Addressing the foundations of humanity's problems?

[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.

 

[Nusc]

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?

We have gun control. Government intervention where necessary of course. In the US you have a lot of crime - take away the weapons. A liberal will try to address the root causes.

A conservative would just impose tougher sentences. You don't need weapons anyway. They're only designed for one thing. Culture is different in the US.

 

[Nusc]

What makes you prouder, doing something for yourself, or having someone else do that something for you?

Let's rephrase that,
What makes you prouder, doing something for yourself, or giving a helping hand?

You're only focused on yourself. Go look into a mirror. Jason The Great!

 

[Nusc]

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?

Sorry for making that mistake, but what difference does it make? It just proves my point that conservatives have no interest in pushing science forward as it infringes upon their religious values - if that's not the case they wouldn't fund it anyway because their cheap and have no interest in investing in society.

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.

"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."

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.

If the conservatives started electing more intelligent and compassionate leaders I wouldn't be discussing this issue.

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).

You think you're prosperous without government funded health care?

But perhaps you are right, maybe conservatives and liberals working together is a pretty damn far fetched idea.

No dude, if conservatives elected more intelligent people, they can work together.

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.

It may be true but wwo weeks or so, Obama was boycotted by conservatives for talking to a group of students at school telling them to stay in school or something among those lines. I'm assuming everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Education is key.

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.

Which is why we need more intelligent politicians and electorate.I can't believe how polarized it is down south.

 

[Choronzon]

Sorry for making that mistake, but what difference does it make? It just proves my point that conservatives have no interest in pushing science forward as it infringes upon their religious values - if that's not the case they wouldn't fund it anyway because their cheap and have no interest in investing in society.

Just like those doing research on stem cells had problems during the Bush administration, those who want to do more research on energy that doesn't involve wind mills and solar panels won't be getting any bread from the Obama administration. That's why science is better off if Government kept it's mouth shut and did only what is necessary.

 

[DavidSnider]

Sorry for making that mistake, but what difference does it make? It just proves my point that conservatives have no interest in pushing science forward as it infringes upon their religious values - if that's not the case they wouldn't fund it anyway because their cheap and have no interest in investing in society.

This is just not true. Compare Bush to Clinton on science funding. Bush gave places like the NIH huge budget increases while Clinton slashed it.

Conservatives are not luddites. They may believe in the bible on Sunday but when it comes to picking out what goes in their stock portfolio on monday science wins out.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sorry for making that mistake, but what difference does it make? It just proves my point that conservatives have no interest in pushing science forward as it infringes upon their religious values.

Again, you are referring to a single politician. And on top of that he's a single politician who had an incredibly low approval rating. Singular individuals are not the measure of a whole spectrum of ideology.
Bush also received criticism for his decision from both sides of the aisle.

"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."

Is this supposed to be one of those far fetched ideas of mine? If so that's pretty sad that its far fetched.

You think you're prosperous without government funded health care?

I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. The US has in fact been rather prosperous for quite some time. It has unfortunately fallen behind the times in certain respects though.

No dude, if conservatives elected more intelligent people, they can work together.

There are plenty of intelligent elected conservatives out there. The problem is that the partisan in fighting has made elections into a culture war and each faction (dem and rep) are fighting tooth and nail with one another to claim more supporters and the republicans seem to find that their greatest resource of steady backers are more likely to vote for someone like Bush. Unfortunately conservatives have grown more and more weary of intellectuals. Perhaps because so many liberal intellectuals like to call them things like backward and primitive and tend to disparage their religiosity.

It may be true but wwo weeks or so, Obama was attacked by conservatives for talking to a group of students at school telling them to stay in school or something among those lines. I'm assuming everyone knows what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with my comment? You would apparently seek to disenfranchise the less educated and I am pointing out that plenty of people of a lesser education are other than conservative rednecks. White trailer trash Limbaugh fans are not the only people ignorant on the subject of science and technological advances.

Which is why we need more intelligent politicians and electorate.

Putting an educational requirement on political offices is certainly not something I would be averse to.

 

[Galteeth]

. Government intervention where necessary of course. . .


A liberal will try to address the root causes.

.

So being liberal means being tolerant of others except where necessary... This seems a bit arbitrary.

