|
On July 05 2010 22:12 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:Nice essay on intellect being correlated with liberal-ness, but I somewhat disagree. It's no secret that academicians (particularly social "scientists" are largely liberal, but people often use that correlation to make the conclusion that it's the "correct" viewpoint. Well it's no surprise that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies who want to live in a utopian world are going to cherish socialist philosophies, but that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth. That is almost precisely my point. I'm positing that as intelligence increases, people get better at fully thinking through a position, and become more empathetic, leading to a correlation between intelligence and "socialist" positions until intelligence reaches a threshold value where people follow "socialism" through to its logical conclusion and realize its hypocritical and self-destructive. Its more a matter of threshold values than a true correlation, I suppose, but I do think my final claim, that conservatives are over-represented at the extremes of an intelligence distribution, is actually empirically correct.
Ah, I only skimmed the first half of your essay. Very interesting idea.
|
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote:
(I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments.
Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority.
Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you::
Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why?
What implications does this have for our future?
(Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
The idea of being liberal, democratic or minority is so blurred these days you shouldn't put a descriptor on them. The 1950s nuclear american family title as either 'Liberal or Democratic' doesn't truly exist anymore (and its debatable whether it ever did) and really all you have is a blown out idea.
That being said why bother reading youtube.com comments, I have never learnt something insightful from them since anyone with any intelligence wont even look there.
|
On July 05 2010 22:08 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 21:53 Tyraz wrote:Ofcourse it doesn't help that republicans have quite a few policies that are on pretty morally shakey ground: Hold on here. You may well be right that the arguments offered by republicans in support of the following issues are bad or shakey, but with the exception of same sex marriage, not a single issue you've named cannot be defended rigorously and completely to a solid conclusion shared with republicans. I can do it if you want me to - although it will be an essay.
Oh, I agree. Although I would extend that the position on health care as well; need should always over rule ability to pay (this is the essence of a moral decision.. isn't it?).
As for immigration; you cannot simply force people out of their homes, jobs and way of life simply because a piece of paper says they are not citizens. A moral (and economically sensable) solution would be to at least give them an opportunity to prove their worth/patriotism and decide based on that.
Put simply: just because you were born in a country which was founded when someone put a stick in the ground and wrote a declaration of independance doesn't mean you have the right to forcably remove someone from their way of life without giving them a chance to prove themselves.
Also, your disagrement is exactly the point: for each of those points, there are moral ways of going about them, but the current republican stance is not one of them.
Edit: Also, yes; I'd like to see that essay. Most of those points are morally unjustifiable (note that health care and 2nd amendment have degrees of extremity. That is important.)
|
I can already feel this thread becoming a showdown between the fief and Stalinist Russia so I will bow out before I am tempted to write a serious reply to something ridiculous.
|
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:
But that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Well then I guess it all boils down to having different views of human nature (I don't know if this is the right term, but I couldn't find a proper translation for the swedish word 'människosyn', some one help me out.) I might be naive but my belief is that people are in fact willing to work.
|
On July 05 2010 22:21 Tyraz wrote:Oh, I agree. Although I would extend that the position on health care as well; need should always over rule ability to pay (this is the essence of a moral decision.. isn't it?).
Well, yes, thats a moral question. However, I'm fairly certain there exist some Republicans who would be fine with universal healthcare in theory, but have major problems with Obamacare's implementation and general idea.
While I personally believe need should overrule ability to pay, at the end of the day someone has to pay for any given treatment. Any universalized healthcare system is in essence forcing a moral decision onto people. Whether this is in itself moral or not is a major question, but lets assume it is. I'm perfectly happy, for instance, with a country implementing universal healthcare because the majority of the country thinks that need should overrule ability to pay - but I'm not perfectly happy with, say, a single-payer system. There are much better ways of achieving universal coverage that don't involve shitting all over competitive markets and maintaining the worst part of the previous health system because old people are selfish.
As for immigration; you cannot simply force people out of their homes, jobs and way of life simply because a piece of paper says they are not citizens. A moral (and economically sensable) solution would be to at least give them an opportunity to prove their worth/patriotism and decide based on that.
Well, first I'm going to address your focus on morality. Morality is not decided - I'd be surprised if you could find a single country with more than a 60-40 split in favor of any of the three major categories of moral procedures, and it is pretty much an opinion. Personally, I reject the idea entirely. That said, a government is able to do whatever the fuck it wants, as long as it can actually coerce cooperation. The question is should they do it, and, morally, that can be answered in really only one of two ways - you can approach it from a perspective of absolute rights, or you can ask what is best for the country. The first certainly doesn't work to your benefit in this case because the Constitution establishes no rights for non-citizens, so unless we get an Amendment passed they don't have any right to be in the country precisely because they dont have the right paper. The second way isn't clear, but could deliver equally valid conclusions of "let the immigrants stay" and "get rid of them all" based on utilitarian concerns.
