Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: flap on 1 December 2003, 03:32
-
http://www.rgj.com/news/printstory.php?id=57365 (http://www.rgj.com/news/printstory.php?id=57365)
Incidentally here's another link that supports what I've always said; that conservatism is a personality disorder: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-12-2003-44149.asp (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-12-2003-44149.asp)
[ November 30, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
conservatism is a personality disorder
I studied psychologie myself (Assistent Psychologie Antwerpen).
I can confirm that as a fact.
-
If conservatism is a personality disorder, then what is imperialism and neo-conservatism?
By the way, great links, flap. I found especially the first one doubleplusgood.
[ November 30, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
If conservatism is a personality disorder, then what is neo-conservatism and imperialism?
By the way, great links, flap. They were doubleplusgood.
[ November 30, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Have you seen "Rain Man"?
Almost everyone is a little "autistic".
Conservatism is like that.
They fear what's different, ...they fail to see a different world.
Imperialism is a very bad result from conservatism.
-
quote:
Have you seen "Rain Man"?
Nope, never seen it, though I've heard of it. It's about an autistic person, isn't it? I'm not much in to movies, though I think I should watch more.
-
It seems like I'm the only one that both embraces the FSF and is a conservative.
First, I'd like to point out that the DMCA came right out of Liberal Hollywood. :mad:
Second, this article is totally biased and unfair. I'd like to go through a few now:
quote:
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you
-
Oh, and I'd like to add that both Representatives supporting this (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59654,00.html)bill are Democrats. :mad:
-
quote:
It seems like I'm the only one that both embraces the FSF and is a conservative.
You do realise the FSF's philosophy is entirely socialist, don't you? So you're basically going against your own beliefs.
quote:
First, I'd like to point out that the DMCA came right out of Liberal Hollywood.
If the DMCA did come out of Hollywood, it came out of film studios. They aren't liberal, they're businesses. Even if many so-called liberals in hollywood do support it, it's still a conservative act, and those liberals are failing to live up to their own principles. So, once again, you as a conservative shouldn't really have a problem with it.
quote:
And the government does?
No, of course not. And your government is republican, in case you failed to notice, so why would you assume the author of this list is trying to suggest that republicans care about healthcare?
quote:
Erm....thousands? Last I heard, the number wasn't even 500 yet. Plus, I'm not convinced the president lied.
I'm guessing that refers to the number of deaths on both sides. I suppose you could argue that thousands of Iraqi troops and civilians dying doesn't necessarily qualify the war as bad "defence policy", as long as the all-important number of American deaths is kept as low as possible.
quote:
Oh, and I'd like to add that both Representatives supporting thisbill are Democrats.
So what's your point; that Democrat politicians are just as big a waste of air as republicans are? Maybe so. The list isn't necessarily pro-Democrat.
[ December 02, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
You do realise the FSF's philosophy is entirely socialist, don't you? So you're basically going against your own beliefs.
I must admit that I'm not a pure conservative. In terms of computer software and "intellectual property rights," I'll consider myself a socialist. However, in many other areas, I'm conservative still.
quote:
Even if many so-called liberals in hollywood do support it, it's still a conservative act...
I laugh at statements like this. :D Just what about conservatism makes it against people's rights and for monopolistic business? Bigger business than government, yes. But the DMCA is far out of control. There's way too many lies out there about modern conservatism.
quote:
why would you assume the author of this list is trying to suggest that republicans care about healthcare?
I don't assume that. I know that Republicans don't care much about healthcare...or at least, their care is limited to hoping it doesn't become too powerful. Anti-Big Government, remember. ;)
quote:
I suppose you could argue that thousands of Iraqi troops and civilians dying doesn't necessarily qualify the war as bad "defence policy", as long as the all-important number of American deaths is kept as low as possible.
:D I don't understand something here. There is more protest about the death of American troops in this war than in, like, any other, ever. Both World Wars had less opposition, and tons more troops killed. This one really gets to me.
quote:
The list isn't necessarily pro-Democrat.
It doesn't seem very neutral to me, if that's what you're suggesting. :rolleyes:
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
modern conservatism
Do you have a name for both your personalities ?
