HOME | DD
Tandenfee — True Freedom Stamp
Published: 2013-06-04 18:53:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 3789; Favourites: 215; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description
Stamp about what real freedom is. At least in my opinion. I used the USA flag to symbolise freedom (as people are always saying how the USA is all about freedom).Thanks to for giving me the idea to turn this statement/comment of mine into a stamp. Thanks for summarising the words to be good stamp material!
Original comment: "I also think freedom is about how others treat you. I mean it shouldn't matter to society whether you are gay, black, bi, hetero, muslim, christian, atheist, white, whatever. Only then is a country truely free."
Related content
Comments: 110
we aren't fortunate these days with all those hate stamps, people think freedom is attacking and hating a person for what they are/ their beliefs, and listening blindly to the medias whom feed their hate and fear.
if our society was built over what it's written on this stamp it would be the paradise.
anyways, one more accurate stamp for my page where we don't hate 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice. Divide and conquer! We must not let that happen here."
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Guess she was right, wasn't she? That's why, when asked my race online, I always pick "prefer not to answer". I'm not ashamed of my race; I just think it shouldn't matter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So many people confuse "freedom" with being "privileged" all this is what's actual freedom of lifestyle
I say as long as somethings not hurting other people, animals or nature they should be allowed to do whatever they want, obviously not crimes cause those still hurt people :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We should probably include political beliefs with that, as political opponents, whether they be politicians, pundits or voters are mudslinging and throwing some vile language at eachother instead of just simply disagreeing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cue conservatives making excuses for how oppressing non-white, non-straight, non-male people isn't so bad after all, and how really, white, male straight people are the truly persecuted people these days...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So much for freedom. I might be a conservative but that doesn't mean I'm anything like the person you've just described. You missed the point of the stamp ENTIRELY.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let's not kid ourselves, conservatism has a long history with racism, and racists vote conservative- and the same goes for sexism. There will come a day when homophobia is no longer considered okay even in conservative camps, and then, like now, conservatives will try to whitewash their history of bigotry, downplay how they used law to discriminate against others.
It's not like liberals or progressives are perfect, and it's not like conservatism must mean that you're a racist, sexist, homphobic shit- but it's pretty clear on what side of the political fence those people belong.
So no, I don't think I missed the point at all. "Freedom" is something I've too often seen abused by conservatives as "my freedom to oppress because Jesus".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There you go...assuming that "Jesus" has to do with everything. For one thing, I don't think He would want His name associated with so much, and for another thing, you know He was Jewish, right? The most oppressed demographic EVER?! In fact, I'm DATING someone Jewish (of course, not Jesus, it's creepy when people think they are dating him). I believe that race, religion, etc. DOESN'T MATTER and that we should forget what sets us apart and focus on what draws us together. Another thing, I wanted to ask, how many conservatives are in your area? Because that might have affected your views of them...And in a lot of places, homophobia is NOT considered okay, anyway--I know in my area it isn't, and I don't agree with every conservative-themed belief. It is true that they're generally the ones who oppose abortion. If I have the choice, I'd choose birth control over abortion (it's not like I WANT to have one) but I would get one if I needed to. And I don't "shame" women who get them, either. This might sound like anecdotal evidence, but generalizations won't help anyone.
Student News Daily defines conservatives like this: "Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems."
Keep in mind that although I suppose the liberal party generally has the minority vote, a lot of liberals are also clueless middle-class white kids who were brainwashed by the liberal news networks their parents watch and liberal Internet sites and think that they can "save the world." When they grow up--ahem, IF they grow up--they realize that they want to keep their hard-earned money, they want to teach their kids right from wrong, they can't exactly "save the world" when they have to juggle things like marriage, kids, job, etc. every day. Not to mention they're usually the ones who do a ton of drugs. I know. My high school was horribly awash with kids like this.