Also, your disagrement is exactly the point: for each of those points, there are moral ways of going about them, but the current republican stance is not one of them.
This will get us off topic rapidly, but I would argue better to be right for the wrong reasons than wrong for any reason.
|
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:
I think that age is as significant a factor as internationality. As I'm a bit older now, I've seen a large majority of my friends go from being staunchly liberal in high school/college to quite conservative after they've been out in the world working for awhile.
Nice essay on intellect being correlated with liberal-ness, but I somewhat disagree. It's no secret that academicians (particularly social "scientists") are largely liberal, but people often use that correlation to make the conclusion that it's the "correct" viewpoint. Well it's no surprise that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies who want to live in a utopian world are going to cherish socialist philosophies, but that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Edit: I think a fundamental difference here is that I do not believe in the perfectibility of mankind, at least certainly not in my great-grandchildren's lifetimes. If I did, perhaps I would believe it might be possible to create a perfectly egalitarian state
To embellish on this, I was talking to a 50 year old Harvard Alumni a few months ago, adn he mentioned that when they were in college, about 90% were liberal/democrats. By the time they were his age, it was around a 50/50 ratio.
Since there is an obviously younger demographic online, this would obviously lead to a much higher liberal/conservative ratio, at least among the intellectual. It does not particularly mean that the republican party is dying, as I have heard in a couple quotes.
|
On July 05 2010 22:28 hifriend wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:
But that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth. Well then I guess it all boils down to having different views of human nature (I don't know if this is the right term, but I couldn't find a proper translation for the swedish word 'människosyn', some one help me out.) I might be naive but my belief is that people are in fact willing to work.
Most people probably are willing to work, but a large fraction aren't, if given the chance. I know a few guys from the Iraq war who faked PTSD when they got out so they could get the benefits. There was nothing wrong with them, but to get disability they started living the life and acting the part; now they essentially do have PTSD but it's not because of the war. They're just self-created bums. There are a lot of people that, if given the opportunity to mooch off of others, have no problem doing so and asking for more.
|
On July 05 2010 22:21 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 22:08 kzn wrote:On July 05 2010 21:53 Tyraz wrote:Ofcourse it doesn't help that republicans have quite a few policies that are on pretty morally shakey ground: Hold on here. You may well be right that the arguments offered by republicans in support of the following issues are bad or shakey, but with the exception of same sex marriage, not a single issue you've named cannot be defended rigorously and completely to a solid conclusion shared with republicans. I can do it if you want me to - although it will be an essay. Oh, I agree. Although I would extend that the position on health care as well; need should always over rule ability to pay (this is the essence of a moral decision.. isn't it?). As for immigration; you cannot simply force people out of their homes, jobs and way of life simply because a piece of paper says they are not citizens. A moral (and economically sensable) solution would be to at least give them an opportunity to prove their worth/patriotism and decide based on that. Put simply: just because you were born in a country which was founded when someone put a stick in the ground and wrote a declaration of independance doesn't mean you have the right to forcably remove someone from their way of life without giving them a chance to prove their worth. Also, your disagrement is exactly the point: for each of those points, there are moral ways of going about them, but the current republican stance is not one of them.
Need should never rule over ability to sustain. If you cannot pay your house off, you LOSE it. If we cannot afford the increase in healthcare to such a extent in such a badly implanted way it's going to hurt hard and make the situation worse for everyone. The US CANNOT sustain the spending, it will destroy the country, and if healthcare follows now, it will destroy the system. To repeat, it really wasn't about universal healthcare, but the WAY IT WAS implanted.
Example would be the ability to feed. You have enough to feed everyone but won't have enough to sustain crop production next year if you do. It's not a morally good result either way but a hard path has to be chosen. This is the role of the government, and now I would love to have a morally good answer to everything sometimes, it's hard to come to that conclusions in the face of reality.
Oh no, that's not the republican position at all! It's not universal healthcare but the fact the way it's implanted would lead to a lesser system that doesn't offer a better care, but worse. It has nothing to do with the idea of giving everyone healthcare, but making sure they can have the best to offer.
Wait what?
You are saying that a non citizen of a country has MORE right to be there then a citizen? You are saying those who want to go to that country luck out because they didn't hop some fence? What happens to the rule of law? Wheres the morally fair argument for those who do it the right way? In any event actually the government does have that right, all governments do.