-
quote:
Just what about conservatism makes it against people's rights and for monopolistic business?
Well "against people's rights and for monopolistic business" is pretty much the definition of conservatism. Conservative policy is about preserving corporate power and ensuring that there are as few threats as possible to the wealth of the rich. This is predicated on the capitalist's belief that a society in which some have everything and others have nothing is perfectly acceptable.
quote:
There is more protest about the death of American troops in this war than in, like, any other, ever. Both World Wars had less opposition, and tons more troops killed. This one really gets to me.
I doubt many people would have disputed the necessity of the two world wars being fought, or suggested that they were being fought based on lies, oil, or american imperialism.
quote:
It doesn't seem very neutral to me
I didn't suggest it was neutral, just that it isn't necessarily pro-democrat. There are other political parties, you know. And you don't have to like any party to particularly dislike one.
-
What part about conservatism does not support disversity and change? Sure, maybe far right wingers are opposed to and are afraid of change, but the vast majority of conservatives support it. We are just more subtle about it and don't flaunt it to get votes.
So, believing in facts and logic is a personality disorder? I can say the same about liberals and their apparent inability to answer direct questions. I listen to talk radio and liberals constantly dance around direct questions that the host asks. Very frustrating. Of course, this is just one of the symptoms of personality disorder that liberals share.
-
quote:
Well "against people's rights and for monopolistic business" is pretty much the definition of conservatism. Conservative policy is about preserving corporate power and ensuring that there are as few threats as possible to the wealth of the rich. This is predicated on the capitalist's belief that a society in which some have everything and others have nothing is perfectly acceptable.
Wrong. Please try again.
You seem to only look at the far right wing extremest views. That is not the view shared by average conservatives.
-
quote:
So, believing in facts and logic is a personality disorder?
Facts and logic? I assume you're inferring, as most right wingers do, that conservatism is "common sense"? What's factual or logical about conservatives' non-sensical views? Like protecting the rights of big business at the expense of the rest of society, restricting sexual and personal freedom, responding to complex problems like crime or terrorism with reactionary and unthinking measures like increased police powers or war, promoting religion over science and reason, patriotism/nationalism etc?
Look at Bush; the textbook right-winger. He goes to war with Iraq on the most flimsy premise possible; he continuously spouts rhetoric about "freedom" in his speeches but in his own country he's authorised draconian measures like the patriot act, and wants homosexuality banned; he calls himself "pro-life" because he doesn't like women being able to choose to abort unborn babies, yet in Texas he executed more people than any other governor. And his justification for all of this? His "God" told him to do it. If you can make any of this sound like "common sense" or "logic" then you'd make a brilliant spin doctor.
And if conservatism isn't all that then what is it? What does conservatism mean to you?
quote:
Of course, this is just one of the symptoms of personality disorder that liberals share.
I don't think so. But then I'm not a liberal either.
[ December 05, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
he calls himself "pro-life" because he doesn't like women being able to choose to abort unborn babies
Ahem. I agree with most of your gripes against Bush, and I hate religion myself, but abortion is a much more complex issue than a question of religion. As a science student, I am against abortion, and not because 'my god says so'.
-
Well actually I was suggesting that Bush uses his religion to justify all of those things, not just his stance on abortion. I believe he specifically cited God as a reason for going to war against Iraq, and obviously the same applies to his views on gays. Talk about no separation of church and state; no-one with any religious convictions whatsoever should be allowed in office if youwant to be able to achieve that.
But really religion is really just an excuse for having right wing views, it's not the cause. Even if Bush wasn't a Christian, he would still hold the same troglodyte opinions he does now. The point is that Religions such as Christianity were dreamed up for the sole purpose of providing an irrefutable, supernatural justification for conservative neroses.
As for you being against abortion, fair enough. I don't agree with you, but I at least recognise the difference between a liberal and a conservative "pro-life" stance. In fact I think most liberals who are anti-death penalty but have no objection to abortion are just as hypocritical as the conservatives who see it the other way around. Personally I have no problem with abortion or capital punishment.