 

[byronm]

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.

Science is an aspect of Humanity, but only Humanity can save itself. With that said, the only thing that can save us now is a little humility.

We don't resolve anything, we shoot the messenger.
We don't debate the facts, we debate the argument itself.
We have a dictionary for what words are mean but we debate to change those meanings.

Such blissful and willful ignorance makes me a sad panda

 

[byronm]

This is just not true. Compare Bush to Clinton on science funding. Bush gave places like the NIH huge budget increases while Clinton slashed it.

Conservatives are not luddites. They may believe in the bible on Sunday but when it comes to picking out what goes in their stock portfolio on monday science wins out.

Thats odd. I could have sworn is was Newt Gingrich and the "Republican Rebirth" of the mid 90s that forced all those budget cuts, destroyed the value of science and even the value of public education in many ways as a response to Clinton's balancing of the budget and budget surplus through his cutting in military spending (That was actually a great move in hindsight).

Just sayin ;)

 

[Galteeth]

Thats odd. I could have sworn is was Newt Gingrich and the "Republican Rebirth" of the mid 90s that forced all those budget cuts, destroyed the value of science and even the value of public education in many ways as a response to Clinton's balancing of the budget and budget surplus through his cutting in military spending (That was actually a great move in hindsight).

Just sayin ;)

In a way, you have the collapse of the Soviets to blame for that. The hawks wouldn't let religous nonsense get in the way of the race.

 

[Nusc]

Just like those doing research on stem cells had problems during the Bush administration, those who want to do more research on energy that doesn't involve wind mills and solar panels won't be getting any bread from the Obama administration. That's why science is better off if Government kept it's mouth shut and did only what is necessary.

Then again this is the typical thinking of a conservative, no interested in the growth of a society. Government should intervene where there is potential benefits, not strictly limit itself from society.

Maybe that's because Steven Chu who's a physicist and your secretary of energy has greater priorities. He, as a scientist, is more entitled to know what's important and what is not.

 

[Nusc]

Singular individuals are not the measure of a whole spectrum of ideology.

They do represent the spectrum of the ideology and those that voted for them. Who's to blame?

I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. The US has in fact been rather prosperous for quite some time. It has unfortunately fallen behind the times in certain respects though.

How do you define prosperous? Sarah Palin 'almost' became your president, the fact that she got that far because of the millions of people that voted for her or the party, knowing that she would represent it, is scary.

Putting an educational requirement on political offices is certainly not something I would be averse to.

Even if they belong to both sides of the spectrum?

 

[Galteeth]

Then again this is the typical thinking of a conservative, no interested in the growth of a society. Government should intervene where there is potential benefits, not strictly limit itself from society.

Maybe that's because Steven Chu who's a physicist and your secretary of energy has greater priorities. He, as a scientist, is more entitled to know what's important and what is not.

I am reminded by your post of a couple of quotes.


"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. "- George Orwell



"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. "- George Washington


Government intervention means changing people's behavior by the threat of force if they don't comply. In other words one group of people forcing their will on everyone who might disagree. There are very good reasons for the tradition of limited government. The basis of the traditional American idea is that the government should intervene with force only when absolutely necessary and leave everything else up to the individual or the people.

"Government should intervene where there is potential benefits" Any government action could potentially have benefits to someone. This is pretty much a blanket rationale for totalitarianism.

 

[Nusc]

I am reminded by your post of a couple of quotes."So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. "- George Orwell
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. "- George WashingtonGovernment intervention means changing people's behavior by the threat of force if they don't comply. In other words one group of people forcing their will on everyone who might disagree. There are very good reasons for the tradition of limited government. The basis of the traditional American idea is that the government should intervene with force only when absolutely necessary and leave everything else up to the individual or the people.

"Government should intervene where there is potential benefits" Any government action could potentially have benefits to someone. This is pretty much a blanket rationale for totalitarianism.

I have, based the conservative ideology by those who represented them as a whole on your recently history.

In your case, your exaggerating the notion of government control. Was there a liberal government that operated as a totaltarian? What about Bill Clinton? These people try to do the best for wellness of your country and you shove them off.

