News Addressing the foundations of humanity's problems?

[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.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.