|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2003 : 20:07:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanity
I've found that many skeptics, agnostics, and atheists were weaned on sci-fi, fantasy, or both. Some seem to have learned rational thinking from this, at least in part. They learned to tell the difference between fantasy and wishful thinking and reality. Others never do seem to learn the difference.
As with many other litterarty works, the story is not the 'story'. It's symbolic for various things in life but IMO more so in Sci-fi.
The fight between good and evil, Frankenstein and his monster, Dorian Gray, The Invisible Man, the space creatures and the people of Earth at war....it's so much more than interesting plots. But the fantasy is good too if that's all one gets from it. Certainly less boring than other genre.
If one looks beyond the fantasy he sees this life and the world around him.
quote:
Many would call me a failure as a mother. Needless to say, my son didn't grow up to be a good little Christian. He saw it for what it was decades before I did.
See what happens when you teach your kids science and critical thinking?
Of course there are those who would say you are the better (mother) for that.
quote:
It's no wonder these folks don't want their kids exposed to real science in school. They might just learn to think. Can't have that, now can we?
That's WHAT I've been trying to tell people. It's a conspiracy.
Polititions, Democrats especially want to keep people down, either mentaly as you mentioned or financialy thru welfare, etc., so they will have power over them. |
| Edited by - Snake on 07/12/2003 20:13:11 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 21:52:33 [Permalink]
|
Snake wrote:quote:
Polititions, Democrats especially want to keep people down, either mentaly as you mentioned or financialy thru welfare, etc., so they will have power over them.
Strange that it's mostly highly conservative Republicans who are trying to stuff religion into science classes, then, isn't it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2003 : 16:21:09 [Permalink]
|
| Both parties seem driven by their extremist elements, which is messed up since most people fall more towards the middle. Both parties are so very hosed at the moment, the only difference is the odor of their repsective bs. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2003 : 16:51:26 [Permalink]
|
| Both parties are extremist, alright. Extreme right wing. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2003 : 18:25:50 [Permalink]
|
right and left are meaningless. Go far enough left or right, and they meet at a little place called insanity.
(The far left is as bad as the far right.) |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2003 : 20:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
most people fall more towards the middle.
That's why so many who take the Libertarian 'test' on their web site do find out they agree with Libertarian views.
Why are so many people afraid to vote for the party that has ideals that most people agree with. But Noooooo, they vote because they don't want 'the other guy' to win.  |
|
|
|
Sanity
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 01:14:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
That's WHAT I've been trying to tell people. It's a conspiracy.
Polititions, Democrats especially want to keep people down, either mentaly as you mentioned or financialy thru welfare, etc., so they will have power over them.
While skeptics will openly admit that religious folks don't want us to train kids to think, or to understand science, few realize that this is true of all ideologies. Critical thinkers have trouble allocating themselves into any particular ideology. Their ideas overlap with one or more current ideology, and some don't hit any of them.
I have found that many on the left disapprove of religion only because they think those on the right are religious. Rather than using critical thinking to decide what is true, they accept out of hand that the beliefs of their chosen ideology are true. They reject the beliefs of "the enemy," not because they've reasoned out that these beliefs are invalid, but because they are tainted by acceptence by "the enemy."
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
Both parties seem driven by their extremist elements, which is messed up since most people fall more towards the middle. Both parties are so very hosed at the moment, the only difference is the odor of their repsective bs.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Both parties are extremist, alright. Extreme right wing.
It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion of left and right nowdays - for good reason. When political science first developed, the line was from left to right; from desire for radical change on the left (liberals), to desire for no change on the right (conservatives).
Radicals who want captitalism who live in a socialistic country would be classical leftists or liberals. Those who want socialism to continue as it is, would be classical rightists or conservatives.
Most of us in the US tend to define left/liberal and right/conservative according to the doctrines of the Democratic and Republican parties. As a result we used to define them as "more government" and "less government." Now they both seem to favor more government.
What many don't realize is that until a few decades ago, the Democratic party was the party of Christianity.
The reason most of us identify with the libertarian party is that we are still taught to revere liberty as proposed by the classical leftists who sought to overthrow the authoritarian governments of that age. The libertarians are are, in that sense, classical liberals. In addition, since our government grows ever more authoritarian every year, they are classical liberals since they want a change to a less authoritarian government.
Many Democrats, particularly the younger ones, think their party is the party of personal freedom. Doesn't the party support abortion rights, gay rights, and religious freedom? Because of these few specific issues, they fail to see that the party only wants those personal freedoms that will drive the more religious on the right crazy. In every other aspect, they are for more governmental control of our actions and our thoughts.
Thus, they too, don't want critical thinkers. Anyone who doesn't believe this should spend some time at a public school.
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 04:02:50 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Snakequote:
That's why so many who take the Libertarian 'test' on their web site do find out they agree with Libertarian views.
