• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Political ideal that is most out of touch with reality

What opinion is most out of touch with reality?

  • R-Global Warming is not man made

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • L-Global Warming is 100% man made

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • R-Abortion kills a human

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • L-Unborn human rights are trumped by a woman's right to choose

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • R-Lower taxation equals economic freedom and greater equality in opportunity

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • L-Higher taxation for certain tax brackets is fair because it helps the poor

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • R-Immigration is a good thing, but those that broke the law should not be rewarded

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • L-Immigration laws should not be enforced

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • R-Religious freedom is absolute (i.e. traditional marriage, creationism, young Earth)

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • L-Secular values trump religious freedom (i.e. gay marriage, evolution, big bang)

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Total voters
    36
ksu_aviator said:
To correct the ill conceived poll in this sub forum, I have proposed the above poll. Vote as you may.
Click to expand...

This poll just portrays the extreme left and right and doesn't represent anyone in between. So, to answer the question....every one of the choices allowed in the poll is out of touch with reality.
 
Every R option is unrealistic, but NOT completely.
What we need is balance, or something close...perfect is impossible.
 
Redress said:
Almost every option is built off an extreme that almost no one believes.

Even most on the right know that human activity has some level of affect on the environment. Most on the left know that other factors than humans affect climate change.

Both your abortion options are vastly oversimplified.

Your tax options are oversimplified and not exclusive.

You immigration options are almost parodies of the actual positions.

Your religious freedom options, the examples have nothing to do with religious freedom, and the left tends to be the ones most supportive of civil liberties(outside of guns).

Based on that, I cannot answer your poll since I am not going to try and misrepresent what those on the right think.
Click to expand...

yep i agree with this 100% even going off of stereotypes the options are far to skewed to the rare extremists
 
Wiseone said:
Do you really see all these issues as strictly binary in nature?
Click to expand...

No, but you only get 10 options and I was improving upon the blatantly one sided poll that I mimicked.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, but you only get 10 options and I was improving upon the blatantly one sided poll that I mimicked.
Click to expand...

well you didnt improve on it at all, its actually worse

the other polls only flaw is falsely painting all GOP members in ONE light, thats completely unfair and i pointed that out in my response to it and once that is pointed out that poll is easy to answer
But even the selections are left very vague enough so they arent extreme and not so stereotypical so one can choose their own meaning.

IMO yours are so extreme and poorly worded that even "stereotypically" they dont apply and some are just not true of anybody but maybe a very small fringe.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Freedoms and rights are not the same. We are talking about rights.
Click to expand...

Both are the same in this regard. I don't care what you believe, you cannot eat another human being, you cannot have sex with children (tell the Catholics that, will you?), you cannot engage in illegal activities, etc. You simply are not permitted to translate what you believe in your head into physical action without limitation.
 
Cephus said:
Both are the same in this regard. I don't care what you believe, you cannot eat another human being, you cannot have sex with children (tell the Catholics that, will you?), you cannot engage in illegal activities, etc. You simply are not permitted to translate what you believe in your head into physical action without limitation.
Click to expand...

No they are not. There is a very distinct difference. They cannot be used interchangeably.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No they are not. There is a very distinct difference. They cannot be used interchangeably.
Click to expand...

Then please point out how they are different in this specific instance.
 
Allowing you to pray to whatever you want and stopping you from infringing on the beliefs/values of others = religious oppression. Welcome to DP. Where down is up, left is right, and the points don't matter.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To correct the ill conceived poll in this sub forum, I have proposed the above poll. Vote as you may.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Are you extreme right or what? You state the left's "issues" incorrectly, for the purpose of making them appear as wacko as the right's.

Examples:
The left does NOT maintain that global warming is 100% caused by man.

The unborn do not have "human rights" under the LAW; therefore, rights that don't exist cannot be trumped by anything. (Rights come into existence at the point where the fetus can live outside the womb...personhood. Even the Republican state of Mississippi or Alabama refused to pass a "personhood" law applying to the unborn.)

The left does not maintain that higher taxes for those who make more is fair because it helps the poor. The left maintains that a progressive tax is fair because it's just FAIR (5% to someone with no expendable income means a lot more than 5% to someone with an expendable income of 90% of what they bring in). It is the country that has enabled the person to make the income; therefore, it is fair that they give a larger percentage of their income. They also maintain that it makes for a healthier economy, which history will back up. In other words, it is not true that giving Romney more $ to put in his Swiss bank account will make the American economy stronger and increase jobs. It WILL, however help the economy for poor and middle class people to have more expendable income, since they will SPEND that money on services and products, stimulating the economy and increasing JOBS.

It is not the left's position that secular values trumps religious freedom. Gay marriage of other people has nothing to do with your religious freedom. Evolution is science based; we want our citizens to be educated and knowledgeable in science and math. But you are free to believe in whatever you choose, since you have religious freedom. Our government is free from religious influence, since it is a CIVIL government. It does not interfere with anyone's right to believe and worship as they choose. However, a person's religious beliefs are not allowed to interfere with the civil government or others' beliefs. Law is civil. If we mix religion with it, should it be...muslim? Or Jewish? Or do you mean YOUR religion? This is why the country was set up initially to be secular but not interfere with religious beliefs. That is the Democratic Party Platform, I believe.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To correct the ill conceived poll in this sub forum, I have proposed the above poll. Vote as you may.
Click to expand...

I think some of your poll choices are just not correct.

