Originally posted by bbarrMaybe so as to being a libertarian... but the actual group are so naive. I can't identify with "free drugs for everyone" and all that stuff. And when it comes to issues or arguments between "true" believing liberals and "true" believing conservatives, I always take the conservatives side. Self preservation. I need to be in a group large enough not to be eaten by the "social beast" of utopianism. Conservatives are usually self centered and all that, but at least they don't try to drag me to church. Liberals on the other hand, have a nasty tendency of turning the church into a government building full of bureaucrats... with armed guards in the interigation rooms.
You sound more Libertarian than classicly conservative. The full-blooded conservatives do not want free-market economies, they want select sectors (agriculture, defense, aerospace) heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars, while simultaneously touting the benefits of the free market to their foreign competitors. You seem to have more faith in the "invisible h ...[text shortened]... ation room, then you are anything but a social conservative, but a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian.
Definitely nobodys business about how ADULTS treat with each other. My problem with Liberals and the bedroom is their tendency to support ACLU law suits in support of NAMBLA and such. They have a habit of seeing an obvious societal problem (sexual exploitation) as a "free speech" issue. And as to the Home land security issue. Yea, I don't see as anything but a pain and intrusion. But not for the reasons you might expect. I see it as politically correct garbage. Why not just be honest enough to say "We are at war with radical islam. If you are NOT A CITIZEN of the US... if you ARE from Saudia Arabia, or any nation supporting our enemies, we are going to tap your phone, follow you everywhere you go and in general make your life a living Hell. Get a speeding ticket and you are going to jail for a year. Then have your hands cut off just like you believe in." As to the Taliban in Cuba. Give them each a lawyer. Then a firing squad for themselves AND THEIR LAWYER. Two enemies of the state for the price of one.
Not very much of a Libertarian there. "Frustrated Conservative Red-Neck" is more like it. Can't stand anything "Politically Correct". In my mind, i can't seperate that from "new speak". And Pol Pots S21 and 'Uncle Doik' doing his torture thing. Much better to be "old" or "crippled" or "useless" or "dumb".
Bennet... I'm not trying to wrankle... but I really think i like "conservatives" for their honesty. Their main agenda is "God, Country,Wealth and Family". Those I understand and can fight against or for as the case may be. The fact that i can identify their beliefs makes them rather benign. Liberals are for "Utopia's" of all sorts and I find them terribly, horribly dangerous. I have no clue what "Power to the People!" means. It scares the hell out of me though. The "Unknown and Unknowable" is infinely frightening.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI find it interesting that you associate liberalism with marxist/socialists, and from there to communism, and from there to totalitarianism. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to lambast liberals with such associations, and then call for the execution of alleged Talibani without trial. I thought that such punishment without trial was a hallmark of the very types of regimes you seem to detest. Or were you claiming that since the alleged Talibani aren't American citizens, they don't have the right to a trial by jury?
Maybe so as to being a libertarian... but the actual group are so naive. I can't identify with "free drugs for everyone" and all that stuff. And when it comes to issues or arguments between "true" believing liberals and "true" b ...[text shortened]... hough. The "Unknown and Unknowable" is infinely frightening.
Originally posted by bbarrNo. There has never been a "conservative utopian vision". They are defeatists and cynic's by nature. All utopian movements, ( at least in my mind ) are based on liberal, socialist ideals. I see no difference in defending myself from Hitler,Stalin,Bin Laden or Nader. They are all fine fellows, I'm sure, but their utopian vision doesn't include room for me. I am smart enough to identify my enemies and say "You are my enemy." Isn't that much more honest than pretending? Even the fact that you can't bring yourself to say "Taliban" instead of "alleged" Talibani... tells me that you are a utopian at heart. They were all captured with weapon in hand. Nothing "alleged" there, UNLESS YOU ARE INTO NewSpeak. Very politically correct. Very frightening.
