• 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!

Liberals and Conservatives: Are adherents of the rival ideology evil?

Well?

  • I'm a liberal: conservatives are evil

    Votes: 2 4.0%
  • I'm a conservative: liberals are evil

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • I'm a liberal: conservatives aren't evil

    Votes: 20 40.0%
  • I'm a conservative: liberals aren't evil

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Ban Morality Games

    Votes: 14 28.0%

  • Total voters
    50
And if I, a male progressive (i.e. won't be using birth control anytime soon) think that birth control should be paid by the state, is that selfish and/or evil?

What you are advocating is that wealth be taken from others, and used for a purpose that you favor, but which those others who are to be compelled to pay for it might not necessarily favor.

That's not selfishness; that's greed—the desire to take what is not yours, to be used in a manner contrary to the wishes of the rightful owners from which it is to be taken.
 
What you are advocating is that wealth be taken from others, and used for a purpose that you favor, but which those others who are to be compelled to pay for it might not necessarily favor.

That's not selfishness; that's greed—the desire to take what is not yours, to be used in a manner contrary to the wishes of the rightful owners from which it is to be taken.

Do you advocate for military spending?
 
We agree then:

1. Selfishness and evilness are two different things.
2. Conservatism isn't evil, it's just selfish (albeit in an honorable manner).

It really depends on one's definition of selfishness though. Is it selfish to look to your own interests, to provide for yourself and your family, and to not require your neighbor to take care of you?
 
You're confusing selfishness with greed.

Selfishness is an unwillingness to share with others, what is rightfully yours.

Greed is a desire take for yourself, or for some purpose that you support, that which rightfully belongs to others.

Greed is inherently evil, but selfishness is not necessarily. A person certainly has much more right to determine what use is to be made of what is rightfully his own, than someone else does.

It is ironic that liberals like to accuse conservatives of being greedy, when it is liberal positions that call for taking what is not theirs, to be used for their pet causes; which therefore makes liberals the ones who are actually guilty of greed.

Not to get all big-ego on you, because I'm sitting here making the argument that ego is at the heart of all evil, but I had the definition right.

"SELFISH - (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."


What is rightfully yours is rightfully yours... it's not the government's to take. One reason I'm conservative. However, remember that as Christians, we would do well to remember this little verse:

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" 21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property


The meaning behind this being, to be perfectly good and not evil, one cannot have a drop of selfishness (or greed, as you put it) in their soul.
 
I define selfishness as putting one's own needs above everyone else's.

"I need to have my birth control paid for by the state and you (rich people/taxpayers/whatever) can foot the bill" is selfish. In that way, progressives are selfish and evil.

"I will not give one dime of my hard earned money so that some immigrant kid can get an education" is selfish. In that way, conservatives are selfish and evil.

Evil and selfishness aren't bound to one political ideology.

No, evil and selfishness aren't bound to one political ideology. But conservatism, as defined in modern day America, is not selfish. Those who embrace it expect to do whatever they have to do that is honorable and ethical to provide for their own needs and be a benefit to society instead of a burden. And it promotes a society that expects and enables others to do the same. I think that concept FEELS selfish to the typical liberal.
 
So, if Nazi Germany had won the war, would their treatment of the Jews and other “undesirables” have been fully justified?

Was the Holocaust evil, or wasn't it? I think this is a simple, objective question, with a solid, one-word answer. Yet you seem unable or unwilling to answer it.

Depends on who you ask. If you asked the Nazis, then they'd likely say yes. It isn't a question that can be answered in a single word. The real world is nuanced. Deal with it.
 
No, evil and selfishness aren't bound to one political ideology. But conservatism, as defined in modern day America, is not selfish. Those who embrace it expect to do whatever they have to do that is honorable and ethical to provide for their own needs and be a benefit to society instead of a burden. And it promotes a society that expects and enables others to do the same. I think that concept FEELS selfish to the typical liberal.

Some conservatives are honorable. Some are not. It extends beyond ideology.

At it's root, conservative ideology simply espouses the ideals of personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

At their core, none of those beliefs are inherently good nor evil. What makes them such is the motivation behind the beliefs, and that differs from person to person.
 
lol <evil hand rubbing> nyu nyu nyaaa.......

:2razz:

54079-Dr-Evil-give-me-a-hug-gif-Bxzt.gif
 
Examples of appropriate situations?

In most negotiations like the Cuba crisis you will find partial but therein total lack of compromise must be present in order to find a stable solution. The whole structure of MAD was based on and required uncompromising "you or us" to the point of believable total annihilation to work.
 
In most negotiations like the Cuba crisis you will find partial but therein total lack of compromise must be present in order to find a stable solution. The whole structure of MAD was based on and required uncompromising "you or us" to the point of believable total annihilation to work.

I see what you mean about the latter, but I totally fail to see what you mean by the former. Perhaps you could explain further.
 
I see what you mean about the latter, but I totally fail to see what you mean by the former. Perhaps you could explain further.

