Page 3 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

07 Dec 2019, 5:16 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Significant portions of conservatives and reactionaries are well-known for their anti-science and anti-intellectual leanings. It doesn't make them devils or evil, but it does make them lack credibility on issues related to science.


If someone is anti-intellectual and anti-science, how is that not evil?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Dec 2019, 5:19 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Significant portions of conservatives and reactionaries are well-known for their anti-science and anti-intellectual leanings. It doesn't make them devils or evil, but it does make them lack credibility on issues related to science.


If someone is anti-intellectual and anti-science, how is that not evil?


Seriously?
One can be wrong without being evil or having malicious intentions. :|


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

07 Dec 2019, 5:32 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Significant portions of conservatives and reactionaries are well-known for their anti-science and anti-intellectual leanings. It doesn't make them devils or evil, but it does make them lack credibility on issues related to science.


If someone is anti-intellectual and anti-science, how is that not evil?


Seriously?
One can be wrong without being evil or having malicious intentions. :|


It's like those producing or sharing fake news. It's not because they believe the stories to be true, but because it serves a higher purpose, in their opinion.

I'll explain:

Anti-scientists are not really against science per se. But they deliberately exploit common people's (non-scientists) lack of scientific and logical reasoning, in order to serve a specific political purpose.

Example:

Everybody know the climate crisis is caused by mankind.
Everybody know about the reasons for the climate crisis.

Then there are those who claim otherwise (either claim they know nothing about it or claim they have a different "theory" for global warming).

Either way, those people in denial are liars. They know perfectly well what they are talking about and they know global warming is man-made.

But for various selfish reasons, they have an interest in downplaying the global warming issue - so they make up all sorts of excuses not to do something about it, ie. voting in opposition to liberal/green parties, making various climate-denial statements or try to otherwise sabotage the cause for action.

It's like holocaust denial: They KNOW holocaust happened, but because they are sympathetic to nazism but know that some people wouldn't be, they downplay the holocaust to get more people sympathetic to their political opinion.

How can you be so blindly naive and believe that people's stupidity is genuine?
Stupidity is not common in mankind. People acting like if they are supid however, is very common.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2019, 5:42 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Scientists tend to disagree more with Conservative values, than with liberal values.
This is because the left wing liberals knows the reality of the world, and conservatives have false beliefs.


As a conservative hardcore atheist, I find this amusing.
I more than suspect your view is more relevant in America, where there is a large committed theist population, as opposed to Australia, which is much more secular. :wink:



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Dec 2019, 6:03 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Significant portions of conservatives and reactionaries are well-known for their anti-science and anti-intellectual leanings. It doesn't make them devils or evil, but it does make them lack credibility on issues related to science.


If someone is anti-intellectual and anti-science, how is that not evil?


Seriously?
One can be wrong without being evil or having malicious intentions. :|


It's like those producing or sharing fake news. It's not because they believe the stories to be true, but because it serves a higher purpose, in their opinion.

I'll explain:

Anti-scientists are not really against science per se. But they deliberately exploit common people's (non-scientists) lack of scientific and logical reasoning, in order to serve a specific political purpose.

Example:

Everybody know the climate crisis is caused by mankind.
Everybody know about the reasons for the climate crisis.

Then there are those who claim otherwise (either claim they know nothing about it or claim they have a different "theory" for global warming).

Either way, those people in denial are liars. They know perfectly well what they are talking about and they know global warming is man-made.

But for various selfish reasons, they have an interest in downplaying the global warming issue - so they make up all sorts of excuses not to do something about it, ie. voting in opposition to liberal/green parties, making various climate-denial statements or try to otherwise sabotage the cause for action.

It's like holocaust denial: They KNOW holocaust happened, but because they are sympathetic to nazism but know that some people wouldn't be, they downplay the holocaust to get more people sympathetic to their political opinion.

How can you be so blindly naive and believe that people's stupidity is genuine?
Stupidity is not common in mankind. People acting like if they are supid however, is very common.


There's both dupes and shills within the population you're describing. One can make a case the shills are evil, although more likely the self-interested type of evil, they're not supervillains. The dupes are generally decent people motivated by faulty understandings and false 'facts'. Most people are complicated and dragging out labels like evil to describe people who disagree with you doesn't present your position in a very positive light.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Dec 2019, 6:19 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:

That's why left wing policies should dominate the world, and we should ban conservatism altogether - because conservatism is anti-science and anti-reasoning.


And dominate you would. Scratch a liberal, reveal a totalitarian.


So civil right legislation for racial minorities, sexual minorities, workers, immigrants, the poor, etc brought to us by liberals is all a totalitarian scheme?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

08 Dec 2019, 4:43 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
That's why left wing policies should dominate the world, and we should ban conservatism altogether - because conservatism is anti-science and anti-reasoning.

And dominate you would. Scratch a liberal, reveal a totalitarian.

So civil right legislation for racial minorities, sexual minorities, workers, immigrants, the poor, etc brought to us by liberals is all a totalitarian scheme?


So you agree that 'conservatism should be banned altogether'. That we'd be better off with one party rule, rather than a democratic republic. That's what I take exception to.

A quick google search:
Quote:
Which party voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Senate version, voted on by the House: Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

08 Dec 2019, 9:40 am

Pepe wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Scientists tend to disagree more with Conservative values, than with liberal values.
This is because the left wing liberals knows the reality of the world, and conservatives have false beliefs.


As a conservative hardcore atheist, I find this amusing.
I more than suspect your view is more relevant in America, where there is a large committed theist population, as opposed to Australia, which is much more secular. :wink:


Conservatism is anti-welfare state.

Science has proven that welfare states improves people's health and quality of life.

