My thoughts went to this while reading xfzgrwgl rant on the liberal agenda
of Yahoo.com. So what do liberals actually want? or what is their agenda?
Well, we want in no particular order:
Peace
understanding
tolerance
prosperity of all people
people to be themselves
educated people
equality
democracy
freedom
(or said another way, we want all people to be hear and understood and have a say in their lives)
So if that is the liberal agenda and the conservative agenda is the opposite, we get for the
conservative agenda, in no particular order:
war
violence
inequality
dictatorship
intolerance
unfree
undemocratic
uneducated people
no understanding of any kind
people to be told who they are
no prosperity
Well, given a choice between the two agenda’s, I think I’ll take the liberal one.
Peter, I think that technically, they want to oppress white males and give all the money to minorities and make everyone breed until we’re all the same color. They also want all the kids in little leagues to get a trophy even though they’re not real winners. They hate competition and think that the people who innovate and advance humanity should be punished with taxes which in turn would take away all the smart, successful people’s motivations to do the things that they do which are good for the world. The reason why liberals like the EPA is because when they finally get their way and Obama has crashed the economy, they know they’re all going to have to live in the woods and drink from the rivers, so they want those to be clean and tidy. Basically, they refuse to let the dumb, worthless poor people of the world just die because of their bleeding hearts and they are therefore stifling the outcomes desired by the people in the world that are better than those poor worthless bastard moochers who can’t take care of themselves. I could go on and on, but that’s pretty much the liberal agenda.
If we got rid of the 99 percent…think about how awesome the world would be. Everyone would have a yacht and own millions of acres of land and we could all play tennis all day and watch fox news.
In Canada the liberals focus on minimization of an existing government. So, they want more privatization instead of the govnt doing the work.
Conservative preservatives focus on a nostalgic idea of retaining things we got long ago. Passedism.
In america, liberals want to help the poor. Conservatives want to help corporations and shrink the government, giving the companies more power than the government so that the poor people, in spite of being the majority can’t have things their way.
Canadian liberalism is probably to blame, at least partially, for the small size of canada’s military.
If a military becomes big enough, it starts to control things, and it makes the government “stronger”.
K: as a white male, I would be oppressing myself. maybe with some lubrication…Anyway ummm,
no. I don’t hate competition as I was an athlete for many years in different sports. As far as taxing
people who innovate and advance the society, please feel free to show me that aspect. You are making
taxes as the driving force of people innovating and in reading many, many accounts of innovators, I have
never once heard about taxes being a force negative or positive in innovations. I am pretty sure Da Vinci was
not too concerned about his taxes when he was the most innovating man in history. And after reading
quite a bit of Aristotle and Plato and his version of Socrates, I don’t ever recall them complaining about
their taxes. I believe that those who repeat this about innovators are simply repeating the BIG LIE
about how taxes have destroyed innovation. And as far as Obama crashing the economy, we have the
best economy we have had since the last democrat, the soon to be the first husband of the president.
And if we got rid of the 1%, absolutely no one believes your nonsense about yachts and having acres of
land and playing tennis. all that would happen is people won’t be trapped in a system which
promotes nihilism and degrades workers as simply disposable parts. I for one after having worked
for almost 40 years would like to retire but the simple fact is I will be working until the day I die
which given the huge stress (which is the leading cause of death in America) I am under while trying
to do my shitty job, will be sooner than later.
K: no problem, actually it helps to state these typical right wing nonsense because they are
so wrong. Upon further reflection, I do believe I have found the reason for the really stupid
innovators being taxed out of existence meme. It is from Ayn Rand. That was typical of her nonsense
believing in absolute freedom of action and ending her days taking social security. Fairly typical
right wing hypocrisy. anyways no worries.
Is this always a good thing? Doesn’t peace always lead to society becoming weak and feminine and ultimately getting attacked and conquered by another, more powerful society? Look at how much damage Hitler did with a powerful, warlike society, DESPITE being outnumbered so heavily. In fact, if he played his cards better and didn’t overextend with his military, he could have won WW2.
