News Addressing the foundations of humanity's problems?

[Nusc]

Is science, alone, the key to addressing the foundations of humanity's problems? Assuming we look at the great implications of what it can do for us.

 

[drizzle]

politics..science..humanity's problems!

what do you exactly mean?

 

[Nusc]

At some point, we may come closer to establishing a cure for AIDS.
Right now we are seeing the emergence of nanotechnology and its implications.
Provided that right-wing governments are kept out of office, we will see huge advancement on stem-cell research that could potentially involve human cloning or regrowth of limbs, etc.
And possibly more.

In the future, conservatism will have to adapt to these things so long as science advances. We most likely will not have as much problems with religious conflict in the future as we do now. So long as everyone is educated, is science enough to stop the blind ideological from emerging in power as we saw in WWII? I don't think so, and so what is?

 

[Jasongreat]

I think one day modern day "liberals" will understand that in order to have unlimited liberty, you have to have conservative government. Big government can only take your liberty, it can't give it. To better state it the modern day republican and democratic parties(leadership not individuals) are both fans of big government(we have no conservative party). Thomas Jefferson, who was probably the most liberal of our founders was also the most conservative, because he understood that we are born with all our rights, and government can only violate(take) them.
I don't think you will ever see a cure for aids, not because its impossible, but because there's not enough profit in it. All we will ever get is a aids treatment.
As far as growing limbs and such, that could be very useful, but human cloning, that's all we need more people running around. So much for getting people out of office, when they have a clone standing by.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In the future, conservatism will have to adapt to these things so long as science advances.

I think that you will find there are many progressive and science loving conservatives out there. There are plenty who post in this very forum.

 

[Al68]

Thomas Jefferson, who was probably the most liberal of our founders was also the most conservative, because he understood that we are born with all our rights, and government can only violate(take) them.

I agree, and it should be pointed out that the word "liberal" at that time meant what is called "right-wing extremism" today, ie classical liberalism, or libertarianism. That's why I never use the word without quotes or a modifier like "classical".

And the word "right" wasn't used as a synonym for "entitlement" as it is today. No one is granted any entitlements or rights in the constitution. Rights are presumed to pre-exist and be inalienable (and are protected by the constitution), and entitlements are the result of man-made contracts.

The word entitlement was used then only to refer to some material good or service due to someone in a legal contract, not as a synonym for "right".

When people use those two words interchangeably, it makes it difficult for some to recognize the conceptual difference.

 

[Jasongreat]

No one is granted any entitlements or rights in the constitution. Rights are presumed to pre-exist and be inalienable (and are protected by the constitution), and entitlements are the result of man-made contracts.

conceptual difference.

That was one of the biggest arguments against including the bill of rights in the constitution. The ones opposed said that everyone already new what their rights are and by includung them in the constitution it might lead people to believe that the constitution is where they got their rights from. Looking around today I don't think that line of thought was too far off.

 

[Nusc]

I think that you will find there are many progressive and science loving conservatives out there. There are plenty who post in this very forum.

What about embryonic stem cell research?

 

[Nusc]

I think one day modern day "liberals" will understand that in order to have unlimited liberty, you have to have conservative government. Big government can only take your liberty, it can't give it. To better state it the modern day republican and democratic parties(leadership not individuals) are both fans of big government(we have no conservative party). Thomas Jefferson, who was probably the most liberal of our founders was also the most conservative, because he understood that we are born with all our rights, and government can only violate(take) them.

A liberal government would grant same-sex marriage. A conservative won't grant them such rights as it infringes upon their religious values.

A conservative government is in favour of little gun control or none at all with the hope of letting citizens defend for themselves. A liberal would impose restrictions because we they understand that we do not need that crap in other peoples hands as it is clear it just increases the number of social problems in a society.

I don't think you will ever see a cure for aids, not because its impossible, but because there's not enough profit in it. All we will ever get is a aids treatment.
As far as growing limbs and such, that could be very useful, but human cloning, that's all we need more people running around. So much for getting people out of office, when they have a clone standing by.