You know, I took that silly test a couple of years ago. Then, I just took it again. Things seem to never change. Once again, I fell exactly at the intersection of Left Liberal, Libertarian, and Centrist. So much for that! http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Now, that Libertarian Purity Test, I can't even get through it. It reminds me of answering one of those questionaires sent out by my Congressman that are designed to assure you answer just the way they want you to. http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
I will admit that I find the social platforms of the Libertarian Party very appealing. However, the Libertarian Party seems to have a very Utopian, and perhaps dangerous veiw of Economics and private ownership of social sevices. I am still trying to find someone that can explain how laisse faire markets or Adam Smith's invisible hand is supposed to work. Man, I've tried, but it still sounds like wishful thinking mixed with a little faerie dust.
Posted by Sanity quote:
What many don't realize is that until a few decades ago, the Democratic party was the party of Christianity.
Who ever said that the two major parties made sense anyway. The Republicans call themselves the Grand Old Party. Unfortunately, The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery, while the Democratic Party was founded in the 1790's to oppose the Federalists. I hardly think either party is very similar today.
I think, also, that the Democratic Party is still the party of liberal Christians. It's the Fundamentalists, the Charismatics, the Reconstructionists, and blue-collar Catholics that fled to the Republican Party. Unfortunately, for the Dems, these are the ones that are more likely to vote, and more likely to be one issue voters. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 17:23:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanity
The reason most of us identify with the libertarian party is that we are still taught to revere liberty as proposed by the classical leftists who sought to overthrow the authoritarian governments of that age.
Huh?
There are probably different reasons for each person to join one party or another but it is my understanding that one main goal of the Libertarian party is to get back to the constitution of the USA as it was written.
No more tangle of laws so that stupid people can sue tobaco companies because they were dumb enought to start or keep smoking and blame it on someone else.
(speaking of which, I just found out about a proposed law here in California that they are working on, you wouldn't belive it. I spent 15 mins. debating with an aid in the office of the Representative who proposed it and she just kept going in circles. Lawmakers, humph!)
Government is TOO big. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 20:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Snake wrote:quote:
...it is my understanding that one main goal of the Libertarian party is to get back to the constitution of the USA as it was written.
Um, on that "Libertarian Purity Test," to get a perfect score, you need to say Yes to "Should the state be abolished?" But the last question leads me to believe that it's not Libertarian 'purity' they're measuring, but "Anarcho-Capitalistic" 'purity'.
Or would it really be the case that if we got 5 Libertarian Party members as Justices, 51 of them as Senators, 218 as Representatives, and one as President - and a simple majority in every state, as well - the Libertarian Party itself would simply announce that everyone can now go home, job well done? Or, let's call it a 2/3rds majority in all areas of government, so they can pretty much re-write the Constitution as they see fit. Once that happens, votes can be assumed and nobody need show up except the clerks.
In other words, does the Libertarian Party subscribe to the views expressed in the purity test, or is that "Radical Libertarianism?"
I think I know the answer, given the photo of Ayn Rand on the page...
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 22:32:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Um, on that "Libertarian Purity Test," to get a perfect score, you need to say Yes to "Should the state be abolished?" But the last question leads me to believe that it's not Libertarian 'purity' they're measuring, but "Anarcho-Capitalistic" 'purity'.
Don't know what the term "Anarcho-Capitalistic" means.
It's been a while since I've looked at the Libertarian web site so I don't recall the ''Libertarian Purity Test" either.
I was refering to that square that tells a person where they fit on the scale of political thought.
quote:
Or would it really be the case that if we got 5 Libertarian Party members as Justices, 51 of them as Senators, 218 as Representatives, and one as President - and a simple majority in every state, as well - the Libertarian Party itself would simply announce that everyone can now go home, job well done? Or, let's call it a 2/3rds majority in all areas of government, so they can pretty much re-write the Constitution as they see fit. Once that happens, votes can be assumed and nobody need show up except the clerks.
In other words, does the Libertarian Party subscribe to the views expressed in the purity test, or is that "Radical Libertarianism?"
That doesn't sound quite right to me!
quote:
I think I know the answer, given the photo of Ayn Rand on the page...
Ayn Rand? Gee, I never did like that woman. Where on the page did you see the photo?
I did go to the web site, have to say I didn't have time to click every link but the major ones and the opening page did not have any such picture.
You don't mean the one at the top of the page, the Statue of Liberty, do you? I hardly think you'd mix up a photo of Ayn Rand and Miss Liberty.
And yes, I do know that many of my fellow Libertarians like her but I've never heard the party officially mention Rands writings. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2003 : 03:09:01 [Permalink]
|
Snake, the Purity Test was written by an Economics Professor at George Mason University. The guy's name is Bryan Caplan. He is a self-identified Libertarian that was hooked after reading Rand's work, probably Atlas Shrugged.
Caplan's personal web site; http://www.bcaplan.com/
His Libertarian Purity Test; http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
Personally, I agree with Dave W. The Purity Test seems more like a lure into Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is an idea made popular by a guy named Murray Rothbard. The gist is that the state should be abolished, and all programs controled by the state should be put into the hands of private ownership. This includes everything from police to garbage collection.