FOr example - I know of no person on the left that thinks Global Warming/climate change is 100% man made. They think in varying degrees how much manmade enters into the picture. That is a huge difference.
 
Cephus said:
Then please point out how they are different in this specific instance.
Click to expand...

Rights are inherent and are only limited by other peoples' rights. Freedoms are not inherent and are limited by law.

Now, we create laws to prevent one individual from violating another individual's/individuals' rights. But those laws are meant to preserve rights, not limit (whether or not they meet that goal is another story).

Simple example. Right to life is inherent. No one can violate that right unless their right to life is being threatened. Freedom to participate in commerce is heavily regulated. While you can participate you can only participate as the government sees fit.
 
JumpinJack said:
Whoa. Are you extreme right or what? You state the left's "issues" incorrectly, for the purpose of making them appear as wacko as the right's.

Examples:
The left does NOT maintain that global warming is 100% caused by man.
Click to expand...

Some do: "Climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time. The Earth's atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which threatens large-scale disruptions in climate with disastrous consequences. We must act now to spur the adoption of cleaner energy sources at home and abroad."

Global Warming Facts, Causes and Effects of Climate Change | NRDC

The unborn do not have "human rights" under the LAW; therefore, rights that don't exist cannot be trumped by anything. (Rights come into existence at the point where the fetus can live outside the womb...personhood. Even the Republican state of Mississippi or Alabama refused to pass a "personhood" law applying to the unborn.)
Click to expand...

Natural rights exist outside the law. Just because the law allows them to be violated does not mean they are not being violated.

The left does not maintain that higher taxes for those who make more is fair because it helps the poor. The left maintains that a progressive tax is fair because it's just FAIR (5% to someone with no expendable income means a lot more than 5% to someone with an expendable income of 90% of what they bring in). It is the country that has enabled the person to make the income; therefore, it is fair that they give a larger percentage of their income. They also maintain that it makes for a healthier economy, which history will back up. In other words, it is not true that giving Romney more $ to put in his Swiss bank account will make the American economy stronger and increase jobs. It WILL, however help the economy for poor and middle class people to have more expendable income, since they will SPEND that money on services and products, stimulating the economy and increasing JOBS.
Click to expand...

Your first and last sentence contradict.

It is not the left's position that secular values trumps religious freedom. Gay marriage of other people has nothing to do with your religious freedom.
Click to expand...

But that's not true. There have been two very public cases of people being told they cannot exercise their religious freedom by not participating in gay marriage/union ceremonies. They have since been sued for maintaining their rights. Sued by the government. Gay marriage is 100% about religious freedom.

Evolution is science based; we want our citizens to be educated and knowledgeable in science and math. But you are free to believe in whatever you choose, since you have religious freedom.
Click to expand...

With the exception that if you don't espouse the secular/scientific view the government won't give them a diploma.

[qoute]Our government is free from religious influence, since it is a CIVIL government.[/quote]

Absolutely false. You cannot be religious and live your professional life outside of that religion. So anyone, whether it is a low level government employee to the President, will have religious influences in their process. Our government is not free from religious influence. Our people are supposed to be free from religious persecution, though. That changed in the last year.

It does not interfere with anyone's right to believe and worship as they choose. However, a person's religious beliefs are not allowed to interfere with the civil government or others' beliefs. Law is civil. If we mix religion with it, should it be...muslim? Or Jewish? Or do you mean YOUR religion? This is why the country was set up initially to be secular but not interfere with religious beliefs. That is the Democratic Party Platform, I believe.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason I say no government should regulate marriage is because you can't do it without forcing some or all religions and their patrons to recognize marriages that do not meet their beliefs.
 
ksu_aviator said:
A distinction without a difference. They never once mention any other contributing factors.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mention man-made emissions of CO2 either

In fact, the words "man made" do not appear in either of the quotes you posted.
 
ksu_aviator said:
So it is ok for secularism to be forced on religion, but not religion to be forced on secularism? Not that that's what is happening, but I want to see what your line of thinking is.
Click to expand...

Neither one. Secular society is the bedrock, religion is the river that flows over it. The bedrock will change slowly over time, but it will not crack under the river's force, neither will it suddenly explode and disrupt the river's flow.

In other words, secular society is the foundation established by the Constitution, and religion is welcome to flow in any direction that does not bring it into conflict with secular society.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Rights are inherent and are only limited by other peoples' rights. Freedoms are not inherent and are limited by law.

Now, we create laws to prevent one individual from violating another individual's/individuals' rights. But those laws are meant to preserve rights, not limit (whether or not they meet that goal is another story).

Simple example. Right to life is inherent. No one can violate that right unless their right to life is being threatened. Freedom to participate in commerce is heavily regulated. While you can participate you can only participate as the government sees fit.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that what you think of as a "freedom" most people consider "priviledge."
 
ksu_aviator said:
Some do: "Climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time. The Earth's atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which threatens large-scale disruptions in climate with disastrous consequences. We must act now to spur the adoption of cleaner energy sources at home and abroad."
Click to expand...

That does not say humans are 100% responsible for global warming.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Neither one. Secular society is the bedrock, religion is the river that flows over it. The bedrock will change slowly over time, but it will not crack under the river's force, neither will it suddenly explode and disrupt the river's flow.

In other words, secular society is the foundation established by the Constitution, and religion is welcome to flow in any direction that does not bring it into conflict with secular society.
Click to expand...

Uh...no. The Constitution did not establish a secular society. The Constitution recognized the right to believe as you wish with regards to religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom