Discussion: Liberal v. Conservative

[Victarion]

I honestly get along well with both sides of the spectrum.

I don't think BLMs aims are all that malicious. If your roadblocks are the congressional and state level, then it is ultimately your votes that're setting them up. So you do need something taht speaks to those individuals if you want to really effect change. That's pretty much what BLM tries to do.

 

[routhman]

Having a college degree doesn't automatically make you intelligent or liberal or vice versa .

Everyone in the thread agrees with you about that.

I know some people who only have a high school diploma that are more intelligent than my friends with college degrees.

That's true.

A college degree does not directly imply higher intelligence; it simply implies a higher probability of intelligence.

Let me back that up: in 1972, it was found that the mean IQ of high-school graduates is 105, the mean IQ of college graduates is 115, and the mean IQ of advanced-degree graduates is 125 (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm).

Also know people that are very intelligent but aren't liberals at all. I also meet some liberals who aren't to bright lol.

Me too. Liberalism does not imply high intelligence, and high intelligence does not imply liberalism.

But high intelligence does imply a higher probability of liberalism. A Pew Research study found that, of postgraduates, 31% were consistently liberal, 23% were mostly liberal, 22% were mixed, 14% were mostly conservative, and 10% were consistently conservative. The same study demonstrated that the liberal-to-conservative ratio increased with each tier of education--from high school or less to some college to college to graduate school. Check it out here: http://www.people-press.org/2016/04...al-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/.

I have a bachelors degree from Liberty University which is a Christian college. I am going going back for my masters degree this fall. My GPA is falls between a 2.8 or 3.0. I don't consider myself to be liberal or conservative. My ideals, morals, beliefs, ethics fall somewhere in between the two parties. Meaning somethings I agree with conservatives on and some things I agree with liberals on.

But to just assume every person with a higher education is liberal is kinda crazy to me.

See the Pew study above. Nobody assumes that.

 

[routhman]

So I think we got a lot of interesting responses to the original question. To summarize, I'll paraphrase the hypotheses:

1. TheReaper86: Though SHH was not originally left-leaning, as the number of liberals at SSH increased, conservative posters left.
2. Thundercrack85: SHH consists of nerds; nerds are largely intellectuals; intellectuals are largely liberal; and therefore SSH largely consists of liberals.
3. Iceman: Embarrassed by Trump, right-leaning moderates have receded into the woodwork.
4. TheReaper86: Trump's supporters are afraid to voice their support for fear of the response.

I think it's safe to move on to a different topic.

Anyone want to propose another topic? If so, try to suggest a discussion that will help increase your understanding of your ideological opposite (less "versus").

 

[Victarion]

I have one: my conservative friends feel that many liberals, like Senator Warren for example, are overly authoritarian. Now while these guys and gals are largely conservative, they're pretty liberal about their leisure time - if you've got the time/money, do whatever you like so long as you're not breaking the law; its a kind of work hard, play hard philosophy.

What contributes to this perspective they hold - that some liberal politicians are overly authoritarian?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I assume you're familiar with the horseshoe theory?

 

[Victarion]

Yep. Both of the farthest ends have nil degrees of separation.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The more left or right you go, the more authoritarian you get.

North Korea is an interesting example. From Marxism to Theocratic Monarchy. If only Lenin could have lived to see that.

 

[routhman]

Well, I'm a liberal through and through, so I can only speculate. Your friends sound like libertarians like my older brother; while he favors social liberalism, globalism, and secularism in government, he wants the government to be small.

Above all, the desire for small government is what drives him from the Democratic party to the Libertarian party. If your friends are indeed libertarians, I'd imagine it has something to do with that--e.g. let the free market establish equal wages for women, rather than passing legislation to force it on the corporate sector.

I'm curious to hear from a conservative.

 

[Victarion]

That sounds about right. I do tend to fall more Libertarian. This election is the exception - I want Hillary in office so that the Reps have the internal collapse that would allow a more Libertarian individual to move in and begin seizing power.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I'm not even sure what we mean by conservative. You can be conservative and despise Donald Trump. I can count the number of leftists I know on this site without taking off my socks.

