitrary, too, I'll go ahead and say that all law, in and of itself, is arbitrary as well. It can either be viewed as a system to allow society to run its course with minimal friction (there is no objective reason why we should or should not run the way we do besides our own will to do so), or a system of morals to dictate what people should (arbitrary, subjective) and should not (arbitrary, subjective, too) do. A law is always going to be protecting or rejecting some majority or minority, less or more restrictiveness just means the scales are tipping in favour of one group or another.[/QUOTE] now your getting it

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43196005']now your getting it[/QUOTE] Usually I don't like to be redundant and say it again and again but you have your laws. And your groups fighting about them. I realize all the groups are just a bunch of people connected by ideology fighting over their subjective laws. But I see a group or ideology I like and think it'll help me and the people I want to help, so I go along with that. I see a group or ideology I don't like and think it'll hurt me and the people I want to help, so I go against that. I'm not trying to claim objectivity or that my views will benefit the most people per se. Sure, there are laws that work and don't work in the context of society and all, but the lot of them are just purely subjective and will just tip the scales in a way I like or a way I don't like. Unrestricting everything isn't the be all and end all, neither is putting in all the big giant safeguards and having a nice big nanny state. There's just a bunch of different social and legal variables that I want to change in one way, and other people want to change in another way.

The single biggest difference between liberalism and conservatism is that liberals tend to think that people are naturally good, but because of corrupting influences they do bad (the idea that poverty causes crime*) while conservatives believe that people are naturally bad and must be taught to be good (the idea that character causes crime*). Most, if not every, major policy difference can be traced back to this difference. *Note: I'm talking about the vast majority of crime that isn't based on survival like rape, theft of non-essential items, domestic abuse, etc.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43198068]The single biggest difference between liberalism and conservatism is that liberals tend to think that people are naturally good, but because of corrupting influences they do bad (the idea that poverty causes crime*) while conservatives believe that people are naturally bad and must be taught to be good (the idea that character causes crime*). Most, if not every, major policy difference can be traced back to this difference. *Note: I'm talking about the vast majority of crime that isn't based on survival like rape, theft of non-essential items, domestic abuse, etc.[/QUOTE] I would argue that this is incorrect and a very specific view of liberalism or conservatism. Both of these are subjective to the culture, however, but further their defining traits are economic and not moral. You can have socially conservative liberals and progressive conservatives, and not all liberals are radical in their approach and not all conservatives are reactionary. Ultimately what defines in full conservatives and liberals is not their social or even political positions but instead their economic viewpoints in a broad way.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43198134']I would argue that this is incorrect and a very specific view of liberalism or conservatism. Both of these are subjective to the culture, however, but further their defining traits are economic and not moral. You can have socially conservative liberals and progressive conservatives, and not all liberals are radical in their approach and not all conservatives are reactionary. Ultimately what defines in full conservatives and liberals is not their social or even political positions but instead their economic viewpoints in a broad way.[/QUOTE] General statements always have exceptions. I was never intending to make a fully inclusive statement, but one that applies to the majority. Name a general policy difference and I'll show how it ends up coming down to the difference I talked about.

I tend to side with conservatives. I can find more common ground with them in economy, military etc.

Liberal, or center-left, at least what it means where I live because the meaning changes. For example liberalism in southern Europe means moderate conservatism and what not. I'm liberal in a sense that I support freedom of expression and equality, innovation and loose social norms.

You do realize that most conservatives except the super-far-right ones also support freedom of expression and equality, and innovation (why wouldn't they?). Not so much the loose social norms though.

Interestingly, conservatives understand the foundational moral concerns of liberals better than liberals understand conservatives and even more interestingly, conservatives understand the average liberal concerns better than liberals understand themselves. ([url]http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/manuscripts/graham.nosek.submitted.moral-stereotypes-of-libs-and-cons.pub601.pdf[/url])

I've never really felt comfortable slotting in with any political outlook defined by another, but I feel the definition for a centrist vaguely fits me. I often favour liberal policy however.