Point is they shouldn't even be there, they know the consequences of their actions (they already have the first impression of disregarding the law), and must live with it. World isn't fair, and it's certainly a hypocritical situation to say they have more right to live in a country when there has been immigrants trying for years (legal way). Being compassionate in this situation is being cold to others.
|
|
|
On July 05 2010 21:21 kzn wrote:
He didn't deal with it very well.
You can't actually deal with strong skeptic positions on objective reality. They're pretty silly positions, but as far as argumentation goes they're rock solid.
Really? Which skeptical arguments and which of Plato's refutations?
|
On July 05 2010 22:39 Biochemist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 22:28 hifriend wrote:On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:
But that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth. Well then I guess it all boils down to having different views of human nature (I don't know if this is the right term, but I couldn't find a proper translation for the swedish word 'människosyn', some one help me out.) I might be naive but my belief is that people are in fact willing to work. Most people probably are willing to work, but a large fraction aren't, if given the chance. I know a few guys from the Iraq war who faked PTSD when they got out so they could get the benefits. There was nothing wrong with them, but to get disability they started living the life and acting the part; now they essentially do have PTSD but it's not because of the war. They're just self-created bums. There are a lot of people that, if given the opportunity to mooch off of others, have no problem doing so and asking for more.
I supose a large factor might be differences between different societal settings having such effects on individuals. Socialism isn't perfect and might not be suited for all societies at this point but it (not pure socialism, but the third way) certainly can have a lot of benefits to society as a whole.
|
On July 05 2010 21:21 Doctorasul wrote:
Maybe our Danish, Norwegian or Swedish members can confirm, but would you be able to convince anyone in northern Europe you are a liberal just because you accept evolution, don't go to church too often, think abortion should obviously be legal and have no issues with homosexuals? I'm guessing that would just be "normal" around those parts.
Yeah, those things are not even on the political radar. Our politics is almost solely based on the economic questions, on a scale from socialism to free market. Education correlates quite well with being slanted towards the free market model, aka they are right winged here.
I would call it realists vs idealists. The left economic views comes from the strive for utopia where everyone lives a happy life sharing with those who needs, while the right views comes from experiencing what the world actually is. Many young people who haven't been out working in the real world don't understand why trying too hard to reach the utopian ideal is more destructive than constructive. It got merits of course, so you need to find some happy medium which is why we have debates.
I study physics btw and everyone takes for granted that you are right winged there.
But on a question about liberal vs conservative I would say that just about everyone is liberal as long as you don't talk about economy, to me it is very alien that any country can seriously be mixing religion and politics like the US does. If you vote for a free market model you also vote against abortions, gay marriage, evolution etc. I think that this is the main reason why the US can be so right winged, they make politics be about things that don't really belong there.
|
It's just that internet has less of the nutjob bias that US politics has. Though there are loads of sites with such point of view too of course.
|
I can only speak for my country, and here obviously we dont have the same standards for left and right you guys have.
Either way, I am the type of guy who wants weed, gay marriage, abortion legalized.
Make no mistake, the vast masses of people with little to no internet access who attend their church religiously will not only be against it, but think its all work of the devil!
The main reason theres so many liberals in the internet/college, is because theres so much conservatives everywhere else, and in this mass of conservative people, only 0.3% can actually make a decent argument regarding what they defend/believe, the other 99.7% are bandwagoners too ignorant to even consider stopping and thinking about what they defend blindly by tradition.
Therefore the internet, is the only reliable escape for the lonly liberal sitting alone in his house, college is not enough of a liberal envyroment.
Here in Brazil everyone is a hypocrite, even at college, people will speak out against drug legalization and abortion then go smoke a joint and fuck a bitch with no protection
|
In defending my points; this is all I'll say:
With regard to 'who will pay for healthcare':
New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
@angelicfolly: it's those kinds of arguments which are exactly why there is a 'liberal bias' on the internet.
With regard to health care - Money is an economic concept. Need is a moral one. There are a variety of ways you could justify why economics should affect health care (scarcity of service etc), but economic sustainability is not one of them.
With regard to immigration - nobody said non citizens have more rights than citizens. This is about giving people the opportunity to show worth (nobody said you couldn't deport them if they wern't 'worth' enough). There is no justifiable reason to the contray.
|
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote:New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
And what about the people who want better healthcare? Because I can guarantee you there are procedures that NZ's system wont cover, because they're "unnecessary" or "too expensive".
But that is a decision that should be up to the person who "needs" the service.