Are you scientifically inclined at all? Nevertheless I would rather keep an open mind. No further comment.

 

[Jasongreat]

A liberal government would grant same-sex marriage. A conservative won't grant them such rights as it infringes upon their religious values.

A conservative government is in favour of little gun control or none at all with the hope of letting citizens defend for themselves. A liberal would impose restrictions because we they understand that we do not need that crap in other peoples hands as it is clear it just increases the number of social problems in a society.
QUOTE]

Conservatives don't believe that governments can grant rights, they can take them but they can't grant. I don't believe married couples should have extra rights either, are'nt we all supposed to be equal, that is we all have equal rights, not that we are equal in any other sense.

I would rather be able to defend myself than to be at the mercy of someone because they have a gun and I dont. Have you noticed where all the mass killings happen? Gun free zones.
Why would someone bent on killing people go to where people can shoot back. An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Al68]

An armed society is a polite society.

Another Robert Heinlein fan?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What about embryonic stem cell research?

There are plenty of scientifically minded conservatives who support embryonic stem cell research. There are also plenty of religious liberals who are opposed to it. You seem to think that religion is a conservative thing. The VAST majority of people in the country are religious. You mentioned gay marriage in another post; the area where I live here in California had the highest voter turnout in a long time and overwhelmingly voted in Barak Obama for president and at the same time passed a proposition to ban gay marriage with an amendment to our state constitution. When my local conservative radio talk show hosts received a call on air from a woman glad to see that gay marriage was banned they called her a disgusting and hateful person.

The problem is ignorance, it has little to do with political affiliation.

 

[Nusc]

Indeed, the problem is ignorance. It's absurd, your Democrats are more right wing than Liberals in Canada.

 

[Nusc]

A liberal government would grant same-sex marriage. A conservative won't grant them such rights as it infringes upon their religious values.

A conservative government is in favour of little gun control or none at all with the hope of letting citizens defend for themselves. A liberal would impose restrictions because we they understand that we do not need that crap in other peoples hands as it is clear it just increases the number of social problems in a society.
QUOTE]

Conservatives don't believe that governments can grant rights, they can take them but they can't grant. I don't believe married couples should have extra rights either, are'nt we all supposed to be equal, that is we all have equal rights, not that we are equal in any other sense.

I would rather be able to defend myself than to be at the mercy of someone because they have a gun and I dont. Have you noticed where all the mass killings happen? Gun free zones.
Why would someone bent on killing people go to where people can shoot back. An armed society is a polite society.

Well the post has drifted off into a different topic. In Canada we have a gun registry which law enforcement use to prohibit unlawful individuals from obtaining. Of the majority of the homocide cases in Canada, the weapons used were smuggled in from the the US.

We are rather fortunate that we don't have as much of the problems in the US. Its foreign to me why it is so difficult for the US to pass a public health care option. Here in Canada, we take it for granted. We also don't have so much poverty compared to the US either and the gap between the rich and the poor is not so great here than in the US.

However, as a result of a sponsorship scandal which the Liberals were responsible for, we are seeing a rise in Conservatism here. We're also heading into another election this month.

 

[Nusc]

You seem to think that religion is a conservative thing. \

Actually vice versa.

But yes, throughout human history, man has disguised himself and killed in the name of his ideological beliefs. I judge religion based on its political abuses.

 

[Nusc]

To avoid a pedantic discussion, let us consider the ideal cases and the fundamental values associated with each party.

In that case, the notion of a Liberal Christian is inconsistent to me.

And that conservatism is indeed on the right-wing of the political spectrum

With those assumptions,

the conservative ideology in its true nature has very little means of advancing society forward and resists fundamental change in preservation of the status-quo. This mind set does not treat all of its citizens equally, therefore, is detrimental to the freedoms and growth of a society.

Before I continue, I await your opinion.

 

[Phrak]

Well yes, throughout human history, man has disguised himself and killed in the name of his ideological beliefs.