Personal responsibility is very important. In my opinion, one of the worst things you can do in life is to stumble through life always depending on someone. I prefer getting my money at work rather than getting an allowance, for example, even if I do have a small paycheck. I don't want to receive money from the government unless I HONESTLY NEED IT, but I don't need it. I don't want it. Know why? Because I know I EARNED my money. I don't want to get money from my parents (unless it's a gift or something, of course) because, like I said, I earned it. Getting money from the government is like rather like getting your monthly allowance from Mommy and Daddy.
Limited government is important for reasons I guess you'd surmise from the description, simply that people should be able to lead their own lives and if the government gets too involved things will get messed up. And besides...does anybody trust ANY politician? Politics is show business for ugly people.
Free market? Do I have to explain this? I LIKE having my own car. I LIKE being able to do what I want with my money. I LIKE the idea that people can start their own business. I hear that there was this man who was born a slave but died as a successful, happy shop owner (apparently he also had slaves of his own, but that I don't understand). Capitalism is all about almost Darwinian competition. Companies succeed by making better, less expensive, and more appealing merchandise. This is how merchandise improves as well. It's certainly true for CARS. And "supply-and-demand"? I know the economy is messed up, but that is how it works. If I have a need for something (e.g. groceries) I will buy it! Meanwhile, the company gets money by giving me what I need. Not to mention, friends, that selling commissions, adoptables, art trades, what have you on Deviant Art is PURE CAPITALISM. You're SELLING YOUR GOODS to people who want it, so your customer gets the adoptable (or whatever) and you get the money. Some Deviants can't afford to give away art for free. They get money off of commissions. This is capitalism. Is Deviant Art free? Short answer is yes, but we pay for subscriptions. Why? Subscriptions might cost money, but for one thing, you can do SO much more (it's great) and they are DIRT CHEAP. Want a 1-year membership? It's THIRTY DOLLARS. Thirty dollars a month is expensive. Thirty dollars a year? Pretty good bargain. Meanwhile, the website gets more money so that it can flourish and we can enjoy it.
You personally, or just liberals, or flag-burners, or other types, might define "traditional American values" as simply "racism". But that's not necessarily true. What about the good things that happened in the past? For example, people were smarter. Schools spent more time teaching things that mattered. We weren't DIVIDED like we are today, which is why this might be a little counterintuitive...Why do you think we won World War II? Because our country stuck TOGETHER. EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Not to mention that George Washington wanted a one-party system...chew on that...I'm a fan of technology, but for those who aren't, we had more human interaction. We worked hard and believed a lot in the power of family and friendship. People dressed up to go to restaurants and sightseeing--soon it'll be acceptable to wear dirty sweatpants to funerals, I'm sure. Males were more chivalric. I KNOW there was rape, abuse, etc., of course there was. But how often these days do you find a true gentleman who takes the time to dress nicely, pays for dinner, holds the door open for a girl, wants to have kids and commit to marriage? Related to that, although I am fully supportive of women having the careers they want to have (e.g. executive woman = just as good as executive man) keep in mind that there ARE women who actually WANT to be housewives where their main job is childcare, or maybe take jobs that women had in the olden days (secretary, teacher, nurse, etc.) And finally, people were more RESPONSIBLE and HARD-WORKING. I know men were the ones expected to hold jobs but if they didn't, they were seen as lazy. Nowadays, people wouldn't hold up a sign saying "Will Work For Money." People would hold up a sign that says "I don't have money. I demand that you give yours to me." THIS IS NOT OKAY! Every generation has its lazy bums, true, but at least it wasn't seen as acceptable. Like I said, I work for my money and that's the way I like it. That's why I don't think we should raise the minimum wage, at least partially, because then nobody would have any incentive to climb the corporate ladder and advance into significant positions, which is what we NEED. Most entry-level jobs are held by teenagers, people who have another job, or they are held as a supplementary income (for example, if your spouse is the main breadwinner but you have your own job).