The problem with your argument from need, is that even if I grant that moral concepts outweigh others (which, personally, I don't), you can't quantify need. Healthcare is scarce by default, and the only vaguely sensible way of quantifying need is to ask how much someone is willing to pay for a service/product. This is precisely what happens in a non-universalized system.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote:In defending my points; this is all I'll say: With regard to 'who will pay for healthcare': New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year. @angelicfolly: it's those kinds of arguments which are exactly why there is a 'liberal bias' on the internet. With regard to health care - Money is an economic concept. Need is a moral one. There are a variety of ways you could justify why economics should affect health care (scarcity of service etc), but economic sustainability is not one of them. With regard to immigration - nobody said non citizens have more rights than citizens. This is about giving people the opportunity to show worth (nobody said you couldn't deport them if they wern't 'worth' enough). There is no justifiable reason to the contray.
How do they decides who's 'worth' it? When the government starts making decisions like that it only leads to bad things.
And what do you mean economic sustainability isn't important in health care? If you can help everyone for 10 years and then go broke and help no one than isn't that significant?
|
On July 05 2010 23:10 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote:New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year. And what about the people who want better healthcare? Because I can guarantee you there are procedures that NZ's system wont cover, because they're "unnecessary" or "too expensive". But that is a decision that should be up to the person who "needs" the service. The problem with your argument from need, is that even if I grant that moral concepts outweigh others (which, personally, I don't), you can't quantify need. Healthcare is scarce by default, and the only vaguely sensible way of quantifying need is to ask how much someone is willing to pay for a service/product. This is precisely what happens in a non-universalized system.
You clearly didn't read the link... We have a private system that anyone can go to should they choose.
And I think these days you'll find that 'need' is a subjective term as well. For bacic 'needs' i.e. cardiac arrest and most diseases there is no scarcity. Most of our health care system is clogged by people who shouldn't be there. If there was a scarcity of, say, fatty foods (which would be government regulation.. which would be 'conservative' ) and a decent level of exercise, most wouldn't be there. While these people may 'need' medical care, the treatment they 'needed' they could do without burdening the health care system.
@Myles:
With regard to the objection to 'worth': how exactly can you get any worse than it is now? Without being accessed they face deportation... if they are accessed the worse that can happen is they are deported. You clearly didn't think that through very well.
With regard to 'not enough health care'/'who decides who gets it': this isn't some pipe dream. We actually have that health care system here. Everyone is covered. For free or a small fee. Nobody is turned away. Everyone is treated within 24 hours. By law.
|
On July 05 2010 22:56 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 21:21 Doctorasul wrote:
Maybe our Danish, Norwegian or Swedish members can confirm, but would you be able to convince anyone in northern Europe you are a liberal just because you accept evolution, don't go to church too often, think abortion should obviously be legal and have no issues with homosexuals? I'm guessing that would just be "normal" around those parts.
Yeah, those things are not even on the political radar. Our politics is almost solely based on the economic questions, on a scale from socialism to free market. Education correlates quite well with being slanted towards the free market model, aka they are right winged here. I would call it realists vs idealists. The left economic views comes from the strive for utopia where everyone lives a happy life sharing with those who needs, while the right views comes from experiencing what the world actually is. Many young people who haven't been out working in the real world don't understand why trying too hard to reach the utopian ideal is more destructive than constructive. It got merits of course, so you need to find some happy medium which is why we have debates. I study physics btw and everyone takes for granted that you are right winged there. But on a question about liberal vs conservative I would say that just about everyone is liberal as long as you don't talk about economy, to me it is very alien that any country can seriously be mixing religion and politics like the US does. If you vote for a free market model you also vote against abortions, gay marriage, evolution etc. I think that this is the main reason why the US can be so right winged, they make politics be about things that don't really belong there.
This whole post is so meaningless and filled with falsehoods.
"Many young people who haven't been out working in the real world don't understand why trying too hard to reach the utopian ideal is more destructive than constructive.", of course people have those phases, but leftwing political parties aren't at all based on that. Maybe more young people vote leftwing, but that has nothing to do with the merits.
"Our politics is almost solely based on the economic questions, on a scale from socialism to free market." , is also nonsensical, most people vote on cultural (or psychological, say, a hateful person might always vote for rightwing populism) issues, not economic.
"I would call it realists vs idealists. The left economic views comes from the strive for utopia where everyone lives a happy life sharing with those who needs, while the right views comes from experiencing what the world actually is.", this just says that (according to you) the current way economics and such are organized is more like rightwing thought, not leftwing thought. That has nothing to do with the merits, and I don't see how someone is an idealist for having a different view than the current status quo.
"If you vote for a free market model you also vote against abortions, gay marriage, evolution etc. I think that this is the main reason why the US can be so right winged, they make politics be about things that don't really belong there." , voting Republican has little to do voting with free market. In fact, free market is just a PR phrase that is virtually meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