 

[2kt09]

I want Hillary in office so that the Reps have the internal collapse that would allow a more Libertarian individual to move in and begin seizing power.

What's the reasoning behind this?

 

[Victarion]

Trump's humiliated Jeb, made most of the others seemingly nonissues, and Ted's kinda doing himself in - and people already hate him. I'm a conservative at heart, but none of what I've heard from the Republican candidates this election cycle really spoke to me.

 

[Schlosser85]

A lot of people don't fall neatly into one category or the other. You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, or vice versa.

Also plenty of conservatives despise Donald Trump, and plenty of liberals despise Hillary Clinton.

 

[Victarion]

I believe the Bushes are getting behind Hillary this election. Say what you will - Trump has ushered in a new era of Bipartisanship.

 

[2kt09]

Trump's humiliated Jeb, made most of the others seemingly nonissues, and Ted's kinda doing himself in - and people already hate him.

From this observation, sounds like the internal collapse is happening regardless of who wins POTUS.

 

[routhman]

A lot of people don't fall neatly into one category or the other. You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, or vice versa.

Also plenty of conservatives despise Donald Trump, and plenty of liberals despise Hillary Clinton.

That's true.

As I said in the first post in the thread, the Liberal v. Conservative argument is really a set of arguments. I'm not aiming to myopically pit Republicans against Democrats. I'm aiming to have level discussions on the liberal and conservative side of each argument.

For example:

I am fully supportive of gay rights for a variety of reasons.

First I am an atheist; I don't believe there's a man in the sky who cares about what you do in general. Even if he were real, the man influences and creates and experiences all time and space simultaneously and instantly and equally and without effort; I refuse to believe that such a powerful, enlightened man would hold preferences about what any one of us tiny, insignificant microbes does in bed.

Second, I'm a scientist. I believe strongly in evolution, which means I believe that our instincts and behaviors are consequences of our DNA, which through natural selection evolved to its present state. It's also clear to me that there's a strong genetic component--probably the dominant component--to a person's sexuality. Their DNA is not morally wrong.

Third, even if I didn't think homosexuality was perfectly natural (which I do, but IF I didn't), I believe it's morally abhorrent to impinge on another human being's fundamental right to equality and to happiness--for any reason--provided that person is not hurting anybody.

From my perspective, I think the right stands in opposition to gay rights because (1) of what the Bible says, and (2) because of the group mentality of "the other." So I would ask a social conservative who opposes gay rights: if I don't accept the Bible as valid evidence, do you have a better argument than that?

 

[2kt09]

Third, even if I didn't think homosexuality was perfectly natural (which I do, but IF I didn't), I believe it's morally abhorrent to impinge on another human being's fundamental right to equality and to happiness--for any reason--provided that person is not hurting anybody.

From my perspective, I think the right stands in opposition to gay rights because (1) of what the Bible says, and (2) because of the group mentality of "the other." So I would ask a social conservative who opposes gay rights: if I don't accept the Bible as valid evidence, do you have a better argument than that?

I could have sworn the "gay rights" thing was solved back in the 90s because that goes back to a human rights and inalienable liberties issue.

The relevant topic now is gay marriage and for some, marriage in general.
Since it's not my argument, here's his
and another one.

 

[routhman]

I don't think you're right that this issue has been solved. For one, I consider marriage a human right tied into the "inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" (to paraphrase the Declaration). I also consider these religious liberty laws as essentially legalizing discrimination, and people have the human right to freedom from discrimination.

I'll check those out when I have a chance.

 

[Marvolo]

What are you trying to say? Everyone who attend Liberty Univerity is a moron because it's a religious university? The university does teach science courses you know. And people that attend aren't dumb hicks or anything like that. There are many intelligent conservatives where you want to believe it or not my friend.