Strong national defense = important. How would you like it if any enemy--I'm not referring to anyone in particular here, could be terrorists, could be space aliens, could be some other unknown nation that hasn't attacked us yet but is planning to)--intruded YOUR homeland and destroyed your way of life? Would you throw rocks at the army then--the very people who VOLUNTEERED, risked their LIVES to protect you from this threat? (I'm not saying that you, personally, want to throw rocks or whatever at the army, but there are insensitive shits who do.) Let me bring you back to the WWII reference...we won not only because we had the decency to stick together through a difficult time, but because we had a strong defense. Our army was largely volunteer (rather than drafted like in Vietnam--although Vietnam can't really be compared to WWII) and we wiped the FLOOR with our enemies. When the war was raging, we stood for the hopes of the world.
And yes, the Government's job IS to provide us with the freedom we need! I don't like to compare the "Founding Fathers" with everything, but the whole reason they started this country is because they wanted freedom from someone/something they felt was oppressing them. They always intended for this place to be a free country. Unless you count ancient Greece, we were the first country to employ a democracy (most had monarchies back then). We've pulled entire COUNTRIES "up by their bootstraps" with this freedom mentality. Maybe you'd prefer North Korea, where you get shot in the mouth if you criticize something you don't like. But hey, they're not like evil America, so you should love it there.
Finally, it is VERY important to empower people to achieve their own goals. DON'T DO IT FOR THEM! People should not be given everything for free. I do NOT think they should be oppressed; rather, I believe that they should be empowered, given the resources they need to get what they need of their own accord, so they can be on equal footing. I agree that we should help people who need it, but there is a right and wrong way of doing so. I, for one, don't want to be totally reliant on my parents or even on my boyfriend. Having the opportunity to support myself would empower me.
Sorry if this was a tad long.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then perhaps conservative politicians both prominent and local should stop using Jesus' name to justify their homophobic bigotry, like they do all the time. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann... and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I am an ex-christian. I know my bible. And given that it's explicitly stated that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, I wonder how you reconcile that your jewish boyfriend will, according to the logic of christianity, go to hell after dying regardless of whether he's a good person or not.
The definition of conservative you present is somewhat accurate. However, if you look purely at the economics, and disregard the social policies and all the history if bigotry and hate it has, what you're left with is basically just libertarianism- which is exactly what non-bigoted conservatives tend towards.
"Save the world". A typical generalization, to dismiss the issues liberals fight for, as if the conservatives were pragmatics rooted in reality, and silly rabbit idealism is for kids... no, what liberals tend to want is not "save the world". It's "let's try not to fuck the world up any further", as in, let's try and be considerate towards the environment because if we don't then it will bite our kids in the ass, hard. That's not naivete- that's common sense. It's not that liberals want to save the world, it's that conservatives wouldn't lift a finger to do so unless it was profitable.
(The above is actually a generalization- I realize that the real world isn't as black and white as that. However, that's how it comes off, with conservatives consistently ignoring social and environmental issues which would inconvenience them)
Government money doesn't prompt irresponsibility. Mayhaps it is a luxury compared to days past, but days past were pretty fucking awful even a handful of decades ago. What government money does is ease the burden of those who need it- money to support the economical strain of having children, or for being sick, or for whatever you need.
Limited government is no more or less benevolent than less limited government. The logical extreme of "big" government is a fascist police state- but it's no more or less likely than the logical extreme of a free-market, small government model, which would be a corporatocracy where all are at the mercy of the almighty dollar.
The free market can never, per definition, be truly free. The market needs structure, rules, and more importantly it needs rules and regulation to make sure its freedom isn't abused by greedy assholes who don't care if people die, so long as they make money. A truly free market would be a Randian model of society, where all fend for themselves, and production, not human rights, decide human worth. In reality, we cannot both have a truly free market and a humane society. Need some rules, to make sure your kids do not die from chemicals in some product? Sucks for you- in a 100% free market, that's just the way it goes. In reality, the government exists to put a stop to this exact thing, to keep the moneymakers in check.