You can see this happening even now, but a memetic kind of war - the Western masculine energy has been forcefully repressed and thus diminished, so now the East, the Muslims, sensing the Western weakness are imposing themselves upon our culture, simultaneously raping Western women at higher rates than native men (statistical fact) while also playing the innocent immigrant victim card, so the news are labeled racist if they report their brutal rapes of, sometimes, underage girls.
Face it, reality, nature, is not peaceful… it is about conflict and culling the weak, one way or the other.
Bull-fucking-shit. Understanding, of what exactly? Liberals don’t care about understanding the world, how it actually works, and why certain things evolved as they have.
How is this a good thing? How is tolerance of intolerance a good thing? Again, take Muslims for an example - they openly support terrorism in England, and they are tolerated doing it because to think otherwise is to be ‘Islamophobe’ or whatever other new term the left will come up with to condemn and silence anybody who opposes them. Why would I tolerate a mosquito sucking my blood? Why would I tolerate a criminal trying to harm my family?
On what fucking basis are these liberal ideals picked? Do you just go with what tickles your emotions the right way, and write it down?
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I think people should be as prosperous as they deserve to be prosperous, prosperity should be proportional with the quality and quantity of work put in. Since not all people are equal, I don’t see a good reason to think that all should be equally prosperous.
What the fuck? So the rapists and murderers should just go and be themselves? Everybody should be free to indulge in whatever base behaviors they desire without contemplating the consequences of their actions on society and civilization itself?
No, liberals want to brainwash children into their humanist agenda the same way religious conservatives want to brainwash people into their Jesus Camps. Neither care about actual education and an honest, objective understanding of the world.
What kind of equality? And how is it a good thing, if no 2 people in the world are equal, much less the entirety of humanity?
Again, how the fuck is this good? How is it good and desirable that everybody’s vote counts equally, if people are inherently unequal? It doesn’t even sound fair, it’s just completely artificial bullshit.
Should I and everybody else get a vote on how to design your house despite not knowing anything about designing houses? Or should you hire an architect, you know, somebody who actually knows what he’s doing to do the job? Is my opinion about architecture of equal worth to you as his, when I don’t know the first thing about architecture?
Why should politics be any different? Why should the voice of an ignorant homeless person who was bribed to vote for a candidate (shit like this actually happens) be equal to that of an intelligent person who has a PhD in politics?
Again, what the fuck does that mean? If freedom is your ideal, go live in the woods if you are like a child and hate any kind of restrictions and rules imposed upon you, regardless of how rational and good-intentioned they are.
K: The cry of the conservative who loves freedom until they actually define it and want to put it into practice.
I want people to be free to act as they wish but and but once again, within the confines of certain lines.
for example, sex and marriage, 18 and consensual. You are free to espouse your version of nonsense
but you can’t make me follow it. You can speak to convience others but you can’t try to enforce your
beliefs on others. That freedom. You know the one in the declaration of independence. the law of the land.
I have little interest in living in a forest because it is not free and it is not useful. If you actually thought
about it, you would understand.
Two grown men tongue kiss each other in public, grope each other’s crotch area, while wearing tight leather pants with a hole in the buttocks area. They’re “proud” to be queer. The average liberal is standing behind the two homosexuals, clapping and cheering them on. As a non-liberal approaches, the liberal watches the new non-liberal carefully, studying his reaction. Any sign of disgust or contempt, like a scrunched up face or sneer, and the liberal will scream at the non-liberal in a high-pitched squeel, “Bigggggot!!! Haterrrrr!!! Nazzzzzi!!!” This is what the liberal loves most of all. It fulfills the liberal’s deepest desire for “world peace”, a world in which everybody must show no reaction, and “tolerate” these perverted social displays. For liberals, “world peace” means a civilization overflowing with corrupt fornication. Liberalism means taking it up the ass, and pretending to like it.
K: I live about 20 miles south of San Francisco, so I kinda have a sense of the gay community.
