| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2008 07:07:26 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok, we got a McCain supporter (Ron) saying it was a good watch and an Obama supporter (me) that says the same. Nobody has an excuse now. It could lead to an interesting discussion itself. |
Good video - thanks.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 07:53:57 PM · #102 |
One interesting thing I thought about the video is that according to Haidt liberals are very anti-authority when it comes to social issues. However, at least by stereotype, liberals seem more willing to allow or want governmental regulation or control over business and commerce. How does this jive?
On the front of government and business I've wondered if the difference between liberals and conservatives is a basic outlook on human nature. This is totally my own speculation, but I've wondered if liberals view human nature as fundamentally evil while conservatives view human nature as fundamentally good. In other words, liberals think we need governmental regulation because without it the system devolves due to greed, powergrabbing, and selfishness. On the other hand, conservatives think governmental regulation only gets in the way because without it the system generally works for the best with people being able to govern themselves through their own moral compasses.
Personally I have drifted to the left as time goes on. I think it is because of this view. I generally feel people are inherently broken (greedy, self-centered, selfish). We can be capable of good, but given a large system, the brokeness takes over and those without the ability to fend for themselves (read: undereducated, underpriviledged, minorities, etc) are trampled. Government's role is to defend the "fatherless and the widow".
Message edited by author 2008-09-17 19:55:29. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 08:14:59 PM · #103 |
I'm very liberal (almost to the point of socialist) but I don't agree with your assessment. I think that people are inherently good and want to help others. But, I also believe that capitalism is as flawed a system as communism on a grand scale. You will always have people that are greedy but I believe (actually I hope) that they are outweighed by the altruistic. Additionally, as the video pointed out, there are those people that hate change. Its those people that scare me. It wasn't too long ago that racism and sexism were completely acceptable in this country. Lucky for us, things do change.
So, as a liberal, I do not believe people are evil. Not at all. But sometimes, they promote evil things out of fear of change. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 08:26:18 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One interesting thing I thought about the video is that according to Haidt liberals are very anti-authority when it comes to social issues. However, at least by stereotype, liberals seem more willing to allow or want governmental regulation or control over business and commerce. How does this jive?
On the front of government and business I've wondered if the difference between liberals and conservatives is a basic outlook on human nature. This is totally my own speculation, but I've wondered if liberals view human nature as fundamentally evil while conservatives view human nature as fundamentally good. In other words, liberals think we need governmental regulation because without it the system devolves due to greed, powergrabbing, and selfishness. On the other hand, conservatives think governmental regulation only gets in the way because without it the system generally works for the best with people being able to govern themselves through their own moral compasses.
Personally I have drifted to the left as time goes on. I think it is because of this view. I generally feel people are inherently broken (greedy, self-centered, selfish). We can be capable of good, but given a large system, the brokeness takes over and those without the ability to fend for themselves (read: undereducated, underpriviledged, minorities, etc) are trampled. Government's role is to defend the "fatherless and the widow". |
That's an interesting observation, but it flies in the face of recent experiences. If, as you propose, liberals endorse regulation and more government and conservatives endorse less regulation and smaller government, how would you explain the current conservative administration's expansion of government and restriction of personal freedoms and the negative reaction on the part of liberals? |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 08:26:20 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
How then do we bridge the gap in the way we think and relate to each other and how do we foster the dialogue? |
Believe it or not I've seen that take place on this site. It's just hard to find sometimes because these threads tend to get taken over quickly by the agenda pushing bots people who apparently cannot exist outside of these threads. At least that's my reasoning for why I never see them engage in any other thread let alone take part in any of the photographic aspects of this site. Perhaps if we stop feeding them this attention they would go away.
Message edited by author 2008-09-17 20:28:28.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:23:09 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Personally I have drifted to the left as time goes on. I think it is because of this view. I generally feel people are inherently broken (greedy, self-centered, selfish). We can be capable of good, but given a large system, the brokeness takes over and those without the ability to fend for themselves (read: undereducated, underpriviledged, minorities, etc) are trampled. Government's role is to defend the "fatherless and the widow". |
That's an interesting observation, but it flies in the face of recent experiences. If, as you propose, liberals endorse regulation and more government and conservatives endorse less regulation and smaller government, how would you explain the current conservative administration's expansion of government and restriction of personal freedoms and the negative reaction on the part of liberals? [/quote]
That's an interesting question. As far as business goes, I would argue that we have seen deregulation over the last eight years versus a larger role in government. Wall Street rules have been loosened and the administration dug their heels in doing their best to keep CO2 emissions from being regulated (just as two examples). Government spending certainly went up, but I'm not quite sure government oversight did. OTOH, the patriot act certainly did increase the goverment's ability to watch us. But is this different than the government telling us how to do things (for the purpose of defending the underpriviledged)? Haidt would easily argue that it is the liberal's anti-authoritarian streak which causes them to rail against such things as the Patriot Act.