And please, do not abuse the name of Darwin like this. Darwin was a humanitarian, and would have despised this sort of dog-eat-dog mentality. Few concepts are more misunderstood and misused than "survival of the fittest".
I do know that traditionalists go hand in hand with racists, sexists, homophobes and suchlike bigots- nobody cries louder and prouder about the value about tradition than a Klansman.
So, let's break down the "good things in the past". People were smarter? Not really- maybe education was better, but education is neither a measure of intelligence, nor of productivity and competence. It's a vital stepping stone, but by far not the only one.
"We weren't divided." Yes. Yes, you were. Humanity has always been divisive; it's coded into our very genes. To think that you accuse liberals of naivete, and in all seriousness postulate that uniformity was commonplace in the past, that diversity in ideology is somehow a new, recent feature? Do a little bit of history research, only as far back as to the enlightenment philosophers, and you'll find an immense wealth of differing schools of thoughts, and people following it.
WWII: You didn't win that. You contributed to winning it, but Russia was already turning it over by itself, mainly by throwing millions of Russian soldiers to their deaths until the nazis ran out of bullets. The US secured victory, but by no means was it responsible for it solely. Learn your history.
The "gentleman" you describe is a sexist who treats a woman as an inferior who needs to be helped with everything, instead of as his equal. That is not a worthy ideal to refer back to.
In short: things were not better back then. The good old days are the bad old days, a time with greater poverty, greater inequality, and greater ignorance.
On this point, I will agree. A defense is important; "if you want peace, prepare for war" said Publius Flavius Vegetus Renatus (thank you, google). However, soldiery is a necessary evil, not something to put on a pedestal, glorify and hero worship. A soldier is not a hero, he is a man who does evil for the greater good. On top of that, the US defense budget is so badly bloated that you spend more on defense than the other nine countries in the top ten- put together.
The US did not stand for the hopes of the world, either. The US stood by and callously let the Germans murder their way across Europe, and only acted when their hand was forced. That's not very heroic.
As usual, it is ignored that it was founded as a country to be free in if you were white and male. It was a country founded with slavery, founded on the genocide and systematic rape of the indigenous populations, with an inequal democracy, where minorities basically had no rights. This is not a glorious foundation, it's a foundation that had to be built upon and expanded socially before it could pass as a decent place to be in.
And if "pulled countries up by their bootstraps" you mean "bomb the shit out of foreigners for oil", then yes, by god you pulled bootstraps. And of course, you jump right into North Korea as an example- as if there was no middle ground between freedom and tyranny, as if there was only black and white in the world. With decades of imperialism on the US' history by now, this comes across as hypocritical to say the least.
That is the standard excuse given for "let's not help poor people, ever". Yes, why indeed help the disadvantaged? Why help people too poor to go to school to have a chance at a better life, when we can just tell them to toughen up and do it for themselves, and if they fail, it's obviously their fault...
To clarify, in the end:
I am a socially liberal Swede. I was actually talking about conservatism in general, but I guess your US-centric world view assumed that conservatism is only relevant to America.
Well anyhow, have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I still realize that I might be using anecdotal evidence here, but you know those people are those who take the Bible too literally, right? (I believe it's called fundamentalism.) I see it more as our Holy Book that lets us connect with our God (like the book of Psalms) than something to live our lives by. I have a Bible and I've read it, but I don't consult it every day or anything. Not to mention, many kids who were raised Christian never read the Bible and know only what they see on TV/the Internet/what have you. No matter what it says, many Christians don't KNOW what it says. Besides, I think fundamentalism is more of a Roman Catholic thing and to be honest, I'm not sure I care for Catholics. I'm Lutheran (with mostly German heritage) and try to be accepting. I'm actually considering converting to Judaism anyway. What's stopped me is that my boyfriend says I would have to go to Hebrew School or something...I don't know if I could learn Hebrew...On political alignment tests I generally end up as Libertarian--it's defined roughly as "a conservative view of the economy, but liberal on social issues". I am right-winged when it comes to the economy, but I may be more of a fence sitter when it comes to social issues. I always thought my views were more mainstream than conservative or liberal.