Personally, I really don’t give a shit if it is two guys or two girls or a man and a women. It doesn’t bother
me because I have no fear about my sexuality or turning gay when you touch a gay person. I also don’t care
how others view it because it is no more their business than it is mine. You make judgments about other
people using words like “perverted” and “corrupt”. but really, who are you too judge? ? And that is the point.
You can no more judge gays anymore than they can judge you. As far as your nice over the top example,
of liberals calling people “bigots” and “Nazi’s” and “haters”. Personally, I have never seen that, so I can’t comment
on it. I am sure you can say how you have seen it quite often and personally witness or was a victim but
I also cannot vouch for your honesty…
I am very interested in your nationality. Call it gathering information.
Ummm yes, it did solve things. Like I pointed out, even during times of what you call ‘peace’, injustices, oppression and all kinds of undesirable shit can happen without obvious physical conflict on a large scale (what you’d call war). And sometimes, there is no way to deal with it but to go to war because the opponents simply hold too much political power for you to deal with them diplomatically. That would be one example of a situation where I would deem war justified.
It doesn’t mean I myself would necessarily enjoy the experience, but if I think beyond my own immediate subjective emotions and fears for a moment (something the liberals are infamous for being incapable of doing), I can see how it would be justified in some cases.
Ok, I admit that the comment of my to which you responded to was void of substance, but that’s because what I was responding to, you just saying you value ‘understanding’ is void of substance too. Understanding… of what? A scientific-like, objective understanding, or an understanding through a political ideology, such as a Marxist or a Nationalist understanding?
As for your ‘false argument’ comment in all other responses: It is not my fault that your use of language is imprecise. Sorry, but if you just say tolerance, it doesn’t tell me specifically what you intend to be tolerant of, and what you intend to be intolerant of. It just tells me you value tolerating things. So no, I didn’t create a false argument, I just made reasonable assumptions based on what you said.
I think we obviously agree that not everything should be tolerated, yes?
Why are your beliefs equally as valid as my? If you think humans came about by means of evolution and that they share a common ancestor with apes, and that they are birth from a woman’s womb, while I think they were created 200 years ago and the tooth fairy magically creates babies, then your beliefs are equally as valid as my?
Aren’t liberals the ones forcing their beliefs on others just as much if not more? Aren’t they the ones who label anybody who disagrees with them with an Xist or Yphobe?
Yes, I agree, capitalism is unfair, but why go from one unfair extreme (capitalism) where the inequalities are unjustified and unfair to another one, where all are equally prosperous (communism) when equality is unjustified and unfair?
If we agree that people should be paid based on how much they deserve, and that people are inherently unequal and so the amount of work and the quality of work they put into isn’t equal, then doesn’t it seem like the most fair thing to do would be to search for a way to make the distribution of wealth as fair as possible, which means unequal but not extremely unequal (capitalism)?
Errm you said ‘people to be themselves’. People include criminals. Again, your imprecise use of language isn’t my fault.
Obviously you don’t want everybody to be themselves, but only those who act within the limits you consider proper and civilized, yes?
It’s getting increasingly obvious that liberals just pick words they think sound nice and say they reflect their ideals, but when called on their implications, they begin with the excuses of your kind, where they want tolerance, but not really, because we obviously shouldn’t tolerate some things, where you want all people to be themselves, well except certain kinds of people of course, they shouldn’t be allowed to be themselves, where everybody should have the freedom to do what they want, but not really, some things people just shouldn’t have the freedom to do…
And you don’t see how full of shit that is?
Proof? My own teachers at college are proof of this, we are taught that the liberal, humanist perspective is the correct one by default, f.e. the traditional family with the father as the head was criticized, affirmative action was justified etc. The fact that shit like ‘gender studies’ exists is another proof of liberal bias in education.
Perhaps that would apply to religious conservatives in America, I know America is full of religious redneck retards. Doesn’t mean the rest of the world is like that.
So you think people are equal? Fine then, find me just TWO people from the seven billion, TWO people who you think are equal.