Of course, there are lots of problems with this ideology. For instance, property begins with control of land and resources. So, with no state, who makes the rules about how these resources should be allocated--Perhaps, the person that can afford the biggest and best private security. Many of these folks make arguments about community oversight and such, but we all know that the guy with the biggest and the most guns makes the rules.
Anyways, the Anarcho-capitalists seem to be one half of two quite different economic philosophies among the Libertarian intelligencia. I guess the other group would be the Libertarian Socialists. The debate between the Anarcho-capitalists and the Libertarian Socialists is very heated, and they give no quarter. In my opinion, most of the posters to this board appear to fall somewhere nearer the latter, (if I got that right...former/latter???) However, as Sanity so adeptly pointed out, "Critical thinkers have trouble allocating themselves into any particular ideology." |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2003 : 19:20:07 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for re-posting the purity test link, Tim. Dunno why I didn't think to do it.
As for the "Square" test, it's as much hooey as Meyers-Briggs personality testing. The scoring is simple-minded: start with 50% for each section, then add 10% for each 'Yes' answer, subtract 10% for each 'No', and do nothing for each 'Maybe'. Given the very limited range of possible answers, I had much trouble getting through the test, more trouble than I had even with Meyers-Briggs, which I nearly gave up in frustration since the answers I wanted to give were rarely offered. This political test is even more of a mess:
Military service should be voluntary. (No draft): When faced with a clear and present danger, I wouldn't want my home to be overrun due to a lack of manpower, but no prior draft that I can know of was in response to such a situation. 'Yes' is far too lax for my tastes. 'No', with its implications of a mandated military service, is right out.
Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet: A 'Yes' here could, at the extreme, lead to worthless airwaves. Face it: the radio spectrum is limited in bandwidth, and some regulation is required. But the real problem with this question is that it mixes together common resources like the airwaves, and resources for which there is little competition (paper and Internet space). Plus, the limits placed on the 1st Amendment (libel, etc) are, in my opinion, a good thing. With no regulation, things would perhaps quickly become a mess. A 'No' answer, given the wording, implies content control above-and-beyond the limits I'm thinking of.
Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults: Given the public-health issues here, I'd agree with repealing many of the current laws, but not all of them. However, that's not a choice on the test.
Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them: Ditto.
People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose: Again, this is a mixing of ideas in the same question. I don't agree with the first part, but I mostly agree with the second (I'd rather not have people sleeping under my porch, thanks). No single answer suffices for my position.
Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies: Given the vast spectrum of different kinds of businesses (farms included), this is another mixing of categories. I have no problems with the government partially funding businesses which are doing a public service. On the other hand, things like the airline bailout shouldn't happen. No good answer here, either.
People are better off with free trade than with tariffs: Has any society ever had truly free trade? Until we see an example of free trade actually working, this question is unanswerable.
Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them: This is a new argument to me, but I do know that there are lots of people who'll work for peanuts out of desperation, and that leads to exploitation, a truly unequal division between labor and management. If "full employment" means sweat-shop labor conditions and extremely low pay, I pick minimum wage with some level of unemployment. Perhaps this is the only question I can answer by the choices offered.
End taxes. Pay for services with user fees: My father's townhouse was built way back when there was a "fire tax" in Baltimore. The brass plaque is still on the front of the house, indicating that one of the previous owners was paid up, and the fire department would actually try to save the house if a fire broke out in the neighborhood. No brass plaque, and they'd let your home burn to the ground. But paying for the fire department on any sort of per-use basis doesn't seem like a very good idea to me either, given that human beings are corruptable, and I'd rather not argue with a fire chief who's trying to extort me while my property is going up in smoke. So, employing people into services like the fire department seems only reasonable if you say, "here's how much you will get paid, period, and you'll put out any fires that spring up, period." The only good way to pay for this type of service is via a central government, and whether you call the income of that government 'taxes' or 'user fees' is simply semantics. However, there are lots of so-called "services" provided by our particular government which I believe can be done away with, like most of the National Endowment for the Arts. Getting rid of such services, or privatizing them so that people who choose to donate money to them can reap the benefits, I'm all for. It would substantially reduce the level of income required by the government. Overall, no good answer suffices to cover all these concerns.
All foreign aid should be privately funded: All of it? No. Oh, wow! A second definite answer!
With 'maybes' (for lack of better answers) for all questions but two, what's my score? Centrist, between left-liberal and authoritarian. This is a crock, of course, considering that I would probably be much more towards the libertarian corner if I could answer as I pleased. Given the all-or-nothing format of the questions, however, that's impossible. Sanity, of course, has hit the nail on the head: anyone who actually thinks about these questions long and hard will be displeased, and perhaps, like I'm sure I was, mis-categorized.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2003 : 21:47:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
WHERE ARE YOU NOW AND HOW DID YOU GET THERE?
Anyone else notice we're drifting just a tad off topic? |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 07:16:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults: Given the public-health issues here, I'd agree with repealing many of the current laws, but not all of them. However, that's not a choice on the test.
This is the only one that I really disagree with you on. I believe the objection is to sex between consenting adults and not on sex for a merely commercial purpose. Some could argue that prostitution is not consentual sex, but non-concentual sex in trade for monetary consideration. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