Yes, the Conservative Party might have more bigotry and racism in the past. But does that mean that it's all we believe in? Definitely not! What I focus on is what was described in the quote above. Many younger conservatives tend to hold more mainstream beliefs than their elders. Of course, if their elders are liberals instead, they might be able to find some hilarious pictures of their parents with long hair, sunglasses, and at least three illegal substances flowing through their veins. As Dave Barry puts it in his autobiography when he was writing about Vietnam--"The world seemed to be run by assholes. Right-wing assholes who thought that our soldiers should stay in Vietnam as long as they, personally, did not have to go over and get killed; and left-wing assholes who believed that what we really needed was for more people to get killed back home."
Besides, you think I want to fuck up the world any further? I sometimes hate the world I live in! There is so much horrible stuff happening in the world! I do agree with you on the non-black-and-white thing. Our world is shrouded in clouds of gray. Sometimes it's hard to know where you stand. In fact, many people who have a political alliance tend to pick and choose values--y'know, "I might classify as conservative, but I'm pro-choice" or whatever. Maybe a political alliance can be more of a guide than a dictator?
And please don't say conservatives wouldn't lift a finger unless it was profitable! I donate full dollars to things when people only donate cents. I always tell my mom not to litter (she always throws garbage out the car window and keeps her dog's poop in the yard). I took three hundred dollars out of my bank account to save my dog's life (and I don't make a lot of money) and I didn't care because I knew she would be all right. You probably don't believe me but I do things when all I want in return is a smile. I bring my little brother gifts regularly just because of how happy it makes him and the hug I get in return is payment enough. I drive safely and do I care if people are gay or black or whatever? No, I don't. I'm NOT going to hate them for it. What I believe is that we should put our differences aside and fucking get along. I'm not ashamed of my race or anything, but when I'm asked online what my race is I always pick "Prefer not to answer" because I don't think race should matter so much that they have to ask which one you are.
Liberals ARE more idealist than conservatives. I think conservatives tend to be cynical. But cynical is what happens when you've lived a life when you learn that maybe NOT all your dreams can come true and even if you do what you can, it may not be enough. I hate feeling helpless when I read the horrible things in the newspapers, but what can I do? Become a politician? Probably...not. I might have based that presumption on what I've seen of liberals, since like I said, there were way too many of them in my high school. My boyfriend and I were the only conservatives we knew (and you should really listen to him, he is a LOT more conservative than I am).
About the government money, and the thing about poor people succeeding it, I think there was a huge misunderstanding. I'm not saying that we should tell them to suck it up and deal with it themselves. I meant that, instead of just giving them money, we should give them access to resources that will help them make money on their own, such as vocational school. Of course we should help people who need it. Besides, people on welfare still lead pretty sucky lives, and if they had the opportunity they could do all kinds of things like even start a business and become very successful. I wrote an essay on the Dream Act in my first year of college and it got a 100%. It was argumentative in favor of the Dream Act because if I remember correctly doesn't it allow intelligent talented immigrant kids to complete high school/college just so they don't HAVE to live on welfare for the rest of their lives?
There is the thing about the government. This issue is a doozy because people don't understand quality over quantity. I just would rather have one great leader than a million bad ones. I feel like our government doesn't care about us. Most people feel that way. Something has to change but, well, I rather get the feeling that it won't. It's too late. We need nothing short of a hero to save our country and I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than to see that one person rise to the power he might use for good.
Okay, maybe my choice of words ("Darwinian") was not a good idea, but all I meant was the old maxim eat-or-be-eaten. Maybe it's because that's the way I was raised. Unless you get something first, unless you're the best first, unless you push your way to the top, SOMEBODY ELSE WILL, and when they do they will crush you like an ant under a steamroller. Call me cynical, but that's just the way I've come to see things. That aside, protecting us what the government is supposed to do, but my point is that they don't! Of course I believe that the FDA and such exist for a reason! I am strongly against the use of recreational drugs! But seriously, I guess I was implying middle ground. Capitalism--literally defined as "free commerce"--is a wonderful thing but what's the problem with necessary intervention? There's a problem when there is UNNECESSARY intervention.