If you agree that no 2 people on the entire planet are equal, then what do you base equality on? If 2 people are unequal, isn’t it UNFAIR, UNJUST to try and make them equal? As it would mean that we promote the idea that people shouldn’t be themselves, but that they should artificially be made more like one another for the sake of equality. Or is this another case of ‘well, people should be free to be themselves, unless they want to be unequal with somebody else, then they shouldn’t be themselves’
So that is your response? Because I recognize a truth (no 2 people on planet are equal, much less the entirety of humanity), and because I then question ideals which ignore this truth (democracy, equality) it means that I hate my life, blame others for my failings, and am unable to see because of my hate?
I’m surprised that you managed to keep yourself together this far. Usually liberals begin with these sort of accusations of malignant motives that distract from the actual argument, far earlier than you did now.
No, people are asking a say in how the ENTIRE FUCKING STATE is run, not just their own lives. Why should everybody have an equal say in it, if we agree people are unequal? What do you base this idea that X’s and Y’s votes should be equal, if X and Y are unequal? Shouldn’t we try to make the law to account for their inherent inequalities?
It sounds as crazy as religious ideas… truly, just like for the idea of God, it seems there is no basis for equality in reality…
Isn’t your house important to how your life is going to be? And yet, you allow the architect to design it, yes? Why?
That’s just a byproduct of modern decadence of ethics exactly because of things like democracy.
So again, you admit that when you say freedom you don’t actually mean that people should have freedom, and be free, but only that certain people should be free to do certain things. So why the pretense? You aren’t fooling anybody… or maybe you are, but not me
Why 18 years old? Why not 17 and 11 months? Why not 18 and 1 month?
A: Ummm yes, it did solve things. Like I pointed out, even during times of what you call ‘peace’, injustices, oppression and all kinds of undesirable shit can happen without obvious physical conflict on a large scale (what you’d call war). And sometimes, there is no way to deal with it but to go to war because the opponents simply hold too much political power for you to deal with them diplomatically. That would be one example of a situation where I would deem war justified.
K: War and violence leads to more war and violence. World one lead to world war 2 which led to both
the cold war and Korea which led to Vietnam. Yes, we stopped Hitler only to lead us to proxy wars between
the US and the USSR. The gulf war did nothing, leading us to the final war against Iraq which has lead us where
exactly? Each war has only incurred the next war which brings about the next war and the next and the next.
There is no final end to wars, just the next war.
A: It doesn’t mean I myself would necessarily enjoy the experience, but if I think beyond my own immediate subjective emotions and fears for a moment (something the liberals are infamous for being incapable of doing), I can see how it would be justified in some cases.
K: Korea, Vietnam, Grenda, Iraq times two, wars that were not justified and not needed and still people, many
many people died. Please feel free to justify either Iraqi war.
A: Ok, I admit that the comment of my to which you responded to was void of substance, but that’s because what I was responding to, you just saying you value ‘understanding’ is void of substance too. Understanding… of what? A scientific-like, objective understanding, or an understanding through a political ideology, such as a Marxist or a Nationalist understanding?
K: I never put everything into a post and I leave things vague for the simple reason it allows for further
conversation. I have studied science and I have studied both Marxism and Anarchism. To study one does not
preclude studying the other. Understanding of people beliefs. What I believe may be crazy to you and what
you believe may be crazy to me, but I can only say, hay, its your belief. That is understanding. Now along
with this comes understanding the world around us. As I said, it is a fact, FACT, that liberals are better
educated than conservatives. Multiple studies have shown this. We understand the world better because
that is what education does, helps understanding the world. Kinda the point of education. Understanding.
A: As for your ‘false argument’ comment in all other responses: It is not my fault that your use of language is imprecise. Sorry, but if you just say tolerance, it doesn’t tell me specifically what you intend to be tolerant of, and what you intend to be intolerant of. It just tells me you value tolerating things. So no, I didn’t create a false argument, I just made reasonable assumptions based on what you said.
K: I made a reasonable statement and you leaped to extreme examples, actually, you did it a couple of times.
Below with your rapist and criminal statement. I said tolerance for a reason, Liberals do value tolerating things,
feelings and beliefs.