In the states you have enormous amounts of law suits and it's ridiculous what people sue for down south. Like that judge that sued those korean laundry mat owners and other stuff. When you watch programs such as judge judy, you see parents suing their own children, it's ridiculous - why raise children to begin with?

We've discussed this matter throughout this post and I will not comment further as it just brings back to where we started.

The need for more intelligent politicians has been pointed out, in particular, the need for more intelligent conservatives to lead their party.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They do represent the spectrum of the ideology and those that voted for them. Who's to blame?

Quite a few conservatives did not like Bush. Quite a few voted for him because they felt we was the lesser of two evils. Many people here in the US vote that way. Perhaps that does not make sense to you since you don't have the same two party dominance where you are but that is they way it often goes. Many Liberals voted for Kerry not because they liked him but because they didn't like Bush. I think this time around a lot of centrists and right leaning people people voted for Obama because they really didn't like McCain and Palin. You can see that the health care reform bill had less than 50% approval until just recently.

I have, based the conservative ideology by those who represented them as a whole on your recently history.

You mean Bush? And McCain as a nominee? There are far more political offices in this country than just president and senator. Senators represent about 50% of anyone state (if that) and considering the incredibly large population that the President represents there is no way one could conceivably consider the person who holds that office to be a proper ideological representative of even 50% of the country.

How do you define prosperous? Sarah Palin 'almost' became your president, the fact that she got that far because of the millions of people that voted for her or the party, knowing that she would represent it, is scary.

Palin was only almost Vice President. Many many conservatives held their nose as they voted for McCain because of her and the race probably would have been much closer had it not been for her. And again I have no idea how this relates to the point. You seem to be the king of non sequiturs.

Even if they belong to both sides of the spectrum?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think that political offices ought to have educational requirements. A political office has no party affiliation.

In your case, your exaggerating the notion of government control. Was there a liberal government that operated as a totaltarian?

Cuba maybe?

In the states you have enormous amounts of law suits and it's ridiculous what people sue for down south.

Note please that conservatives in this country are the ones pushing for tort reform and stricter controls on litigation. Of course part of that motivation, at least in some cases, is that they are supported by major corporations that can easily lose millions (probably even billions now a days) defending and paying out in tort cases.

 

[Nusc]

Nusc
Most of my 'fellow' liberals seem to think we are in a war and we need to try to get rid of the conservatives.

Nevertheless, conservatism is most likely to become obsolete in the distant future.

I haven't taken the time to carefully write what I've said which resulted in the number of errors and logical fallacies but I don't care as it's not that important. Picking through the little details distracts from the greater picture.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h/

 

[Galteeth]

Nevertheless, conservatism is most likely to become obsolete in the distant future.

Ok, I think I can summarize your world view here.

Liberals=Enlightened, Noble, benefactors of the people

Conservatives= Evil, Stupid

Well, ok. But such an overly simplistic world view is going to be detrimental to really understanding how to be effective politically.


Also, this has nothing to do with science.

 

[Nusc]

Not evil just primitive.

The idea was to see what science can do but that discussion was diverted into something entirely different. But I don't regret talking about it, regardless of how incoherent it was haha

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nevertheless, conservatism is most likely to become obsolete in the distant future.

I haven't taken the time to carefully write what I've said which resulted in the number of errors and logical fallacies but I don't care as it's not that important. Picking through the little details distracts from the greater picture.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h/

I see. A test of 46 people shows that conservatives are all scardycats.

There will always be 'conservatives'. The republicans and democrats as they are today have little resemblance to what they were less than one hundred years ago. Your characterization of 'what conservatives are like' is based almost entirely on current negative and closed minded stereotyping. In the distant future there will still be conservatives and liberals, only the lines will be drawn differently and the issues will have changed.


Edit: note also, in response to the article, that liberals are fear mongers too, they just don't like to admit it. Just in recent years we had all sorts of claims of federal agents listening in on your phone calls, republicans wanting to take away a womans right to vote, Row v Wade was going to be overturned, be careful or you might wind up in Gitmo, our right to free speech is being taken away, our leaders are fascists and nazis, and on and on and on...

 

[D H]

I haven't taken the time to carefully write what I've said which resulted in the number of errors and logical fallacies but I don't care as it's not that important.

Nuff said.