They say that you can educate a fool, but you can't make him think. Fine. I don't mean that people's brains disintegrated over time, but more that since there are so many wells of inaccurate information these days--for example, my brother watches all these weird "strange facts" videos on YouTube which I'm sure are less than true--people will believe it. So more dumb people who previously didn't have a voice will come crawling out of the woodwork and claim that they know everything. One of the worst stereotypes a country can have is that it is full of idiots and I'm very well aware that this is what people think of America. Why don't we focus on changing THAT? Sure...people have always been different. But I was referring to America in, for example, the forties, when people were much less "different". Non-conformity was a real fad in the '60's. I'm NOT saying this is a good or a bad thing. Whether you think being different is good or bad depends on your POV. But that's not what I meant by division, necessarily. Our nation has been driven into almost a second Civil War, liberals and conservatives being so different and some bent on destroying the other. THAT'S what I meant. When the two-party system goes too far. In the past we believed our Presidents could do great things, and a lot of them did. Now? Not so much.
As for World War II, there was a very popular American belief called "isolationism" back then--I'm sure you know what it is, but if it you don't, it basically meant that we just didn't want to get involved in anything. That was also helped by the fact that we had the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans shielding us from what was going on in the Axis countries. When Japan bombed us on December 7 1941, we HAD to get involved. It was described as "waking a sleeping giant." Not to mention America was one of the escape pods of choice for a lot of Jews who were involved in the Holocaust, including my boyfriend's own great-grandmother, who was granted asylum by an American family so that she could start a new life here. I know perfectly well that World War II was going on before we got involved. But we made quick work of the Axis powers once we DID get involved, and we realized that freedom meant more to us than we thought. Men volunteered to fight in the army because they thought that the world deserved the freedom we had.
You know who's a sexist? Somebody who rapes a woman (or even coerces her into sex), hits her, threatens her, steals from her, even kills her. I just can't compare chivalry to that. My sons will learn chivalry. It's not sexism. I see it as respect between a gentleman and a lady. Is it so sexist to give your coat to your girlfriend in the freezing cold? My boyfriend was wearing short sleeves under his coat and yet he gave it to me just so I didn't have to be cold. And are you honestly complaining about a free meal? My guy will pay in full for meals because that's one of his ways to show me he cares. And he's treating me like his girlfriend, not his best guy friend, which is the way it should be. I get treated like a guy by plenty of guys. I get treated like a girl by one guy. And he's the one who is the most special to me. In other words, it's not like he thinks she's a weakling who can't do anything; he treats her like this because he wants to be kind to her and wants to do these things for her. He wants to make her happy. He wants to make her life a little easier. I do things in return, anyway, it's not like I'm a gold-digger or anything. I hand-draw cards for him and I buy him things too. For example he's a huge Power Rangers fan and I got him this $70 dollar exclusive item because I could tell he wanted it. He keeps it in his coat pocket, right by his heart, because he says it reminds him of me. I told him that I'm flattered he pays for every meal, but I really wouldn't mind paying once in a while and he says he makes more than I do (which is true) so it is only fair that he pays. But the fact that he gets paid more is not sexist. He's a certified computer technician; I'm a cashier. I can see why he gets paid more.
The "hopes of the world" thing, I should have said, is actually not my quote, it was from a history book I have read on World War II. Soldiers are not paid to kill. They are paid to serve. I think we're butting heads here because our countries have different ideas of what the military is. I find it hard to believe that someone willing to die for what is right is someone evil. And...evil for the greater good might be kind of counterintuitive. It's like saying cops are bad for protecting us from criminals--although there are people who call cops "pigs", so I don't know if that makes or breaks my point...my mom hates cops, but that's especially true when she gets a ticket from reckless driving and then tries to blame it on me...