I find it interesting that you associate liberalism with marxist/socialists, and from there to communism, and from there to totalitarianism. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to lambast liberals with such associations, and then call for the execution of alleged Talibani without trial. I thought that such punishment without trial was a hallmark of the very types o ...[text shortened]... e the alleged Talibani aren't American citizens, they don't have the right to a trial by jury?
The Taliban had their trial in their local villages. They chose to kill unarmed and harmless men,women and children BY SUPPORTING ISLAMIC UTOPIAN ideals. Trials over.
Originally posted by StarValleyWySome of the folk arrested and charged with being Taliban opposition were civilians pressured into fighting for fear of reprisals. So chances are there are folk who did fight against the United States just because they thought that if they didn't, people they care about would be harmed. Does this make them Talibani? Don't you think that fair trials would be a good idea, in order to determine who was an actual Talibani or Taliban sympathizer, and who got caught up in circumstances over which they had little control? This isn't just a liberal critique of your position, it is a humanitarian one. I don't know what it means to be a "utopian at heart", but I'm easily confused when people engage in doublespeak. Calling someone a "utopian" is just a backhanded way of saddling them with an ideology that may not be accurate. My political beliefs are governed by my ethics, and as such they show a consistency not often found in either the traditionally liberal or conservative camps. My political position on an issue is dependent upon the issue, and painting me as "utopian", whatever that means, is just a disingenuous way of avoiding actual political discussion.
No. There has never been a "conservative utopian vision". They are defeatists and cynic's by nature. All utopian movements, ( at least in my mind ) are based on liberal, socialist ideals. I see no difference in defending myself from Hitler,Stalin,Bin Laden or Nader. They are all fine fellows, I'm sure, but their utopian vision doesn't include room ...[text shortened]... l unarmed and harmless men,women and children BY SUPPORTING ISLAMIC UTOPIAN ideals. Trials over.
Originally posted by bbarrTouche. I shouldn't call you a "utopian". Good point. That is pretty direct. Perhaps "progressive liberal. full of dreams of a better world" would have been better.
Some of the folk arrested and charged with being Taliban opposition were civilians pressured into fighting for fear of reprisals. So chances are there are folk who did fight against the United States just because they thought that if they didn't, people they care about would be harmed. Does this make them Talibani? Don't you think that fair trials would b ...[text shortened]... an", whatever that means, is just a disingenuous way of avoiding actual political discussion.
You say "Some of the folk arrested and charged with being Taliban opposition were civilians pressured into fighting for fear of reprisals." I respond... So? Is there a point there? Not to me.
You say "So chances are there are folk who did fight against the United States just because they thought that if they didn't, people they care about would be harmed." I ask...It's better to harm others than to allow your own to be harmed? Say What? You are getting awfully close to being rational there. Next thing you will be protecting your own instead of paying others to do a half-assed job of it.
You ask, "Does this make them Talibani?" and I answer... Yes.
You ask, "Don't you think that fair trials would be a good idea, in order to determine who was an actual Talibani or Taliban sympathizer, and who got caught up in circumstances over which they had little control?" and I answer No. That distinction exists only in political correctness. Concentrate on their actions. Watch what they do, not what they say.
"it is a humanitarian one." You are more human than I am? I think not. You are more "humane" than I? Now who's throwing wide nets?
I really don't care what your political position is. We are and have been enemies right from the word go. You know it and I know it. So what? That bothers me not the least. Why would I want to debate your positions? They are uniformly against mine. BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. So What? I certainly don't impress you in any way, and you lack just about every quality I hold to be interesting or useful.
I am relieved that you are not an activist liberal though, as in "utopian". Thanks for setting the record straight on that.
Originally posted by royalchickenNot odd in the least. Totally opposite world views preclude agreement on anything. It is just extremely rare when people will talk about it. We all "feel" it ... all the time. That was why I never responded a month ago when all i got was Pablum as to the difference. The answer that I have always seen is that THE TWO GROUPS REALLY, REALLY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. And it's not cricket to talk about it.