-
I live in a republican state, Kansas. I am not a republican, in fact most of my city, Kansas City Kansas, are not republicans, at least thats how 80% of them vote. At the last presidential election, Kansas members of the electoral college all voted for Bush, regardless of the fact that there are significant voters who opposed Bush. I did not vote for bush(or Gore). Basically those who opposed Bush had votes that were thrown AWAY. Our votes simply didn't count because we were in the minority. All I can say is fuck the electoral college, fuck the current presidential election system. Why is it that for every smaller issue, popular vote is just fine, but for the presidential election, the voices of the minority of voters aren't heard?
I thought all the scandal around the 2000 election would if nothing else tell America to improve its current voting system, but that was a pipe dream. Instead it will never change. Thats why I won't vote on the presidential election any more. I'll focus on more local issues.
-
quote:
responding to complex problems like crime or terrorism with reactionary and unthinking measures like increased police powers or war
Here's how I usually respond to such sillyness:
How do you suggest we solve the problem then?
The liberals are always talking about how they would be using diplomacy to solve terrorism... "working things out with them," and such. But come on - they love to blow themselves up for their cause, and other such wackoism (if that word exists :D ). What makes the liberals think that the terrorists want to listen? They don't!
quote:
Well "against people's rights and for monopolistic business" is pretty much the definition of conservatism.
Well then. If that's fair, then liberalism means taking the people's rights and giving them to the government. They want more regulation, more public services. In the end, more POWER for themselves. Why can't you people see through the political rhetoric from the left?
[ December 05, 2003: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
How do you suggest we solve the problem then?
By not causing it in the first place.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
By not causing it in the first place.
That's really weak. See? I proved another Republican belief: the current Democratic party (and liberalism in general) doesn't have a plan to fight terrorism.
Besides...what did we do to make them hate us? And even if they do, it's their fault for attacking us.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
That's really weak. See? I proved another Republican belief: the current Democratic party (and liberalism in general) doesn't have a plan to fight terrorism.
Besides...what did we do to make them hate us? And even if they do, it's their fault for attacking us.
It's your fault for putting them there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,776844,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,776844,00.html)
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm)
And for meddling in their affairs.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/07/century_of_slaughter.shtml (http://www.isreview.org/issues/07/century_of_slaughter.shtml)
-
This is exactly why I don't identify myself as either a "liberal" or a "conservative." Those nebulous terms are too vague and subject to wide interpretation, and by identifying yourself with these phrases - "I'm a conservative" "I'm a liberal" - you set yourself up for reactionary and mindless outrage whever someone posts an opinion that targets liberals or conservatives. Rather than looking at the actual issue, you see the word and, like a bull reacting to the waving of a red flag, immediately make a biased judgement on the issue without thinking. I see this all the time.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Besides...what did we do to make them hate us? And even if they do, it's their fault for attacking us.
*Dropping bombs on innocent people.
*Having no respect for anything and insulting everyone.
*Attempting to dictate and rule the world.
*Attacking free media.
*Trying to destroy UN and EU.
...
PS: What made you think liberalism is progressive?
[ December 08, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
*Dropping bombs on innocent people.
*Trying to destroy UN and EU.
...
Well I see you are from Belgium, so we should go easy on you since it was the U.S. that saved your butts from Hitler in WW2.
The U.N. is full of Tyrants and Dictators, just like Saddam. The u.n. should be destroyed!!
And as far as dropping bombs on people, We have a right to do anything we Please since 9-11-01 when those Islamic Loonies started this and Murdered 3,000 human beings in New York.
[ December 21, 2003: Message edited by: wargames_guru ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by wargames_guru:
Well I see you are from Belgium, so we should go easy on you since it was the U.S. that saved your butts from Hitler in WW2.
The U.N. is full of Tyrants and Dictators, just like Saddam. The u.n. should be destroyed!!
Yeah. Thank god we got off our ass after Pearl Harbor.
:rolleyes:
-
Nice to see everybody is on the exact same arguments as about a year ago.
[ December 26, 2003: Message edited by: X11: I abused mod privs. ]