A: I think we obviously agree that not everything should be tolerated, yes?
K: Give a specific and lets talk. I have been very clear what is tolerated and what isn’t. Actions that
interfere with the actions of others is the line.
A: Why are your beliefs equally as valid as my? If you think humans came about by means of evolution and that they share a common ancestor with apes, and that they are birth from a woman’s womb, while I think they were created 200 years ago and the tooth fairy magically creates babies, then your beliefs are equally as valid as my?
K: Millions of people hold magical beliefs and millions hold other beliefs… I hold my beliefs that are supported by science, while you hold your beliefs that are not supported by science. Now you can still hold those beliefs but
they are unsupported by any facts. So rock on in believing in the tooth fairy creating babies, the facts
don’t support you, but hay, whom am I to tell you that you are seriously wrong? I let the facts do the work
for me.
A: Aren’t liberals the ones forcing their beliefs on others just as much if not more? Aren’t they the ones who label anybody who disagrees with them with an Xist or Yphobe?
K: So what? I call you a xyz because you hold a specific belief. I disagree with you and that is my right.
I am not forcing you to hold those beliefs nor am I forcing you to drop those beliefs. As you can disagree with
my beliefs and you can say so publicly. I don’t have a problem with that. Rock on, disagree with me in whatever
fashion you deem necessary, but you can’t force me and I can’t force you.
A: Yes, I agree, capitalism is unfair, but why go from one unfair extreme (capitalism) where the inequalities are unjustified and unfair to another one, where all are equally prosperous (communism) when equality is unjustified and unfair?
K: I fail to see how equality is unjustified and unfair. We have political equality and no one calls it unfair,
(well to be factual, the 1% seem to feel its unfair because they feel they by virtue of wealth, they should
run everything.)
A: If we agree that people should be paid based on how much they deserve, and that people are inherently unequal and so the amount of work and the quality of work they put into isn’t equal, then doesn’t it seem like the most fair thing to do would be to search for a way to make the distribution of wealth as fair as possible, which means unequal but not extremely unequal (capitalism)?
K: It is a fact that women are paid less than men for doing the same work. How is that fair or equal?
My manager make 3 times what I make and he does less work than anyone in the store. As far as anyone can
tell, all he does is push the carts to the holding pen outside and occasionally picks up the black baskets.
Why does he deserve 3 times what I make and believe me, my work is about a 1000 times harder than anything
he does. So why? if my work is harder, I am a checker in a large store, standing for 8 hours doing hard manual
labor, and he sits on his butt most of the day, tell me how that is fair?
A: Errm you said ‘people to be themselves’. People include criminals. Again, your imprecise use of language isn’t my fault.
K; here is the second example of you leaping to the extreme positions. I shall my full position below.
A: Obviously you don’t want everybody to be themselves, but only those who act within the limits you consider proper and civilized, yes?
It’s getting increasingly obvious that liberals just pick words they think sound nice and say they reflect their ideals, but when called on their implications, they begin with the excuses of your kind, where they want tolerance, but not really, because we obviously shouldn’t tolerate some things, where you want all people to be themselves, well except certain kinds of people of course, they shouldn’t be allowed to be themselves, where everybody should have the freedom to do what they want, but not really, some things people just shouldn’t have the freedom to do…
K: People to be themselves in regards to behavior that doesn’t, does not, interfere with other actions.
So I work in California where people do their own thing. As long as they don’t interfere with the actions
of others, I see no problem with it. The store I work in has a lot of crazies coming in and as long as they
don’t impede the actions of others, they are free to be crazy. If your actions impede my actions or someone
else’s actions, that is not acceptable. So as long as you keep to yourself, I see no problems with being yourself.
I get a lot of people who hold loud conversations with themselves and I have no problem with it as long as
they don’t impede me or my customers.
A: And you don’t see how full of shit that is?
K; the line is simple and clear.
A: Proof? My own teachers at college are proof of this, we are taught that the liberal, humanist perspective is the correct one by default, f.e. the traditional family with the father as the head was criticized, affirmative action was justified etc. The fact that shit like ‘gender studies’ exists is another proof of liberal bias in education.