If they teach science like my christian school did then they use books and courses that either condescendingly cover evolution in the most asinine way (my science book showed a man walking out of primordial ooze and called that the evolutionist's "belief") or outright skip anything that backs up evolution (my science books didnt cover genetics at all.) Thats what these schools pass off as science. And in their bible studies courses and other courses they dont miss a chance to put down modern science or the "wicked world".

Not everyone that goes to Liberty are morons, but it is without a doubt a terrible school that results in ignorant and insular students. Its more of a recruitment center and indoctrination camp. Same is true for Pensacola and Bob Jones University. All three recruited from my christian school and some of my friends and classmate's families expected/forced them to attend one of those schools or risk being cut off. Its ****ing insanity.

 

[2kt09]

I don't think you're right that this issue has been solved.

1996 - sexual orientation protected by Equal Protection Clause
2003 - same-sex activity legalized
2015 - same-sex marriage legalized

For one, I consider marriage a human right tied into the "inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" (to paraphrase the Declaration). I also consider these religious liberty laws as essentially legalizing discrimination, and people have the human right to freedom from discrimination.

I'll check those out when I have a chance.

I await your response before I pitch in for this part.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The Gay Rights issue has now moved to gay households' right to have children and a concentration of the "T" in the LGBTQ. It should be settled at this point, but it is right there in the Republican platform.

 

[routhman]

1996 - sexual orientation protected by Equal Protection Clause
2003 - same-sex activity legalized
2015 - same-sex marriage legalized


I await your response before I pitch in for this part.

I am fully aware of these strides. I never said same-sex activity or marriage was illegal.

But if you don't see that the "Religious Liberty" laws are impinging on the Equal Protection Clause, I don't know what to tell you. More generally, the Republican party is still trying to pass legislation to enable discrimination and, in their platform, would still like to repeal same-sex marriage and would like to prevent adoption by same-sex couples. These are gay-rights issues.

So regardless of the progress made on gay rights, there are still a lot of people who would like to move in the opposite direction. My question was: "Why? How do you justify your beliefs?"

There's no question that there's been progress. Obviously there has been. But as long as people want to go back, my question isn't at all moot.

 

[2kt09]

I am fully aware of these strides. I never said same-sex activity or marriage was illegal.

But if you don't see that the "Religious Liberty" laws are impinging on the Equal Protection Clause, I don't know what to tell you. More generally, the Republican party is still trying to pass legislation to enable discrimination and, in their platform, would still like to repeal same-sex marriage and would like to prevent adoption by same-sex couples. These are gay-rights issues.

So regardless of the progress made on gay rights, there are still a lot of people who would like to move in the opposite direction. My question was: "Why? How do you justify your beliefs?"

There's no question that there's been progress. Obviously there has been. But as long as people want to go back, my question isn't at all moot.

My last response implied if you have watched the videos. I ask again, have you?

I think "Religious Liberty Laws" are absurd. However, at the same-sex marriage level religious clergy declining marrying two people is in expression of their religious freedom; "separation of church & state". Time to amend the 1st amendment.
This doesn't mean the couple can't be married - make a private contract among themselves protected by the courts, seek out a progressive church if religion is a must, make the pact with the government without any religious involvement, or reprimand the church that denied them & reap the rewards.

In another conservative viewpoint,
the government only cares because it furthers their discriminatory taxation which now a gay married couple is federally bound to.

What socially conservative Republicans want to do with respect to gay rights as a whole, from what I understand their biggest reform, is to leave it to the states and that is almost never happening given what it would take.

 

[chaseter]

I feel the caveat with that is if you are educated and rich and/or greedy those people tend to overwhelmingly be conservative. Many conservatives I know claim they want the guberment to stop taking all their money and giving it to poor people but seem to have no problem with the literal billions more we give out in corporate welfare.

The right give more to charity than the left overall and also on average, a larger percentage of their personal income (even to secular causes) comparatively. You might say, oh that includes religion! Well, the Catholic Church is one of the World's largest charities. It may even be the largest...I can't remember.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Eh, with the Catholic Church that charity always comes at a cost.

I got a good education from them, but they expected my soul in return.