Why are you conservative, why are you liberal, why are you independent?

[doc_loliday]

The definition of those words change over time, now more than ever, so I think its hard to answer the question. Letting people do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else is popular to say, but do the conservatives get to claim that stance or liberals? 10-20 years ago, I would have said liberals, but now that conservatives are finding their rights being taken, they are being forced into accepting behaviors that they never would have when they had cultural dominance. But as far as I'm concerned neither group really champions all personal rights; as soon as they get power they use it to strip the freedoms of those they personally disagree with. Who advocates for the freedom to do drugs, have sex, and get married to whomever? Who calls for the freedom of association, to do business with or discriminate against for any reason? Who calls for the freedom to speak unpopular or hateful things? I don't have to agree with many of those things, but its not the governments place to tell people they can't live a traditional life, or fly the freak flag.

[Speaker to Animals]

That's the lie, though. They always claim we should liberalize something because it doesn't hurt anybody else. Yet it does end up hurting everybody else. Fornication leads to the spread of diseases. Abortion, if you won't admit you are killing a human being in the process, wipes out the entire social welfare system of a nation by slowly inverting the demographic pyramid. Remember when they argued that we should let homosexuals marry because it won't affect anybody else? That lasted all of about, what, six to eight years before they started trying to shut people's businesses down and run people out of their jobs?

There really is no such thing as "it doesn't harm anybody else" with moral matters. Everything that is immoral harms us all. The question is not whether we should legalize and approve of it. The question is what level of sanction or disapproval should we apply?

This applies to economics as well.

[clubgop]

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

If I could distill down to one quote this would be it.

[Heraclius]

I like liberalism because it has led us out of the dark ages...

Did you mean the actual Dark Ages or was it some reference to the movement away from monarchies in the Age of Revolutions?

[doc_loliday]

That's the lie, though. They always claim we should liberalize something because it doesn't hurt anybody else. Yet it does end up hurting everybody else. Fornication leads to the spread of diseases. Abortion, if you won't admit you are killing a human being in the process, wipes out the entire social welfare system of a nation by slowly inverting the demographic pyramid. Remember when they argued that we should let homosexuals marry because it won't affect anybody else? That lasted all of about, what, six to eight years before they started trying to shut people's businesses down and run people out of their jobs?

There really is no such thing as "it doesn't harm anybody else" with moral matters. Everything that is immoral harms us all. The question is not whether we should legalize and approve of it. The question is what level of sanction or disapproval should we apply?

This applies to economics as well.

This is one of the saddest logic fails I have ever read.

[TheReal_ND]

Mostly we attack each other, one could say this is not civil discourse and they'd be correct. I personally want to stop for a moment and inquire towards other forum member's intent.

Why do you personally believe what you do? I can only really get your intent, if you tell me your intent. I could guess at it all day through my own lens but that might provide something rather biased and not tell things from your perspective.

What do you believe, and why do you believe it? What are you trying to do? Why are you trying to do that?

What do you want?

Thank you for all of your responses.

(I'll post my beliefs later on, so as not to taint the initial discussion.)

So are you going to post your beleifs? I think everyone here already knows mine so I wont bother elaborating on it.

[skankhunt42]

I'm late to the party. I'm very moderate/independent. I firmly believe the MIC runs this country alongside the Corpocracy. So... I don't really think the left or the right rocks the boat until the point it sinks. At least, not in my lifetime.

So I don't really think your vote counts in terms of Foreign policy. However, I do think local government matters, so those votes count.

[Speaker to Animals]

That's the lie, though. They always claim we should liberalize something because it doesn't hurt anybody else. Yet it does end up hurting everybody else. Fornication leads to the spread of diseases. Abortion, if you won't admit you are killing a human being in the process, wipes out the entire social welfare system of a nation by slowly inverting the demographic pyramid. Remember when they argued that we should let homosexuals marry because it won't affect anybody else? That lasted all of about, what, six to eight years before they started trying to shut people's businesses down and run people out of their jobs?

There really is no such thing as "it doesn't harm anybody else" with moral matters. Everything that is immoral harms us all. The question is not whether we should legalize and approve of it. The question is what level of sanction or disapproval should we apply?

This applies to economics as well.

This is one of the saddest logic fails I have ever read.

See how that works?

Liberals of all stripes lock down the political discourse by ignoring all the other arguments and ideas that oppose liberalism. You are only allowed in your little lanes. Go outside those lanes and you are "screaming", "ranting", "logic failing", "hating", and so forth. The two sides go at each other from their little lanes like Tron cyclists, but as soon as somebody steps off the grid, they join forces to beat down the interloper. That grid they race on is the Enlightenment program. Their little infighting game really amounts to little other than to make use of the grid. You can see it well when anybody questions the Enlightenment. They will protect the grid at all costs. All discussion outside the boundaries of the Enlightenment program are off-grid and verboten.

[Okeefenokee]

The endless bitchy quips are stacking up.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That's the lie, though. They always claim we should liberalize something because it doesn't hurt anybody else. Yet it does end up hurting everybody else. Fornication leads to the spread of diseases. Abortion, if you won't admit you are killing a human being in the process, wipes out the entire social welfare system of a nation by slowly inverting the demographic pyramid. Remember when they argued that we should let homosexuals marry because it won't affect anybody else? That lasted all of about, what, six to eight years before they started trying to shut people's businesses down and run people out of their jobs?

There really is no such thing as "it doesn't harm anybody else" with moral matters. Everything that is immoral harms us all. The question is not whether we should legalize and approve of it. The question is what level of sanction or disapproval should we apply?

This applies to economics as well.

This is one of the saddest logic fails I have ever read.

See how that works?

Liberals of all stripes lock down the political discourse by ignoring all the other arguments and ideas that oppose liberalism. You are only allowed in your little lanes. Go outside those lanes and you are "screaming", "ranting", "logic failing", "hating", and so forth. The two sides go at each other from their little lanes like Tron cyclists, but as soon as somebody steps off the grid, they join forces to beat down the interloper. That grid they race on is the Enlightenment program. Their little infighting game really amounts to little other than to make use of the grid. You can see it well when anybody questions the Enlightenment. They will protect the grid at all costs. All discussion outside the boundaries of the Enlightenment program are off-grid and verboten.

Ya know who rejects the Enlightenment project pretty hard?

Post-modernists.