There's a quote on youth and old about liberalism and conservatism in youth and old, I admire it a tad. I consider myself middle, on the fence about a lot of policies and beliefs, two side to the same coin. In fact, I try to stay away from aligning myself like this because it could make me biased or defensive towards a certain political party or policy/doctrine naive tribal reasons.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43249081]There's a quote on youth and old about liberalism and conservatism in youth and old, I admire it a tad.[/QUOTE] I know the quote that you're talking about and I've never quite understood how it could be taken as anything but a slap in the face of liberals. I assume most people think they will become wiser and more knowledgeable as they get older (I've never met anyone who said they expect to get dumber and more ignorant, barring mental problems, of course). Wouldn't that mean that people become conservative as they get more knowledgeable and more wise?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43253267]I know the quote that you're talking about and I've never quite understood how it could be taken as anything but a slap in the face of liberals. I assume most people think they will become wiser and more knowledgeable as they get older (I've never met anyone who said they expect to get dumber and more ignorant, barring mental problems, of course). Wouldn't that mean that people become conservative as they get more knowledgeable and more wise?[/QUOTE] Yes. That is the point of the saying.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;43269415]Yes. That is the point of the saying.[/QUOTE] I see quite a few people say it thinking positively about both ends.

Very much Conservative these days, but the current conservative parties across the world are just abysmal. In the UK they're almost indistinguishable from the Liberals because conservative thinking seems to be on the wane and 'Dave' wants to remain relevant to the new generation.

[QUOTE=mntwins7;43060270]traditional American values.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mntwins7;43060270][B]traditional American values.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mntwins7;43060270][B][U]traditional American values.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sOXE2Nlelrg/Tb4C_Y_ezGI/AAAAAAAAAHc/0wyySrigzBA/s1600/CryingIndian.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=gk99;43060645]Conservative, but it doesn't fucking matter anymore because the entirety of the government is now filled with a bunch of people fighting like children over things that don't even matter no matter which way you look.[/QUOTE] ^ This, this, and more this. Anytime something politics related comes on the news I flip the damn channel because of that shit right there. But I am a conservative.

Hello... everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, Please log in. ★=( [url]http://www.sheptrade.com[/url] )=★ The website cheap wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan, Air max, Air Force one, DG, LV..., also including the Jerseys, Sunglasses, Handbags, Jeans, Hat, Belt, wallet and clothing etc, Good quality and good service but cheap price, Believe you will love it, We accept any form of payment, Welcome to ... ★=( [url]http://www.sheptrade.com[/url] )=★ ★=( [url]http://www.sheptrade.com[/url] )=★

I would walk the fence on this. I don't care what gays do, marriage is not sanctimonious to me. Guns are not a problem, people are in my opinion. I don't believe in god. I think marijuana should be legal and federally regulated even though I don't smoke the stuff.

Conservative, but really I'm just pro freedom. Freedom to do whatever it is the fuck you want. Pro gay, pro abortion, pro gun, pro capitalism, pro drugs. I think this country should follow the Constitution to the T, separation of church and state should actually be enforced and so on I guess technically I'm a libertarian or constitutionalist

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43061389]Conservative...? Liberal...? Fuck I don't know anymore. "Socialized" Healthcare has more pros than cons, and realistically speaking, the money saved from not spending on crappy healthcare plans could be put towards spending on consumer products. All drugs should be legal. I should be able to own all types of firearms, and militias should be organized and recognized by state governments. Copyright/Patent laws are over-stretching and need to be limited. Fuck paper money, I want coins. Can I just say Capitalist? Please..?[/QUOTE] Your stance seems a bit inconsistent, and inconsistent in an unfortunate and rare manner. You favour quite extreme libertarian policies such as legalizing all forms of drugs, allowing all types of firearms, recognition of militias, limiting intellectual property rights, coins rather than paper money etc. Yet you seem to favor socialized healthcare - something which clearly goes against libertarian principles. You favor the most extreme libertarian policies, but also something that even many moderate, and without a doubt libertarian people disagree with. It seems strangely inconsistent. Your inconsistency is also a bit unfortunate given that full legalization of all drugs, which demands individual responsibility of one's health, would result in very considerable costs for taxpayers with a socialized healthcare system. Since I've taken time criticizing your stances, I might as well answer the thread's original question. I'm a very moderate libertarian, which usually translate into being a modern conservative. I tend to support a great deal of economic freedom and smaller government, and I also believe it's effective and healthy for a society to adapt policies that reflect those values - both for the economy and and for improving people's lives. I support legalizing gay marriage and such without a doubt, but I don't go as far on social policies as to favor legalization of heavy drugs.

I personally don't see the point in labeling my political beliefs with a Letter or a color or an animal or any real classification.

Then why post here?

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;43384473]Then why post here?[/QUOTE] The thread asked what the stance was. I guess I never explained why which was my mistake. I feel like so many people in the USA (where I live) adhere to their party instead of listening to ideas. I can't tell you how many time's I've heard how much people hate obamacare, and how much better Mitt Romney would have been, yet Romney passed a very very similar heathcare act in Massachusetts as governer. That why I choose to not adhere to one side or another. I think people should have the right to do (mostly) what they want without encroaching on the rights of others.