Actually it is a similar question ie only slightly differently set. In the Cuba Crisis the basic problem for the US was the proximity of nuclear rockets to the US mainland. This, it was feared, would reduce the stability of MAD and increase the number of paths to and the probability of atomic war. In order to prevent this, compromise was not possible and this was demonstrated by implementing a blockade, which is generally considered an act of war. That is very much uncompromised "you or us" stuff.
 
Actually it is a similar question ie only slightly differently set. In the Cuba Crisis the basic problem for the US was the proximity of nuclear rockets to the US mainland. This, it was feared, would reduce the stability of MAD and increase the number of paths to and the probability of atomic war. In order to prevent this, compromise was not possible and this was demonstrated by implementing a blockade, which is generally considered an act of war. That is very much uncompromised "you or us" stuff.

Oh, you mean the Cuban missile crisis back in 1962. Actually compromise allowed to situation to be solved in that case, at least as I recall. I need to go back and look at it, but I think that both sides found a face saving way to resolve the crisis. I think that although it was not publicly announced, the U.S. agreed to remove some missiles elsewhere or something like that, in return for Russia removing their missiles.
 
Oh, you mean the Cuban missile crisis back in 1962. Actually compromise allowed to situation to be solved in that case, at least as I recall. I need to go back and look at it, but I think that both sides found a face saving way to resolve the crisis. I think that although it was not publicly announced, the U.S. agreed to remove some missiles elsewhere or something like that, in return for Russia removing their missiles.

That is true. The US removed missiles from Turkey soon afterwards in a deal. And face saving is much more important to stability and security than often given credit for.

But the point I wanted to make was that to achieve the solution of no nukes on Cuba and maintain the MAD parameters it was necessary to go head on against the other party in what was a relatively high risk confrontation.
 
That is true. The US removed missiles from Turkey soon afterwards in a deal. And face saving is much more important to stability and security than often given credit for.

But the point I wanted to make was that to achieve the solution of no nukes on Cuba and maintain the MAD parameters it was necessary to go head on against the other party in what was a relatively high risk confrontation.

Well, any confrontation will involved going head on against the opposition. The point is this, it was resolved through an agreement that benefited both sides instead of a one way my way or the highway solution. My way or the highway is you are either with me or against me.
 
Well, any confrontation will involved going head on against the opposition. The point is this, it was resolved through an agreement that benefited both sides instead of a one way my way or the highway solution. My way or the highway is you are either with me or against me.

Okay. I see what you mean.

I would want to venture that the blockade ie the declaration of war was of the "you or me" kind. After that it was possible to discuss a deal of mutual benefit. It was in fact this type of showdown that demonstrated the amount of resolve and willingness to fight that was behind those 50 years of albeit nervous peace.
 
Okay. I see what you mean.

I would want to venture that the blockade ie the declaration of war was of the "you or me" kind. After that it was possible to discuss a deal of mutual benefit. It was in fact this type of showdown that demonstrated the amount of resolve and willingness to fight that was behind those 50 years of albeit nervous peace.

Fair enough. I think that is a reasonable characterization of the situation.
 
Its meant to be a zero sum, bottom line question.

I don't identify enough with either ideology to cast a vote either way; I generally dislike conservatism more but more often than not wind up feeling every person who has ever existed is evil and that ideology is them showing their most evil side: unrelentingly hypocritical, unfailingly self-serving and self-congratulatory, and all round conceited.

In my better moments, I try to tell myself no one is evil.

What should I say? I'm a liberal conservative or vice versa or something.
 
Some conservatives are honorable. Some are not. It extends beyond ideology.

At it's root, conservative ideology simply espouses the ideals of personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

At their core, none of those beliefs are inherently good nor evil. What makes them such is the motivation behind the beliefs, and that differs from person to person.

No argument that different people have different motives. But motives and ideology are not the same thing.

Your description of conservatism as defined in modern day American is accurate but not necessarily complete. It also allows for social contract to provide cooperation for mutual benefit and also basic social services as deemed necessary by the state or the local community. It rejects authoritarian dictates in such matters, however, and promotes each community forming whatever sort of society it wants to have. It believes any policy that discourages positive values such as liberty, reverence for life, self-reliance, initiative, creativity, family etc.--and too many one-size-fits-all social programs do just that--may be well intended, but will invariably produce that which is harmful, even evil.

IMO Liberalism as defined in modern day America sees itself as compassionate and caring and that it is populated by smarter, nicer, better people than everybody else. It sees it as righteousness to forcibly take property from those who have it and give that property to others. It speaks a religion of human rights but demands that all do everything the same, use the same politically correct language, and embrace the same causes or else people are deemed unacceptable. It does not appreciate or recognize any positive results of conservatism because it deems the motive unacceptable. It will not consider or even look at the negative consequences of what liberalism does because as long as the motive is right, then whatever they do is deemed virtuous. IMO, this manner of thinking may be well intentioned, but the results are too often evil.
 