Certainly. The more prominant as of late are obviously Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and similar luminaries. Are these the conservatives you had in mind?

 

[Nusc]

To be honest, I would include Bush and Hitler. But let's forget about that as it is not important.

 

[D H]

To avoid a pedantic discussion,

Too late. You started a pedantic discussion with the OP.

 

[Nusc]

Oh well, carry on.

 

[D H]

I would call invoking Godwin's law on page 2 as pretty dang pedantic.

 

[DavidSnider]

To avoid a pedantic discussion, let us consider the ideal cases and the fundamental values associated with each party.

In that case, the notion of a Liberal Christian is inconsistent to me.

Have you ever read the new testament? It's so liberal that even the most staunch US liberals wouldn't go as far as it does.

"Love your enemy"?
"Take no thought for the morrow"?

"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."

Think about what kind of message a parable like the prodigal son is sending. Is this consistent with conservative or liberal ideology?

 

[Nusc]

Stop changing the topic. Don't ask me to read the new testament. We will take the notion of liberal to mean:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Again, let us consider the ideal cases and the fundamental values associated with each party and that conservatism is indeed on the right-wing of the political spectrum.

With those assumptions,

the conservative ideology in its true nature has very little means of advancing society forward and resists fundamental change in preservation of the status-quo. This mind set does not treat all of its citizens equally, therefore, is detrimental to the freedoms and growth of a society.

 

[D H]

Why go away from religion? Your viewpoint on what constitutes liberals versus conservatives is religion. Good versus evil.

Liberals are the opposite of broad minded. They just like to think they are. This thread is living proof.

 

[Nusc]

Look, I just don't want to read the New testament, I'm not going away from religion.. This is not about Good versus evil.

Your second statement may have some truth to it but your judging based on my expressed opinions. Nevertheless irrelevant.

Let us assume further that those who represent the people should have a moral obligation to ensure the well-being of all its citizens and not one that puts its religious beliefs before its people or one that promotes social injustice or one that misinforms and incites fear amongst the public to divide and control and its people. Thus, I would have to say that conservatism is rather primitive.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Sir Winston Churchill

History has shown us clearly how dangerous democracy can be and it's not only the fault of the elected leaders, but the electorate that voted for them. Hence, as long as conservatism and its proponents exist within the political spectrum, I remain a liberal.

 

[D H]

Anyhow, it's late, very late. I'm outahere. You can continue the discussions of [strike]light versus darkness[/strike] liberals versus conservatives without anyone with a twinge of a conservative bent to get in your way.

 

[Huckleberry]

Stop changing the topic. Don't ask me to read the new testament. We will take the notion of liberal to mean:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

This group of people you've described doesn't exist. Liberalism is a political party with an established agenda. It seeks authority. Like any group of people that see itself as different than another group, it is open to bigotry against its rivals (as can clearly be seen in this thread). It favors liberal proposals and liberal progress and is tolerant of liberal ideas and not others. The description given is only accurate within its own mindset. It's an illusion. The cake is a lie.

I don't like either party. If any group adopted a philosophy that fits your description the group would quickly dissolve. A group without an agenda isn't good for much except hanging out doing... whatever. Anything that threatens that agenda becomes a target for bigotry and other intolerances and social abuses. It's what people do when they form groups for self-preservation. Thankfully, individuals can be pretty cool about it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nusc

I consider myself to be liberal. I also like to think that the definition which you have provided for 'liberal' is what a liberal should be or at least strive for. As Huck has pointed out though many so called liberals do not fit this definition, so much so that I rarely ever refer to myself as one because I would prefer not to be associated with them.