Message edited by author 2008-09-17 21:24:10. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:55:33 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm very liberal (almost to the point of socialist) but I don't agree with your assessment. I think that people are inherently good and want to help others. But, I also believe that capitalism is as flawed a system as communism on a grand scale. You will always have people that are greedy but I believe (actually I hope) that they are outweighed by the altruistic. Additionally, as the video pointed out, there are those people that hate change. Its those people that scare me. It wasn't too long ago that racism and sexism were completely acceptable in this country. Lucky for us, things do change.
So, as a liberal, I do not believe people are evil. Not at all. But sometimes, they promote evil things out of fear of change. |
Interesting. So can you elucidate why you think socialism is a good thing? I'm interested in your answer. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 10:11:46 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One interesting thing I thought about the video is that according to Haidt liberals are very anti-authority when it comes to social issues. However, at least by stereotype, liberals seem more willing to allow or want governmental regulation or control over business and commerce. How does this jive?
On the front of government and business I've wondered if the difference between liberals and conservatives is a basic outlook on human nature. This is totally my own speculation, but I've wondered if liberals view human nature as fundamentally evil while conservatives view human nature as fundamentally good. In other words, liberals think we need governmental regulation because without it the system devolves due to greed, powergrabbing, and selfishness. On the other hand, conservatives think governmental regulation only gets in the way because without it the system generally works for the best with people being able to govern themselves through their own moral compasses.
Personally I have drifted to the left as time goes on. I think it is because of this view. I generally feel people are inherently broken (greedy, self-centered, selfish). We can be capable of good, but given a large system, the brokeness takes over and those without the ability to fend for themselves (read: undereducated, underpriviledged, minorities, etc) are trampled. Government's role is to defend the "fatherless and the widow". |
That's an interesting observation, but it flies in the face of recent experiences. If, as you propose, liberals endorse regulation and more government and conservatives endorse less regulation and smaller government, how would you explain the current conservative administration's expansion of government and restriction of personal freedoms and the negative reaction on the part of liberals? |
I Think Doc already hinted to this but Hiadt's explanation of how conservatives view order as one of the more important tenets of the moral code explains why the Bush Administration/conservatives feel it's ok to trample some people's rights in order to maintain that moral order. Likewise, the liberals view this the opposite and reject the authority trampling anyone rights.
I do find it funny that most liberals are liberal socially, wanting minimal involvement by the government in personal affairs, but tend to fall on the conservative side of the spectrum on economics with more government regulation. Likewise conservatives are more socially conservative with government regulating social issues but falling more liberal on economics demanding less government in this sector. Why do suppose both sides tend to take these contradictory views against their beliefs?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 08:12:35 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
How then do we bridge the gap in the way we think and relate to each other and how do we foster the dialogue? |
Speaking for myself, the main reason I'm a "liberal" and a "leftist" is because people on the right call me that. I actually am just me. I have certain propensities, like a distrust in (but not hostility toward) authority (governmental, corporate or spiritual). I have opinions of varying strength on varying issues, based on my own conclusions drawn from my own experience. Sometimes they are far left, sometimes they are right. I don't like emotionally-based decisions: I don't like the right-wing tendency to embrace a one-sided devotion of such things as God and country. I don't like the left-wing tendency to say "oh, no, somebody is suffering. Let's spend billions of tax dollars." Both are emotionally-based decisions. The best decisions are those that intellectually find the best methods to promote emotional goals (peace & joy).
So, to answer your question, we can start by not being so quick to label ourselves and others. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 08:53:56 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I have opinions of varying strength on varying issue.... Sometimes they are far left, sometimes they are right. |
You might want to rephrase that. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:01:26 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I have opinions of varying strength on varying issue.... Sometimes they are far left, sometimes they are right. |
You might want to rephrase that. ;-) |
Sounds about right to me :D |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:17:01 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
How can anyone say that Sarah Palin is not qualified and in the same breath say the Obama is ready? |
When Palin̢۪s son left for Iraq, she told the gathered soldiers they would be fighting "the enemies who planned and carried out" the Sept. 11 attacks. Does she not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it?
To demonstrate her foreign policy credentials, the Republicans note Alaska̢۪s proximity to Russia. Imagine the derisive laughter from conservatives if the Democrats tried such nonsense.
