You like Huey Long?
I like that this puts you in the same camp as a bunch of socialists.
Don't know if he minds, but I don't, broken clocks are right twice a day after all.
Your Political Beliefs
- Thread starter 7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise
- Start date
Don't know if he minds, but I don't, broken clocks are right twice a day after all.
Theres things I like and things I dont. I like that he was against the federal reserve. I dont like his share the wealth policy as much either but I understand it. But on his populism I think its a good thing to have one come around to shake things up in the establishment every now and again. I can get along with socialists if we just talk about large companies exploiting workers but when it comes to social policy and my thoughts on government and its size and scope and purpose thats where we stop being friendly. My politics are dont tread on me, and I dont get how you can in one breath rail against a bunch of elites in companies and then talk about how we need a massive overarching bureaucratic nightmare to control our lives and hold all the power.You like Huey Long?
I like that this puts you in the same camp as a bunch of socialists.
So @FriedCFour so would you agree with my belief that power should be as widely distributed as is feasible?
Absolutely. I think having an elite and a hierarchical social structure is a totally natural and completely unavoidable facet of human nature. Look no further than the laughing stock that is the DSA for proof. The system just needs to be symbiotic, not parasitic. Capitalism and democracy each do a decent job of that especially when government is separated into branches with a written constitution imposing limits on what can be done. The big problem is the expanding scope and collusion between corporate interests and government. Like the fact ICE raids didnt shut the companies employing illegal immigrants down immediately for violating the law and only focused on the immigrants is ridiculous to me.
Ideally a government should be some flavor of democracy (a republic, parliamentarian or something else, doesn't matter much, each has its own ups and downs). Also ideally, a government should not attempt to interfere in the daily minutiae of the citizen's life, unless directly pertaining to matters of crime or security.
That means no restriction on abortion, less restrictions on recreational drugs, legal prostitution etc.
Nevertheless I oppose full-blown libertarianism, as I think it borders on outright anarchy, and some government regulation is inevitable and necessary.
I think that most modern western governments are moving to a more authoritarian direction that I dislike, attempting to police or restrict some fairly moderate political opinions for example, while allowing more extreme ones to flourish, all based on political alignment rather than the actual harm these various ideologies can cause.
I also believe that it is every government's responsibility to uphold the interests of its tax paying citizenry above and beyond the interests of non-citizens, most of all non-citizens that live outside the country.
Explain.
None at all? Whats the difference between a 7 month abortion and a mother drowning a baby?
OK, you're right, that was a bit harsh. Let's say abortion can be restricted to only the first trimester or so, possibly a bit more.
When I said "no restriction" I thought more like no need to prove it necessary (such as claiming medical complications etc). Rather, one could have an abortion at will as long as the fetus was not yet sufficiently developed.
But why should we able to kill another innocent lifeform at will? Shouldn't we have an actual reason to kill it, beyond mere things like convenience?
Yeah a few years ago I wouldve assumed so. Now though this is a position a lot of people hold to.
Lifeform is a pretty broad designation. Bacteria are lifeforms too. Plants as well. A line should be put somewhere to mark the border between what is acceptable to kill and what isn't. Otherwise we end up with either "killing anything is fine, including full on sterilization of the planet", or with "we have a paradox because our very existence kills various forms of life, such as bacteria by our immune system or all forms of food, but if we kill ourselves to preserve these lives we are also taking a life".
A clump of cells or even a seahorse shaped thing without a shred of conscious thought or most body structures that can identify it as human, I really struggle to see why a fetus should have a special ethical status like full-on humans enjoy.
It's a joke about how you're Israeli, support abortion, and how blood libel is about Jews using Christian children's blood for rituals.
A joke about "All Men are created equal" excluding women.
You're welcome.
Oh, whooshed right over my head.
This is what I got on that test thing:
Of course, this same test also believes that Donald Trump is almost full Authoritarian. So take that as you will.
Also think I'm closer towards the middle than it has. I think of my views as fairly moderate. I guess it was that whole "gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt" thing. Which I'm not totally against, I just don't think it's a good idea for the child.
Of course, this same test also believes that Donald Trump is almost full Authoritarian. So take that as you will.
Also think I'm closer towards the middle than it has. I think of my views as fairly moderate. I guess it was that whole "gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt" thing. Which I'm not totally against, I just don't think it's a good idea for the child.
I did one of those just a few months ago, posted it on the PM even. Let me try to dig it up.This is what I got on that test thing:
Of course, this same test also believes that Donald Trump is almost full Authoritarian. So take that as you will.
Also think I'm closer towards the middle than it has. I think of my views as fairly moderate. I guess it was that whole "gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt" thing. Which I'm not totally against, I just don't think it's a good idea for the child.
Edit: Here you go
Quoting myself from the PM post:
Wicked said:
Last edited:
I did one of those just a few months ago, posted it on the PM even. Let me try to dig it up.
Edit: Here you go
Quoting myself from the PM post:
Yeah, I don't fully trust this. The reason is that I think certain words are assumed to hold a greater liberal or conservative meaning than they might actually apply to most people. Instead of asking some stuff straight up, they sort of just assume that "gay people shouldn't adopt children" more or less equates to "no gayz".
Still, it's probably roughly accurate.
There is of course a line, because we should never take things to the absurd. But there are many places you can draw a line, just look at Jainists, they are hardcore vegans, so hardcore that they try to avoid accidentally stepping on or eating insects.
I wonder answer that they should be considered as human, because that is what their end is, to become human.
Yes, there are many places when you can put the line, and the exact place in the end comes around to emotion rather than any kind of logic. For example, I feel that taking care not to step on an insect is absurd. Those super-vegans will disagree, but I don't feel my position to be in any way inferior to theirs. Quite the other way around, in fact.
A sperm's end is also to become human, and so is an eggs, and likewise plenty of molecules that used to be parts of completely different stuff. To me it matters very little what the stuff will become, unless it's already well on its way, like a born baby (that's another line to draw).
In the end, the life and well being of the mother matters to me much more than the pseudo-life of a parasitic clump of cells (and let's face it, that's what an early fetus is essentially, even if such language sounds unpleasant).
It isn't parasitic. That is a distortion of the term, the fetus is actually supposed to be there biologically speaking.
That's true, but in the end doesn't change my argument much. As long as it is not yet on its way to develop into a human, I don't see any particular value to its life. It's not even intelligent enough to realize it is dead after all. The mother, on the other hand, can suffer potentially for the entirety of her life from an unwanted pregnancy (and the resulting child would arguably be even worse off).
So, someone should be able to pass off the consequences of their actions by killing another lifeform, and denying a potential human being the opportunity to live their own life?