Trust me. I was thinking this very white-males-only thought when I wrote it. I'm not ignoring it at all, I just didn't write it because that wasn't my point. I was saying that democracy is a good idea. I never said discrimination of any kind was good. And our country did start out small. But we are comparably young and have come a long way from where we were in the eighteenth century; whether that is a bad or a good thing, I suppose that depends on your POV.
I don't think I should have used the phrase "pulled up by their bootstraps" in fact I don't know why I did, because I hate that phrase. Besides...we didn't just bomb them for oil...we bombed them for the terrorist threat too, like September 11 which is almost like another Pearl Harbor to us...what I meant is that there are countries we give money to and help--for example, who is it that's sending doctors over to Africa to help people NOT die of ebola? We don't get along with the Middle East (except our ally Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East) but that's not who I was referring to.
As for the last part, I went over this above.
Anyway, I know that different countries have their own politics. Maybe it's just that we have enough "Americans" here bashing the country, and the banter against conservatives was very familiar to my ears. There are a LOOOT of Americans who think the same exact way you do, so I guess I assumed you were one of them...it makes sense that conservatism would exist in different countries, but different countries have different histories and customs so however much I can know about that is finite.
I don't think I will have a good day. I have to go to Quantative Literacy (Math) for three hours tonight. Maybe I can get some BK after...now if only they hadn't taken Transformers G1 off of Netflix...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not literalism when you adhere to one of the very most basic tenets of your religion. Literalism is when you insist that the bible is 100% historically accurate, and reject evidence to the contrary. If you reject the idea that christ is the way to heaven, then as far as I know, you've got little cause to call yourself a christian. And yes, I am aware that most christians have not read their bible- the most religiously literate group in the US are the atheists.
"In the past"? You still do. Your leaders constantly use religion to hate on gay people, trans people, and ignore the problems of contemporary racism.
Then act like you care, instead of dismissing idealism as "save the world". Living in the real world, being practical, doesn't mean you have to let go of important issues. I don't.
The problem is that the conservative leadership acts that exact way, as if helping others was somehow immoral and money is the driving force of everything, and conservatives keep voting on them. Responsibility lies as much with the conservative voting base as it does with the assholes in power.
Conservatives tend to be callous, in my experience- or just uneducated. As for idealism, I think it's better to at least try and aim high, than not try at all.
A solid education and a welfare system are the two components required to reduce poverty. However, conservative policies don't really favour schoool for everybody. They favour school for people with money, which does the exact opposite of the poor being given a chance. Good on Obama, for offering free education.
Democracy is, by its nature, inefficient, little effectively gets done, and it's set to be a popularity contest rather than a race for who is better fit to rule. The reson we keep it is because all other systems of government are worse by far for everyone. One strong leader? Great- fascism will give you that. They'll also strip all of your individual rights and take your earnings for themselves.
Dog-eat-dog is a vicious, inhumane idea that runs contrary to compassion and altruism, two of the most basic human traits. It is not admirable, or worth aspiring to- if you get to the top by leaving a trail of corpses behind you, then sure, you're successful- you just sacrificed everything that could possibly make you a decent person to get there.
Since you mentioned Darwin, I'll mention this little fact: it is because of human evolution that we are naturally compassionate. Group coherence was a survival strategy, and a wildly successful one at that- and because of it, altruistic individuals were favoured for survival. Altruism is an instinct, and "each man for himself" is pure egoism, a trait more common in the psychopath than in the common man.
It is true that today, we have access to much more information than ever before, and that many people are not responsible with this freedom. This is human stupidity at work. Not much to be done about it, but I don't see how it relates to intelligence.
In the forties, America was plenty diverse. Do you think everyone was white middle class? There were class divides, ethnic divides, ideological divides; people were splintered as they always have been. That you are not aware of the depth of diversity does not make it untrue.