Palin was clueless about the meaning of "the Bush doctrine." You can̢۪t imagine that Obama would not know.
She is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country. Bearing in mind also her troubling views on evolution and global warming, I would hate to imagine her in line for the presidency.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 09:35:39. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:19:13 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
How then do we bridge the gap in the way we think and relate to each other and how do we foster the dialogue? |
Speaking for myself, the main reason I'm a "liberal" and a "leftist" is because people on the right call me that. I actually am just me. I have certain propensities, like a distrust in (but not hostility toward) authority (governmental, corporate or spiritual). I have opinions of varying strength on varying issues, based on my own conclusions drawn from my own experience. Sometimes they are far left, sometimes they are right. I don't like emotionally-based decisions: I don't like the right-wing tendency to embrace a one-sided devotion of such things as God and country. I don't like the left-wing tendency to say "oh, no, somebody is suffering. Let's spend billions of tax dollars." Both are emotionally-based decisions. The best decisions are those that intellectually find the best methods to promote emotional goals (peace & joy).
So, to answer your question, we can start by not being so quick to label ourselves and others. |
Same for me for different reasons. :)
To the far right, I would be considered liberal.
The the far left, I would be considered conservative.
The end result is that it all makes me batty. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:54:27 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Palin was clueless about the meaning of "the Bush doctrine." You can̢۪t imagine that Obama would not know. |
To be fair, I never heard of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" either, so I wouldn't fault a governor with zero foreign policy responsibilities for ignorance there. Palin never really needed to know until recently. It would be a bigger gaffe IMO if you were actually touting your personal foreign policy experience and didn't even know the names of important world leaders. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:10:11 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by citymars:
Palin was clueless about the meaning of "the Bush doctrine." You can̢۪t imagine that Obama would not know. |
To be fair, I never heard of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" either, so I wouldn't fault a governor with zero foreign policy responsibilities for ignorance there. Palin never really needed to know until recently. It would be a bigger gaffe IMO if you were actually touting your personal foreign policy experience and didn't even know the names of important world leaders. |
Not a phrase but a powerful and imo a dangerous philosophy that states our right to embrace nation building to enhance our security, allows for preemptive attacks, ghost detainees etc.
"America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few."
We should ALL know what it is and what it states whether or not you agree or disagree with it. It's why the world is becoming a big powder keg again.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 10:19:11. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:12:52 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Not a phrase but a powerful and imo a dangerous philosophy that states our right to embrace nation building to enhance our security and allows for preemptive attacks. |
I'm aware of the ill-conceived philosophy. I just never knew it had a title. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:20:24 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Not a phrase but a powerful and imo a dangerous philosophy that states our right to embrace nation building to enhance our security and allows for preemptive attacks. |
I'm aware of the ill-conceived philosophy. I just never knew it had a title. |
Sorry, no offense meant. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:24:21 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by citymars:
Palin was clueless about the meaning of "the Bush doctrine." You can̢۪t imagine that Obama would not know. |
To be fair, I never heard of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" either, so I wouldn't fault a governor with zero foreign policy responsibilities for ignorance there. Palin never really needed to know until recently. It would be a bigger gaffe IMO if you were actually touting your personal foreign policy experience and didn't even know the names of important world leaders. |
If it helps jog your memory, it's known by other names, such as
1) the PNAC Panic Attack
2) the Neo-Con Wet Dream
3) Dr. Strangelove's Snake Oil |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:55:21 AM · #119 |
| I have always considered myself a conservative, but I'm not sure what the labels really mean these days. I have no problem with change and growth, and try to be open to various viewpoints. However, I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and feel this has been lacking for many years. "Liberal" has always brought images of the government as "daddy", taking care of us since we can't, or shouldn't have to, take care of ourselves. These days, "conservative" seems to mean evangelical Christian, and that's just scary. Where does a person favoring small government, personal responsibility, equal rights (without favoring any minority group--true equality), and letting other countries create their own societies as they see fit belong in today's politics? |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:03:20 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I have always considered myself a conservative, but I'm not sure what the labels really mean these days. I have no problem with change and growth, and try to be open to various viewpoints. However, I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and feel this has been lacking for many years. "Liberal" has always brought images of the government as "daddy", taking care of us since we can't, or shouldn't have to, take care of ourselves. These days, "conservative" seems to mean evangelical Christian, and that's just scary. Where does a person favoring small government, personal responsibility, equal rights (without favoring any minority group--true equality), and letting other countries create their own societies as they see fit belong in today's politics? |