There are ideals that are at the core of a 'true conservative' political philosophy that I actually feel are worth wile and that I can respect. 'Less Government' is probably the one thing almost every conservative will agree on as a core principle. While I think that we do in fact need some extra government intervention in certain areas I can see the benefits of having less bureaucracy and fewer politicians in the pockets of self interest groups (regardless of their political affiliation) meddling in the direction of our progress. Imagine fewer representatives of religious self interest mucking about in legislation on stem cell research. Imagine alternative energy programs that actually take a comprehensive approach instead of being full of people all pushing their own pet projects and getting no where. Imagine a congress that doesn't waste its time investigating baseball players taking steroids and pixel porn in video games. I'd like to see my government addressing important topics instead of having so much leeway and time to burn that they discuss renaming french fries.

The key is to try working together. No one seems very interested in that any more. One of the things I love about Obama is that he believes in working together and stopping the partisan infighting (or so he says, and I tend to believe him personally).
Most of my 'fellow' liberals seem to think we are in a war and we need to try to get rid of the conservatives. But they are our neighbours and they deserve a say and they deserve our respect (in most cases). Its something that even our conservative lovers of tradition and values have forgotten; how to be neighbourly.

 

[Choronzon]

Why is this thread titled "Science"?

 

[Jasongreat]

Another Robert Heinlein fan?

I had never heard that name until now. I'm not much of a sci-fy fan, atleast the sci-fy that I was aware of. After checking him out on wiki, I might just have to read one of his books to see if I might be a fan though, any suggestions? Or was this a dig like oh, great another RH fan?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I had never heard that name until now. I'm not much of a sci-fy fan, atleast the sci-fy that I was aware of. After checking him out on wiki, I might just have to read one of his books to see if I might be a fan though, any suggestions? Or was this a dig like oh, great another RH fan?

I believe that Starship Troopers (which I understand is rather different from the movie) and Stranger in a Strange Land are his two most popular books. Your quote that Al pointed out may have been similar to something in Starship Troopers. I've not actually read any Heinlein myself yet.

 

[Al68]

Another Robert Heinlein fan?I had never heard that name until now. I'm not much of a sci-fy fan, atleast the sci-fy that I was aware of. After checking him out on wiki, I might just have to read one of his books to see if I might be a fan though, any suggestions? Or was this a dig like oh, great another RH fan?

No it wasn't a dig at all, I read all his books as a teen. He coined the phrase "An armed society is a polite society" in one of his early books.

 

[Nusc]

This group of people you've described doesn't exist. Liberalism is a political party with an established agenda. It seeks authority. Like any group of people that see itself as different than another group, it is open to bigotry against its rivals (as can clearly be seen in this thread). It favors liberal proposals and liberal progress and is tolerant of liberal ideas and not others. The description given is only accurate within its own mindset. It's an illusion. The cake is a lie.

I don't like either party. If any group adopted a philosophy that fits your description the group would quickly dissolve. A group without an agenda isn't good for much except hanging out doing... whatever. Anything that threatens that agenda becomes a target for bigotry and other intolerances and social abuses. It's what people do when they form groups for self-preservation. Thankfully, individuals can be pretty cool about it.

Okay, then how should one define liberal? How does a non-believer come across from being a bigot himself?

When you judge religion based on its political abuses, I just find conservatives offensive.

Thanks for the input.

 

[D H]

I am not religious but I am fairly conservative. I find this thread offensive. This thread is confirmatory evidence that liberals tend to be closet (or in this case, out-of-the closet) bigots.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Nusc]

Nusc
There are ideals that are at the core of a 'true conservative' political philosophy that I actually feel are worth wile and that I can respect. 'Less Government' is probably the one thing almost every conservative will agree on as a core principle. While I think that we do in fact need some extra government intervention in certain areas I can see the benefits of having less bureaucracy and fewer politicians in the pockets of self interest groups (regardless of their political affiliation) meddling in the direction of our progress. Imagine fewer representatives of religious self interest mucking about in legislation on stem cell research. Imagine alternative energy programs that actually take a comprehensive approach instead of being full of people all pushing their own pet projects and getting no where. Imagine a congress that doesn't waste its time investigating baseball players taking steroids and pixel porn in video games. I'd like to see my government addressing important topics instead of having so much leeway and time to burn that they discuss renaming french fries.