K: I didn’t go to college so I have nothing to base your stories on. I see the value of gender studies even if
you don’t. For some people shit like philosophy is proof of liberal bias in education. It is all in the eye of the
beholder.
A; Perhaps that would apply to religious conservatives in America, I know America is full of religious redneck retards. Doesn’t mean the rest of the world is like that.
K: I cannot speak for the rest of the world.
A:
So you think people are equal? Fine then, find me just TWO people from the seven billion, TWO people who you think are equal.
If you agree that no 2 people on the entire planet are equal, then what do you base equality on? If 2 people are unequal, isn’t it UNFAIR, UNJUST to try and make them equal? As it would mean that we promote the idea that people shouldn’t be themselves, but that they should artificially be made more like one another for the sake of equality. Or is this another case of ‘well, people should be free to be themselves, unless they want to be unequal with somebody else, then they shouldn’t be themselves’
K: See, we are talking about two different things. We are equal in the eyes of the law and we are equal
in one person, one vote. Why not be equal in economics? I am not talking about people strengths and weakness
physically or how I may see better than you and you may hear better than me, (Note, I am very hearing impaired, so you had better hear better than me)
A; So that is your response? Because I recognize a truth (no 2 people on planet are equal, much less the entirety of humanity), and because I then question ideals which ignore this truth (democracy, equality) it means that I hate my life, blame others for my failings, and am unable to see because of my hate?
K: your hate comes through with every word you write. It is very clear and strong. You just can’t see it.
There is no truth. that is the unstated of the universe. Upon which pillar would you state your truths on?
which ideal is posited upon the absolute truth? None.
A: I’m surprised that you managed to keep yourself together this far. Usually liberals begin with these sort of accusations of malignant motives that distract from the actual argument, far earlier than you did now.
K: Because of my hearing loss, I am very sensitive to others. I am force to read people because I can’t hear them.
I can easily read you because your anger is so upfront.
A; No, people are asking a say in how the ENTIRE FUCKING STATE is run, not just their own lives. Why should everybody have an equal say in it, if we agree people are unequal? What do you base this idea that X’s and Y’s votes should be equal, if X and Y are unequal? Shouldn’t we try to make the law to account for their inherent inequalities?
It sounds as crazy as religious ideas… truly, just like for the idea of God, it seems there is no basis for equality in reality…
K: People are equal in the eyes of the law and political. Our actual physical abilities means nothing.
By your reasoning, because I have a hearing loss, I am not equal and thus I should not have the same economic,
political, social status as you? I am a second class citizen in your world because I am not your physical equal?
That seems to be very shortsided and wrong.
A: Isn’t your house important to how your life is going to be? And yet, you allow the architect to design it, yes? Why?
K: Trust me, I shall never have enough money to build a house, so the question is rather moot.
A; That’s just a byproduct of modern decadence of ethics exactly because of things like democracy.
K: blaming democracy for the cock brother buying Wis. that is a new one. To be honest, I have
no idea what “modern decadence” means.
A; So again, you admit that when you say freedom you don’t actually mean that people should have freedom, and be free, but only that certain people should be free to do certain things. So why the pretense? You aren’t fooling anybody… or maybe you are, but not me
K: absolute freedom does not and cannot exist. Nor have I ever called for it. There is a reason why you
can’t yell fire in a movie theater. As long as your actions don’t interfere with my actions and my actions
don’t interfere with your actions, it’s all good. Preach what you want, however you want, but you can’t
act if it interfere with anyone’s else’s actions. There is a line and that line is the interference of actions
of others.
A: Why 18 years old? Why not 17 and 11 months? Why not 18 and 1 month?
[/quote]
K: I am simple going with current laws, that state you are a legal adult at 18. I actually
don’t believe that from one day at 17 to another day, age 18, you suddenly become wise enough
to be an adult, however, you have to pick a day for that, and 18 is just as good a day as any.