Ironically the lines have been drawn here in almost exactly the way warned against even as the major debaters in this thread have maintained their freedom from these lines.
Kind of odd.
Originally posted by royalchickenGee Mark... I think you are getting it. The "Real" and probably main difference between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" is that they deep down, really, don't like each other. I have always found it amusing that nobody will admit it. I think we all just don't like real confrontation and act like monkeys trying to avoid a war by hooting and hollering a lot. But you know my theory on Chimps and Humans.
I just think it funny that you had such an idealistic beginning to this thread, and then came yet again to the standard conclusion. Look at the religion thread though. Plenty of people from both sides going after that one "in their own particular idiom".
Originally posted by StarValleyWyTouche. I shouldn't call you a "utopian". Good point. That is pretty direct. Perhaps "progressive liberal. full of dreams of a better world" would have been better.
Touche. I shouldn't call you a "utopian". Good point. That is pretty direct. Perhaps "progressive liberal. full of dreams of a better world" would have been better.
You say "Some of the folk arrested and charged with being Tal ...[text shortened]... as in "utopian". Thanks for setting the record straight on that.
I'd like the world to be a better place. I'd like our political institutions to at least attempt to prevent unneccessary suffering. I'd like our political institutions to at least attempt to ensure that people have their basic needs met, and that their rights are respected. If this makes me "utopian", or "progressive", then you've really extended the meaning of those terms beyond recognition. I wonder what "conservative" would end up meaning by your lights...perhaps, "one who does not want political institutions to at least attempt to provide for the basic needs and respect the rights of persons". If that is what you believe, then we certainly are enemies.
You say "Some of the folk arrested and charged with being Taliban opposition were civilians pressured into fighting for fear of reprisals." I respond... So? Is there a point there? Not to me.
Suppose you are a young Afghani living in a village under the control of the Taliban. Suppose that the Taliban in your village have your mother and sister in custody, and tell you that if you do not take up arms against the encroaching U.S troops, your mother and sister will be raped and murdered. In this case, the decision to fight has nothing to do with being sympathetic to the Taliban regime, or hating the U.S. Rather, the decision to fight is made under extreme duress. So suppose that the comedy of errors that was the Taliban resistance results in your being taken into custody. Do you really deserve execution for fighting? Do you honestly see no ethical distinction between freely choosing to fight and choosing to fight because it is the only option available to you such that your mother and sister remain unharmed?
You ask, "Does this make them Talibani?" and I answer... Yes.
Suppose on the morning of the next presidential election, someone comes to your home with a gun and an absentee ballot. At gunpoint you are forced to vote for Howard Dean (the horror, the horror). Does this make you a Democrat? Of course not. Just as you should not be held responsible for decisions made under that sort of coersion, so some Afghanis ought not be held responsible for their coerced actions. This really constitutes a reductio of your position.
You are more human than I am? I think not. You are more "humane" than I? Now who's throwing wide nets?
I said nether of those things. I provided an argument against your position on concerning how Afghani prisoners ought to be treated. The argument was a "humanitarian" one because it critiqued your position on the grounds that your position would allow for the inhumane treatment of the innocent.
I'd like the world to be a better place. I'd like our political institutions to at least attempt to prevent unneccessary suffering. I'd like our political institutions to at least attempt to ensure that people have their basic needs met, and that their rights are respected. If this makes me "utopian", or "progressive", then you've really extended the meaning of those terms beyond recognition. I wonder what "conservative" would end up meaning by your lights...perhaps, "one who does not want political institutions to at least attempt to provide for the basic needs and respect the rights of persons". If that is what you believe, then we certainly are enemies.
I Respond...
By "my lights" i would like our political institutions to do what they were designed to do. Enact the law of the land. Don't enforce it. That is the job of the judicial. Don't try to rebuild civilization as did Johnson. Six Trillion dollars later... 6,000,000,000,000 what is to show for your "utopian" great society? A commie professor in every university class. Thanks. History rewritten beyond recognition by left wing historians? Thanks. I would really appreciate it, dear "institutions and government" if you would do much less and stop interfering with human progress. And stop telling me what you think are "basic needs", dear government. I know what they are for me. They are the same for everyone else as they are for me. They have nothing to do with government.