The most evil conservative (and often centrist) tendency is support of wars that are primarily motivated by greed or desire for power. Examples include wars waged to gain access to another nation's natural resources or to a nation under the thumb of imperialists. Wars started solely to make one group of people feel safer are also an evil. These types of wars create huge amounts of unnecessary destruction, death, and other misery just to make some people feel better or to save them some money. Of course these wars are justified with more socially acceptable explanations, but people have an obligation to look beyond the propaganda before deciding to start a war.
 
Justice - laws has always been part of what you call morality


Recall the days of people targeting and hunting down gays for a beating


Motivation has and is part of the justice system, sometime for leniency, sometime not.

[*]The level of punishment of the non-hate crime version can easily handle pushing those that inflict greater violence
How, links, expand upon this please??


Protected classes, or protecting classes that need it.


No protecting those that are and can be targets due to a variety of reasons, that the crime was based upon hate. specific hatred.


I don't think you missed any


Have not read the complete thread.

I dispute the need for protected classes to be protected by hate crimes, when the crime remains the same, and further, when the severity of the punishment of that crime can accommodate the just punishment for the crime and the acts of that crime.

Seems far more likely that the hate crimes are little more than scoring political points with the protected class. There is no need for them.
 
I dispute the need for protected classes to be protected by hate crimes, when the crime remains the same, and further, when the severity of the punishment of that crime can accommodate the just punishment for the crime and the acts of that crime.

Seems far more likely that the hate crimes are little more than scoring political points with the protected class. There is no need for them.

Just curious - do you feel the same way about separate terrorism statutes? They are the identical principle to hate crime statutes - a hate crime is just one form of terrorism. And I think the motivation is similar - score points with the public, get tough on "hate" or "terrorism."

I'm a bit conflicted on both of them - there is no doubt that there are different categories of crimes that are correctly called 'terrorism' or 'hate crimes', but the charges put too much discretionary power in the hands of prosecutors.
 
Just curious - do you feel the same way about separate terrorism statutes? They are the identical principle to hate crime statutes - a hate crime is just one form of terrorism. And I think the motivation is similar - score points with the public, get tough on "hate" or "terrorism."

I'm a bit conflicted on both of them - there is no doubt that there are different categories of crimes that are correctly called 'terrorism' or 'hate crimes', but the charges put too much discretionary power in the hands of prosecutors.

There are different types of terrorism. Domestic terrorism, such as the Oklahoma bombing is clearly a criminal justice matter. Terrorism, as conducted by militant Islamic fundamentalists across national borders, is a military matter.

For the domestic terrorism, do the current criminal statutes have the ability to enforce and mandate appropriate incarceration? If so, there is also no need for them, if not, perhaps a change to the current criminal statutes is in order.
 
There are different types of terrorism. Domestic terrorism, such as the Oklahoma bombing is clearly a criminal justice matter. Terrorism, as conducted by militant Islamic fundamentalists across national borders, is a military matter.

For the domestic terrorism, do the current criminal statutes have the ability to enforce and mandate appropriate incarceration? If so, there is also no need for them, if not, perhaps a change to the current criminal statutes is in order.

Well that was the question I was asking you. We do have domestic terrorism statutes, and they're pretty vague. From the FBI: FBI — Terrorism Definition

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

My point is if you're against "hate crime" laws, then I find it hard to believe you can support laws against "terrorism." A key part of 'terrorism' prosecutions is the motivation of the criminal, same as "hate crime" laws. A hate crime is simply one form of domestic terrorism. And as I said, I have the same concerns about hate crimes and 'terrorism' charges. I'm undecided, agnostic, on the need and utility of them, and VERY concerned about the potential for abuse.
 
Well that was the question I was asking you. We do have domestic terrorism statutes, and they're pretty vague. From the FBI: FBI — Terrorism Definition

Right, I know that was the question that you were asking, but I don't have an answer on it either.

My point is if you're against "hate crime" laws, then I find it hard to believe you can support laws against "terrorism." A key part of 'terrorism' prosecutions is the motivation of the criminal, same as "hate crime" laws. A hate crime is simply one form of domestic terrorism. And as I said, I have the same concerns about hate crimes and 'terrorism' charges. I'm undecided, agnostic, on the need and utility of them, and VERY concerned about the potential for abuse.

And I accept your point. It's a good point. The position that I stated isn't counter to the point that you were making. In essence, I don't really support either hate crime or terrorism statutes, as you correctly observe, they are founded in the political, rather than in the legal.

It worries me as well that something such as the terrorism statutes have such vague definitions, and I too see them as being rife for government and prosecutorial abuse.
 
Its meant to be a zero sum, bottom line question.

I don't identify enough with either ideology to cast a vote either way; I generally dislike conservatism more but more often than not wind up feeling every person who has ever existed is evil and that ideology is them showing their most evil side: unrelentingly hypocritical, unfailingly self-serving and self-congratulatory, and all round conceited.

In my better moments, I try to tell myself no one is evil.

Anyone who believes that liberalism or conservatism (and adherents to either) is inherently evil needs to go outside and play.

PS. We all know now that the polls are being hacked. It's time to stop making them anonymous.
 
Back
Top Bottom