Kropotkin, there is no such thing as true, actual ‘peace’. It’s only a lack of obvious physical conflict, but there is always conflict, there is always somebody who is being oppressed, somebody who is unsatisfied with the way things are, and then those who are acting like parasites and leeches on others (in communism it would be workers, in capitalism it would be work-makers, capitalists). War is simply what happens when that internal struggle cannot be contained anymore and manifests externally, as physical conflict.
Can you give me a link to those studies? I’m interested in what country it has been performed in, what exactly do they mean by education, and what are the religious affiliations of the test group.
Because in my country, there are some courses in college which serve literally only as liberal propaganda (which is useless and has no application in real life), and of course if education about liberal propaganda was used as one of the factors in measuring general education levels, the liberals would come out on top.
About understanding: While I understand that stupid people may hold stupid beliefs, I will no way in hell concede to them that their beliefs are equally as valid as my. I intuit by the way you use the word ‘understanding’ that you don’t really care about understanding as ‘objectively knowing’, but understanding as in ‘get taught bullshit made up reasons to accept anything because to judge people is mean’.
Tolerate, as in, allow to exist? Maybe, depending on what specifically you mean and how harmful it is to society in the long run and on a larger scale. Tolerate as in, accept as equal to anything else? Fuck no.
Somebody saying that earth is flat doesn’t have an equally valid opinion as somebody saying that it is round, and somebody saying that it is round doesn’t have an equally valid opinion as somebody saying it is spherical - degrees matter!
Now I know we would all like to pretend that people’s stupidity doesn’t affect anybody, but let’s not lie to ourselves, it does, didn’t some Americans try to get Creationism taught in schools?
But everything interferes with (affects) the actions of others, just to varying degrees. It’s the famous butterfly effect, a butterfly flapping its wings on one end of the world may cause a series of actions and reactions which eventually lead or influence the formation of a hurricane in some other part of the world. Amazing, right?
If you say that a person A shouldn’t be allowed to hit person B, then you’re basically saying that you want to interefere upon person A with police/military if he hits person B. So your rule is self-defeating. And let’s say person B talks shit to person A, and won’t leave them alone, aren’t they interfering with their actions? Say person A is washing their car peacefull and person B is shouting inanities about his wife, children, family and basically anybody and anything he holds dear, is that not interfering with person A? Shouldn’t person A be allowed to stop person B interfering upon them? Why, if person A is physically superior, should he be prevented from exercising his nature-granted physical superiority by making B shut the fuck up and leave him alone?
Very simple. Political equality forces unequal things to become equal. Like in my above example.
If you have a lion and a kitty cat and you enforce a law by which they are both artificially equal and none is allowed to hurt the other, then it is unfair to the lion because he is stronger so it denies him his nature-given strength, while it provides kitten with artificial, systemic protection compensating for its natural weakness in relation to the lion.
This leads to all kinds of weird shit, like the kitten thinking it is equally as strong, or even stronger than the lion, because the lion is threatened that it will be killed by police/military if it puts the kitten in its place.
So this is why I think laws should account for people’s inherent inequalities. They should give everybody the same opportunity to rise to the top, and once people reach a certain stage of education they receive more rights as is proportional with more accumulated knowledge and thus a better chance of such people making better decisions.
Actually, the supposed pay gap is a lie promoted by feminists, it has been disproven so many times that I won’t even bother to argue against it. If you’re sincere, you can search the information and disprove it for yourself. I’ll just put this here:
I didn’t say I agree with capitalism, although I hold it better than communism, I think both are extreme.
I am passionate, not angry.
It is not just physical abilities, it is physical+mental abilities.
Oh come on, now you’re just avoiding answering the question. The point isn’t whether you personally can or want to build a house, but if you did, how would you do it.