When Bush was in power, he prohibited embryonic stem cell research.
There are my assumptions, which reflect the nature of what conservatives do once in power. Then there are your examples which are far-fetched. Perhaps you should come up with more realistic examples as they do not help in anyway.

 

[Nusc]

I am not religious but I am fairly conservative. I find this thread offensive. This thread is confirmatory evidence that liberals tend to be closet (or in this case, out-of-the closet) bigots.

Thanks for the input.

Just remember even with John McCain, Sarah Palin 'almost' became your president and there are many republicans that still support her.

 

[Nusc]

I can go even further to suggest that only those who are intelligent should vote. But then you come across problems such as what defines intelligent, how do you measure it and so on. Then you also have the issue of human rights.

Which leads me to the topic of this thread. I believe science is the key to addressing the foundations of humanities problems. Unless everyone has established some degree of sophistication then we are forced to adopt a new kind of democracy whereby only the most intelligent govern its people. How to establish those means is uncertain. But I do know for certain that conservatism is counter-productive in this sense and could never achieve those means.

 

[D H]

Your idea isn't new. It's been tried multiple times. What makes you think it will work this time around?

 

[Nusc]

“I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That's a good thing.” - Steven Weinberg

Science has done a great deal in that regard. As we become increasingly secular and understand more natural processes, we are forced to either abandon or have a unified religion, one of course that downplays the notion of a personal god and refrains from doctrine etc.

It is not to say that it will work this time around just that conservatism, as I would like to say, would delay the inevitable. They want little government and as for long-term planning they suck period. They're concern is only the status-quo.Einstein on socialism:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

 

[D H]

A real conservative's concern is freedom. We generally see government as necessary, but a necessary evil.

You are classifying those who want to create a theocracy as conservative. Politics is anything but one-dimensional; placing everyone on a line creates a false dilemma. Fascism is a good example. Which is it: Left or right? While fascism appears in some regards to be a far right wing concept, it is in other regards a far left wing concept. The correct answer: is that fascism is neither left nor right. It just doesn't fit. It sits in its own space in the political landscape.

 

[Nusc]

You said you are not religious. One can make the case that those who are religous vote conservative in favour of God will. etc. But that does not apply to you.

Aside from less government, what makes one proud to be conservative?

 

[D H]

Freedom. That and not consorting with liberals who think that they know the answer to life, the universe, and everything -- and if you disagree you need reeducation.

 

[Nusc]

A real conservative's concern is freedom.

Elaborate more on this.

 

[DavidSnider]

Nusc, you are not a liberal. You are the parody of a liberal that conservatives like to trot out to make their point. I can't believe you outright condone oligarchy.

"They are men and women who tend to believe that the human being is perfectible and social progress predictable, and that the instrument for effecting the two is reason; that truths are transitory and empirically determined; that equality is desirable and attainable through the action of state power; that social and individual differences, if they are not rational, are objectionable, and should be scientifically eliminated; that all people and societies strive to organize themselves upon a rationalist and scientific paradigm." -- William F. Buckley

Sound Familiar?

 

[Nusc]

Fair enough. I still find conservatism rather primitive and if I had to vote between the two, I would obviously choose liberal.

Conservatives charge liberals such as Obama and Ignatieff with being elitists. That people are still use and are convinced by ad hominem attacks shows how primitive we really are. But nonetheless, I prefer liberal entitlement over conservative incompetence. There's no research that I could find to indicate that conservatives are better at fiscal management. We do have history to show otherwise. Then there is the social aspect of course, which I need not comment on.

At least Obama is trying to help your people with a public option.

That 'so many people in the US are afraid' of such a health care option is rather sad.

Here we take ours for granted. But that may change as conservatives are in favour of private health care.

 

[Jasongreat]

Aside from less government, what makes one proud to be conservative?