If you are a conservative, you are either:

A) Against science because you refuse to believe the scientific results on welfare states.
B) Against welfare anyway, regardless of what science says.

In either way, you're anti-science.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

08 Dec 2019, 10:31 am

Shrapnel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
And dominate you would. Scratch a liberal, reveal a totalitarian.

So civil right legislation for racial minorities, sexual minorities, workers, immigrants, the poor, etc brought to us by liberals is all a totalitarian scheme?


So you agree that 'conservatism should be banned altogether'. That we'd be better off with one party rule, rather than a democratic republic. That's what I take exception to.


Where the heck did this come from?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

08 Dec 2019, 2:12 pm

beneficii wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
And dominate you would. Scratch a liberal, reveal a totalitarian.

So civil right legislation for racial minorities, sexual minorities, workers, immigrants, the poor, etc brought to us by liberals is all a totalitarian scheme?


So you agree that 'conservatism should be banned altogether'. That we'd be better off with one party rule, rather than a democratic republic. That's what I take exception to.


Where the heck did this come from?


I believe Shrapnel was referring to my OP where I wrote that Conservatism should be banned.

I do want to ban conservative political parties, but I don't want to live in a one-party state either.

There's plenty of room for liberal, social-liberal, socialist, and - if they stay away from conservatism, social-democratic parties as well.

The reason I want to prohibit conservatism, is because I - amongst many others - need welfare to survive.

Conservatives want to abolish welfare benefits like unemployment benefits, disability pensions and conscript people into forced labor duty, jailing anyone who's a draft dodger. That's why I in return want to jail conservatives.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

08 Dec 2019, 3:11 pm

Just out of curiosity, how many of the 'leftists' don't agree with banning conservationism; I'm pretty sure thinkinginpictures is out of step with most folks who might be considered as leftist or left leaning on here on this matter.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

08 Dec 2019, 3:28 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many of the 'leftists' don't agree with banning conservationism; I'm pretty sure thinkinginpictures is out of step with most folks who might be considered as leftist or left leaning on here on this matter.


That's an Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.

I don't care how many or few agree or disagree with me. My opinion is not based on the rule of majority.
It is based on my own conscience.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Dec 2019, 3:54 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
That's why left wing policies should dominate the world, and we should ban conservatism altogether - because conservatism is anti-science and anti-reasoning.

And dominate you would. Scratch a liberal, reveal a totalitarian.

So civil right legislation for racial minorities, sexual minorities, workers, immigrants, the poor, etc brought to us by liberals is all a totalitarian scheme?


So you agree that 'conservatism should be banned altogether'. That we'd be better off with one party rule, rather than a democratic republic. That's what I take exception to.

A quick google search:
Quote:
Which party voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Senate version, voted on by the House: Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)


Do I want conservatism banned? Uh... no.
Back when civil rights legislation was passed, there were still conservative Democrats (especially in the south), and liberal Republicans, such as the Rockefellers. Said liberal Republicans gradually floated into the Democratic party as southern conservative Democrats became Republicans during the Nixon and Reagan years.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

08 Dec 2019, 4:04 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many of the 'leftists' don't agree with banning conservationism; I'm pretty sure thinkinginpictures is out of step with most folks who might be considered as leftist or left leaning on here on this matter.


That's an Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.

I don't care how many or few agree or disagree with me. My opinion is not based on the rule of majority.
It is based on my own conscience.


I'm not making an argument against you, I'm just making sure the rest of us aren't lumped in with you later on. I'm making it clear that most of us aren't in favour of this sort of authoritarianism so that it can't be used as a strawman argument by posters who like to rant about how horrible the left is.

As long as everyone understands you don't speak for the majority of we're all on the same page.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

08 Dec 2019, 4:07 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I'm not making an argument against you, I'm just making sure the rest of us aren't lumped in with you later on. I'm making it clear that most of us aren't in favour of this sort of authoritarianism so that it can't be used as a strawman argument by posters who like to rant about how horrible the left is.

As long as everyone understands you don't speak for the majority of we're all on the same page.


I'm a leftist. I do agree with a lot of liberal ideas,but one thing I do not have in common with the vast majority of liberals (or even leftists for that matter) is Authoritarianism.

I do not believe in dictatorship though, but in an autocratic assembly of elected representatives, voting rights restricted to scientists only (I'm no scientist myself btw. so nobody can accuse me of being hungry for power).



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 08 Dec 2019, 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

08 Dec 2019, 4:42 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I'm not making an argument against you, I'm just making sure the rest of us aren't lumped in with you later on. I'm making it clear that most of us aren't in favour of this sort of authoritarianism so that it can't be used as a strawman argument by posters who like to rant about how horrible the left is.

As long as everyone understands you don't speak for the majority of we're all on the same page.


Everybody likes to accuse me of said authoritarianism. But nobody here seem care about MY PART OF THE STORY of how I became an authoritarian leftist in the first place.

I'll make a seperate thread about that.


I'm not sure it's an accusation when you're one of the people identifying yourself as authoritarian. Further, while I disagree with authoritarianism, it doesn't imply a value judgment - same with many other labels I ascribe. Someone can agree with views I find disagreeable without me thinking they're a horrible person.

Otherwise, I would just point out to you that conservatives don't exist to ruin your life. They're people you disagree with, maybe even vehemently, but the vast majority are unaware of your existence. They don't believe what they espouse for the sole purpose of making your life harder, they believe what they believe because they've been convinced of it. Wanting to kill people because they disagree on what an ideal government looks like is worrying and I hope you're able to get beyond that toxic mindset.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Last edited by funeralxempire on 08 Dec 2019, 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.