Let me do you a favor and make this more honest for you…
Well, liberals want in no particular order:
Peace (By one world government)
understanding (Only what they want you to understand)
tolerance (Tolerance of bad art forms, and inferior aesthetics)
prosperity of all people (poverty of all people)
people to be themselves (provided they dont offend anyone or break the rules)
educated people (Educated only in the things you do not censor.)
equality (All art is equal.)
democracy (Give power to the mindless masses)
freedom (Freedom to be slaves, gun control, freedom to censor anything against your agenda)
From our friends at wiki on article about Democrats:
Professionals, those who have a college education, and those whose work revolves around the conceptualization of ideas have supported the Democratic Party by a slight majority since 2000. Between 1988 and 2000, professionals favored Democrats by a 12-percentage point margin. While the professional class was once a stronghold of the Republican Party, it has become increasingly split between the two parties, leaning in favor of the Democratic Party. The increasing support for Democratic candidates among professionals may be traced to the prevalence of social liberal values among this group.[161]
“ Professionals, who are, roughly speaking, college-educated producers of services and ideas, used to be the most staunchly Republican of all occupational groups … now chiefly working for large corporations and bureaucracies rather than on their own, and heavily influenced by the environmental, civil-rights, and feminist movements—began to vote Democratic. In the four elections from 1988 to 2000, they backed Democrats by an average of 52 percent to 40 percent. ”
A study on the political attitudes of medical students, for example, found that “U.S. medical students are considerably more likely to be liberal than conservative and are more likely to be liberal than are other young U.S. adults. Future U.S. physicians may be more receptive to liberal messages than current ones, and their political orientation may profoundly affect their health system attitudes.”[162] Similar results are found for professors, who are more strongly inclined towards liberalism and the Democratic Party than other occupational groups.[50] The Democratic Party also has strong support among scientists, with 55% identifying as Democrats, 32% as independents, and 6% as Republicans and 52% identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate, and 9% as conservative.[163]
Academia
Academics, intellectuals, and the highly educated overall constitute an important part of the Democratic voter base. Academia in particular tends to be progressive. In a 2005 survey, nearly 72% of full-time faculty members identified as liberal, while 15% identified as conservative. The social sciences and humanities were the most liberal disciplines while business was the most conservative. Male professors at more advanced stages of their careers as well as those at elite institutions tend to be the most liberal.[50] Another survey by UCLA conducted in 2001/02, found 47.6% of scholars identifying as liberal, 34.3% as moderate, and 18% as conservative.[164] Percentages of professors who identified as liberal ranged from 49% in business to over 80% in political science and the humanities.[50] Social scientists, such as Brett O’Bannon of DePauw University, have claimed that the “liberal” opinions of professors seem to have little, if any, effect on the political orientation of students.[165][166] As of July 2008 the Students for Academic Freedom arm of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative organization, posted a list of 440 student complaints, most of which pertain to perceived liberal bias of college professors.
Those with graduate education, have become increasingly Democratic beginning in the 1992,[167] 1996,[167] 2000,[43] 2004,[44] and 2008[168] elections. Intellectualism, the tendency to constantly reexamine issues, or in the words of Edwards Shields, the “penetration beyond the screen of immediate concrete experience,” has also been named as an explanation why academia is strongly democratic and liberal.[169][170]
In the past, a self-identified Republican was more likely to have a 4-year college degree; however, according to some recent surveys, similar percentages of Republicans and Democrats are likely to have 4-year college degrees, and Democrats are more likely to hold post-graduate degrees.[171]
An analysis of 2008 through 2012 survey data from the General Social Survey, the National Election Studies, and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press led to a slightly different assessment of the overall educational status of self-identified Democrats and Republicans:
On average, self-identified Republicans have more years of education (4 to 8 months each, depending on the survey) and are probably more likely to hold, at the least, a 4-year college degree. (One major survey indicates that they are more likely, while the results of another survey are statistically insignificant.) It also appears that Republicans continue to out-test Democrats in surveys that assess political knowledge and/or current events. With respect to post-graduate studies, the educational advantage is shifting towards self-identified Democrats. They are now more likely to hold post-graduate college degrees. (One major survey indicates that they are more likely, while the results of another survey are statistically insignificant.)[172]
K: I looked up the pew research but couldn’t find the exact study they cite about liberals being better educated.
Not as conclusive as I hoped it would be.