The fact that true conservatives(and you will find them on both sides of the aisle) believe that the individual is the only ones that can make true improvements in their life, and the fact that everyone else thinks that some one else is the answer to their problems. One is completely independent from the actions of others, the other completely dependent on the actions of others. What makes you prouder, doing something for yourself, or having someone else do that something for you? For me my own accomplishments make me the proudest. The harder those accomplishments are, the prouder I am to have acheived them.

 

[DavidSnider]

The fact that true conservatives believe that they are the only ones that can make improvements in their life, and the fact that everyone else thinks the government is the answer to their problems. One is completely independent from the actions of others, the other completely dependent on the actions of others.

Conservatives tend to just shift the problem away from the government and onto the church. In other words, they would rather have a person grovelling at their knees rather than having anonymous safety nets.

What makes you prouder, doing something for yourself, or having someone else do that something for you? For me my own accomplishments make me the proudest. The harder those accomplishments are the prouder I am to have acheived them.

How about collective achievements? Do you have any idea how many people's shoulders we stand on to make the modern world possible?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When Bush was in power, he prohibited embryonic stem cell research.
There are my assumptions, which reflect the nature of what conservatives do once in power. Then there are your examples which are far-fetched. Perhaps you should come up with more realistic examples as they do not help in anyway.

Bush, while in power, prohibited government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please get your facts straight. This is the exact sort of thing I am talking about when I say that other liberals make me embarrassed to call myself one. How can you be taken seriously when you can't even get such a simple fact straight?

And I have no idea what you are talking about with what I said being "far fetched". I noted a value that is possessed by conservatives. Do you dispute that conservatives are for less government? And I really don't care about what ever politician you want to talk about. A politician and their actions are not indicative of an entire fifty percent of the population, THAT I would call far fetched. You can not talk about all conservatives in general and then point at specific individuals as examples.

My 'examples', as you call them, are ideas of what our government might be able to accomplish with liberals and conservatives working together specifically regarding the conservative ideal of smaller government. If you think that smaller government can make no progress I would point out that historically the US has made rather significant progress under far more conservative governments than today (even when liberals were in power).

But perhaps you are right, maybe conservatives and liberals working together is a pretty damn far fetched idea. The majority of both are obviously too damn hard headed and bigoted to ever actually take a time out from vilifying one another and try to make the country a better place.

I can go even further to suggest that only those who are intelligent should vote.

Considering that the vast majority of minorities do not have access to decent education you would likely be called a racist if you ever seriously suggested this in a public debate. And its not like all of the uneducated people in the world are conservative rednecks.

That people are still use and are convinced by ad hominem attacks shows how primitive we really are.

Liberals are rather guilty of ad hominem attacks as well. I've seen liberals calling others racists and comparing them to birthers and tea partyers just because they do not like the idea of national health care. I also remember that when Bush was talking about an amnesty plan the liberals went nuts but now that Obama is talking about it they tend to think its a great idea. You can't get much worse than liking or disliking an idea based solely on who is proposing it.

 

[Galteeth]

Well the OP has a fairly interesting view. One question: Your definition of liberal was

." Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

But you want to ban people from owning guns.


How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

 

[Huckleberry]

Okay, then how should one define liberal? How does a non-believer come across from being a bigot himself?

When you judge religion based on its political abuses, I just find conservatives offensive.

Thanks for the input.

I choose not to define political parties. If anything they are defined by their agendas, not by the honorifics they apply to themselves. Some things I agree with the liberal stance and other things I agree with the conservative stance. I'm not much impressed with either.

If you are asking for my general impression of these parties I would use an analogy from Dumas. Conservatives are all for one. Liberals are one for all. I don't think either works on its own.

I'm not sure what religion has to do with party preference. Most liberals are religious, as are most conservatives, assuming you are talking about the United States. Most people here have some form of religion. There are also non-religious people on both sides of the political fence. If you find the way the conservative party wields religion offensive then fine, I somewhat agree, but to find every conservative you meet offensive for simply being a conservative, regardless of the positions they personally hold, that just seems like an error in judgement to me.

edit - I'm starting to believe that some radio talk show hosts are doing unimaginable damage to their own political parties.