Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that's how a Republic works, and I don't support it.
He said that our true genius was in compromise, and my point is that he clearly didn't value principled thought. You NEVER compromise on the fundamental things you believe in.
If you believe in human beings' right to bear arms, it's not praiseworthy to compromise. If you believe that every human should be allowed to give their opinion without fear of punishment, compromise on that issue should not be encouraged. If you think rape is wrong, you're not doing a good thing by compromising...
This is faulty logic. The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are granted by the constitution but are not unconditional rights. Although people disagree on the limits, there ARE limits on they kinds of guns that are legal, who can own/buy them, etc. So if you are saying that you believe in an unconditional right to bear arms, you are going well beyond what is allowed by the courts or even by the constitution. The courts have upheld that these are not unconditional rights.
With freedom of speech, this is also conditional. The often-used example (because it was cited by the supreme court) was that you cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater because that risks the lives and safety of others. So that right is not absolute either.
The example of rape is rather strange because it is an illegal act. There is no conditionally about an act that is proven to be rape, and we can't say that rape is permitted under certain circumstances. So it is easy to say that you won't compromise on that. But I would say there is a false equivalence between saying you are unconditionally against rape and unconditionally for the right to bear arms.
The genius in compromise does not refer to illegal acts against people. It refers to rights that must be modified in situation when they are in conflict with other rights. Finding the middle ground, where both rights are impinged upon as little as possible is where the genius comes in.
This is faulty logic. The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are granted by the constitution but are not unconditional rights. Although people disagree on the limits, there ARE limits on they kinds of guns that are legal, who can own/buy them, etc. So if you are saying that you believe in an unconditional right to bear arms, you are going well beyond what is allowed by the courts or even by the constitution. The courts have upheld that these are not unconditional rights.
With freedom of speech, this is also conditional. The often-used example (because it was cited by the supreme court) was that you cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater because that risks the lives and safety of others. So that right is not absolute either.
The example of rape is rather strange because it is an illegal act. There is no conditionally about an act that is proven to be rape, and we can't say that rape is permitted under certain circumstances. So it is easy to say that you won't compromise on that. But I would say there is a false equivalence between saying you are unconditionally against rape and unconditionally for the right to bear arms.
The genius in compromise does not refer to illegal acts against people. It refers to rights that must be modified in situation when they are in conflict with other rights. Finding the middle ground, where both rights are impinged upon as little as possible is where the genius comes in.
You assume I'm talking about legal rights, but I don't care about legal rights. Human rights are not rights merely when the government says they are. They're inherent to all human beings in existence. Legal rights may or may not align with our natural rights.
As I said earlier (maybe in another thread), freedom of speech is about being allowed to speak your mind without punishment for it. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has nothing to do with that.
The mention of rape was to use an example that everyone agrees we shouldn't compromise on. You stick to your principle that rape is always wrong, regardless of what the law says, or what anyone else proposes.
Clearly it isn't a realistic proposal, but if there was a hypothetical situation where people were arguing that "Young men tend to become very unhappy, hostile, and aggressive if they are unsuccessful with women - a major factor in why they become radicalized and do harm to innocent people - so our proposal is a state program to assign a sexual partner to each young man so that they are guaranteed sexual activity"
...that would be legalizing rape, and we'd say no compromise, ever. Not even one rape allowed, even if it would "benefit society".
Your imagination is running away with you ... again.
Not so much really. And the blade cuts two ways. Leftist types see a moderate stance as always leaning right and rightists see it as leaning left. Things always have to be seen from the extremes. As I said earlier, my osition on firearms rights alone has leftist types on here calling me a RWNJ.
On the flipside, on other certain issues particularly social issues my position sees me labeled as a LWNJ by right wing types. Neither end of the spectrum can see a middle road. If one doesn't toe a hard and fast line you're painted with one or another broad brush. To a left winger Independent means right wing, to a right winger it's left wing.
We have 8 choices on this thread to choose where we fall on the political spectrum, but the government only has 2 primary/major political parties. And we wonder why American politics is so divisive.
We have 8 choices on this thread to choose where we fall on the political spectrum, but the government only has 2 primary/major political parties. And we wonder why American politics is so divisive.
Good point. There are a LOT of Independents like me out there. Maybe more than the big two combined. And the staunch members of the big two view us as being in the camp opposite them usually based on single issues.
To each respective viewpoint we are in opposition to their respective dogmas. If a hard line is not taken on any given issue you stand wholly and completely apart. In the extreme.
1. In no way shape or form is Libertarian "Far Right". In fact, you'd have a lot of difficulty successfully arguing that libertarians are right wing at all given a competent enough debate opponent.
Personally, I hold libertarians to be firmly on the left because I can make a very strong argument that politics is wholly defined by the social sphere, for which libertarian policy mostly mimics all but the most authoritarian Left Wing social policy (in that it is excessively permissive). And, in fact, their economic politics are also, by definition, liberal. Again, though, its the social component of policy that effectively defines political affiliation.
2. Did anyone else notice that he OP gave seven, or so, gradations of liberal politics and only 1-2 (if counting libertarian, which I don't) choices for conservative politics?
To me, this smells of a strong bias toward over-simplification of the politics of the Op's political opponents and a simultaneous over-estimation of the relative nuance in his or her own politics.
Socialist is winning........in America. When I was a kid the communist and the socialist were both enemies. How on earth did we get here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