Suppose you are a young Afghani living in a village under the control of the Taliban. Suppose that the Taliban in your village have your mother and sister in custody, and tell you that if you do not take up arms against the encroaching U.S troops, your mother and sister will be raped and murdered. In this case, the decision to fight has nothing to do with being sympathetic to the Taliban regime, or hating the U.S. Rather, the decision to fight is made under extreme duress. So suppose that the comedy of errors that was the Taliban resistance results in your being taken into custody. Do you really deserve execution for fighting? Do you honestly see no ethical distinction between freely choosing to fight and choosing to fight because it is the only option available to you such that your mother and sister remain unharmed?
I respond...
I get my gun. I kill the guys threatening me and/or my family. I am as careful as can be to not get myself and or the family killed. If we all die, then we die. Why would I tolerate this userpation of my most basic of human rights? To be free from tyranny? If i am a guttless wonder and go off to act as a "nazi prison guard" under the same rationale as you lay out, I am not worthy of living anyway. So I fight.
Suppose on the morning of the next presidential election, someone comes to your home with a gun and an absentee ballot. At gunpoint you are forced to vote for Howard Dean (the horror, the horror). Does this make you a Democrat? Of course not. Just as you should not be held responsible for decisions made under that sort of coersion, so some Afghanis ought not be held responsible for their coerced actions. This really constitutes a reductio of your position.
I respond...
I get my gun. I kill the guys threatening me and/or my family. I am as careful as can be to not get myself and or the family killed. If we all die, then we die. Why would I tolerate this userpation of my most basic of human rights? To be free from tyranny? If i am a guttless wonder and go off to act as a "nazi prison guard" under the same rationale as you lay out, I am not worthy of living anyway. So I fight. My position is reduced only if i am a coward. I would rather be dead than vote for communism in any form.
I said nether of those things. I provided an argument against your position on concerning how Afghani prisoners ought to be treated. The argument was a "humanitarian" one because it critiqued your position on the grounds that your position would allow for the inhumane treatment of the innocent.
I respond...
Cool. You missed your calling. You could be an historian. Rewriting history is just a matter of being 'smart', after all.
I said nothing about a "position" . I said kill the bastards. You said your "position" was more humane. You are ipso facto more human than I. Good luck on the logic finals.
Mike, this is a bit ridiculous. We are, by evolution and environmental factors, all endowed with varying physical prowess. Dito for mental prowess. "Society" is in large part an effort to cooperate in using these differences in an effective way, so that one person's weakness can be supported by another's strength. This is beneficial to the species as a whole from an evolutionary standpoint, as evidenced by the fact that most of the more higly evolved animals exhibit socially cooperative behaviours while only a few less evolved ones do.
Society is about using our minds to govern our actions. Society, or "progress" as you out it, is about taking the individual physical prowess (or gun ownership, etc.) out of the equation.
Your responses to those "scenarios" are indeed chimpanzee-esque. My rule would be: make the other guy more of a chimpanzee than you. "If we die, we die." But we were the ones to have progressed.
Originally posted by royalchickenSo you would hurd in the jews, turn on the gas and light the match as <Edit> capitualtion to force would suggest, just to save yourself or your family? I wouldn't. Real life isn't composed of "generalities". Only specifics. Are you serious that you would make no effort to fight what you knew to be evil. Just roll over and die? Not me. By the way... bbarr used the gun twice before i did. Why is it ridiculous for me and not for him? These are "what ifs" are they not?
Mike, this is a bit ridiculous. We are, by evolution and environmental factors, all endowed with varying physical prowess. Dito for mental prowess. "Society" is in large part an effort to cooperate in using these differences in an ...[text shortened]... "If we die, we die." But we were the ones to have progressed.