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?