You sound like a Libertarian, which is where I have been leaning since realizing that the religious right have hijacked the republican party to serve their own agenda, not to mention the republicans have turned into the big government spenders that they railed against. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:10:32 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I have always considered myself a conservative, but I'm not sure what the labels really mean these days. I have no problem with change and growth, and try to be open to various viewpoints. However, I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and feel this has been lacking for many years. "Liberal" has always brought images of the government as "daddy", taking care of us since we can't, or shouldn't have to, take care of ourselves. These days, "conservative" seems to mean evangelical Christian, and that's just scary. Where does a person favoring small government, personal responsibility, equal rights (without favoring any minority group--true equality), and letting other countries create their own societies as they see fit belong in today's politics? |
You sound like a Libertarian, which is where I have been leaning since realizing that the religious right have hijacked the republican party to serve their own agenda, not to mention the republicans have turned into the big government spenders that they railed against. |
I've never looked into Libertarian beliefs/policies. Maybe it's time for a REAL change! |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:11:54 AM · #122 |
I was going to agree with the Libertarian moniker for chaimelle.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 11:12:35. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:18:47 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I have always considered myself a conservative, but I'm not sure what the labels really mean these days. I have no problem with change and growth, and try to be open to various viewpoints. However, I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and feel this has been lacking for many years. "Liberal" has always brought images of the government as "daddy", taking care of us since we can't, or shouldn't have to, take care of ourselves. These days, "conservative" seems to mean evangelical Christian, and that's just scary. Where does a person favoring small government, personal responsibility, equal rights (without favoring any minority group--true equality), and letting other countries create their own societies as they see fit belong in today's politics? |
Welcome! |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:33:39 AM · #124 |
It's an attractive platform (Libertarian). In fact, I used to read Reason (a Libertarian magazine).
However, it seems you need to believe that the free market will fix most of the world's problems. But when you talk about things like the environment (CAFE standards for example, and regulations that are not necessarily of common interest to the average consumer), education, healthcare, small businesses etc. â€Â¦ the water gets muddy again because it could be argued that the Government has helped in these areas here and abroad.
Not to mention that it can be argued that the current crisis in the economy could have been avoided with more government oversight. Of course, people could argue against all that stuff to - the argument is usually the exact opposite - they will tend to blame the problem on any interferance of the government (and seomtimes that's true I suppose). In fact, people often try to frame the word "Government" in negative light- kinda like the word "Liberal".
Generally, it seems to me that the LIbertarian idea is that everything will work itself out if you have a free and open economy. Consumers will make the "right" choices and good will prevail. Personally, I think that's not a picture that can be painted with such a broad stroke.
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I have always considered myself a conservative, but I'm not sure what the labels really mean these days. I have no problem with change and growth, and try to be open to various viewpoints. However, I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and feel this has been lacking for many years. "Liberal" has always brought images of the government as "daddy", taking care of us since we can't, or shouldn't have to, take care of ourselves. These days, "conservative" seems to mean evangelical Christian, and that's just scary. Where does a person favoring small government, personal responsibility, equal rights (without favoring any minority group--true equality), and letting other countries create their own societies as they see fit belong in today's politics? |
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 11:53:54. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:58:49 AM · #125 |
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all.
Originally posted by metatate:
It's an attractive platform (Libertarian). In fact, I used to read Reason (a Libertarian magazine).
However, it seems you need to believe that the free market will fix most of the world's problems. But when you talk about things like the environment (CAFE standards for example, and regulations that are not necessarily of common interest to the average consumer), education, healthcare, small businesses etc. â€Â¦ the water gets muddy again because it could be argued that the Government has helped in these areas here and abroad.
Not to mention that it can be argued that the current crisis in the economy could have been avoided with more government oversight. Of course, people could argue against all that stuff to - the argument is usually the exact opposite - they will tend to blame the problem on any interferance of the government (and seomtimes that's true I suppose). In fact, people often try to frame the word "Government" in negative light- kinda like the word "Liberal".
Generally, it seems to me that the LIbertarian idea is that everything will work itself out if you have a free and open economy. Consumers will make the "right" choices and good will prevail. Personally, I think that's not a picture that can be painted with such a broad stroke.
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I have always considered myself a conservative, but I'm not sure what the labels really mean these days. I have no problem with change and growth, and try to be open to various viewpoints. However, I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and feel this has been lacking for many years. "Liberal" has always brought images of the government as "daddy", taking care of us since we can't, or shouldn't have to, take care of ourselves. These days, "conservative" seems to mean evangelical Christian, and that's just scary. Where does a person favoring small government, personal responsibility, equal rights (without favoring any minority group--true equality), and letting other countries create their own societies as they see fit belong in today's politics? |
|
|
|