I am aware of isolationism, yes; I paid attention in history class. Which is why the US twiddled its thumbs, and didn't step in until their hand was well and duly forced.
And no, you did not make "quick work" of the Axis powers. The allies, Russia, Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, Poland, and a great many more fought for years, millions more died, and in the end Hitler's armies were spent. And I doubt it was some sincere belief in freedom that got men to enlist- more likely it was a culture of patriotism coupled with excessive war propaganda.
Logical fallacy; the existence of a greater evil does not negate the existence of a lesser evil. On top of that, the percentage of rapists is lower by far than the people who treat women as less based on their gender- your point is irrelevant. "Gentleman" and "Lady" are ideas based on sexist gender roles, which hold back equality at every turn. Want your children to be good people? Then teach them to be good to everybody, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, et cetera. Don't teach them to be good to somebody just because they belong to a particular group; that only contributes to the problem. Men and women are equals, should be treated as equals, and for as long as we expect women to receive special treatment, equality is forever hindered. "Chivalry" is an outdated privilege that trades inequality for the expectation of adhering to a gender role, being part of a mold.
I would question the objectivity of that history book.
And yes, yes they are. It's in their job description: kill people who go against our country. "Serve" does not change that they partake in the godawful act of killing other human beings over cultural and geopolitical differences. Sometimes it's justified, but it's never admirable.
And do note that I make a distinction between being evil and doing evil. A good man can do an evil act- it happens all the time. When a soldier kills another soldier, that is an evil act, but it does not condemn him as evil for all time. Evil done for the greater good is all that war amounts to; it is a special kind of hell achieved only by humanity.
Funny that; it seemed like you were. And yes, a long way you have come, and a long way have you got left to go still.
You army invaded Iraq, on false charges of weapons of mass destruction, and that had no actual link to 9/11 in itself. It was an excuse for oil, as it was in Kuwait. It's blatant imperialism- the US has not been to war for any virtuous reason since world war two.
In the words of James Baldwin: "I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
Patriotism is an intellectually dishonest idea, that leads its adherents to embellish the strengths of its nation, and dowplay or deny its sins. That is the problem. If patriots were more like Baldwin, and less like the conservative leadership, I'd believe it wasn't such an all around bad idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's so true what they always say about political debates--the other guy/girl will not go away thinking, "okay, maybe my opponent has a point." I'm not a politician and I can see that although at least we both are capable of acting like decent human beings, I usually frown on these forum debates that I run into (especially on YouTube) and I am sick of arguing about our political beliefs which apparently run parallel to each other, and since we're from different countries I doubt we have much of the same viewpoint on a lot of things anyway. Although I'm sure that you're going to say that I'm stopping because I don't have any more facts, this is not the case; it's just that I can see that this is going nowhere fast. So although I don't agree with your opinions, I accept them. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If the point is well constructed and thought-through, based on facts, then that might well happen- at least with me. Suffice to say, I did not find nearly enough of that in your line of reasoning. You didn't really address any of my points, so... yeah. Well, have a good day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was a pointless argument, so that's why I called it a draw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I didn't mean YOUR argument was pointless. I just know the point of a political debate is to make the other guy as angry as possible...and I didn't want it to come to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For all our disagreements, you display more maturity than just about any conservative I've debated online; I'll give you that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I'll take that as a compliment. It's just that as a general rule, I don't like online debating unless it's actually a debate website (and even on those, some people can be jerks). I don't know if we can ever see eye-to-eye on things, but I guess it's more important to accept each other's opinions than spend the rest of our days arguing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it was intended as one.
An online debate can be very rewarding, if you stay on topic, use facts and reason to support your arguments, stay polite, and respect each other. Sadly, a lot of people cannot use this much common decency.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never see anybody with this common decency, hardly. Have you been to Yahoo Answers (especially in the Politics and Religion sections)? It's like a primate house or something. You hear nutcases from both sides arguing with each other, using names like "libtards" (for liberals) and "contards" (for Conservatives). I once read this Communism vs. Capitalism debate and it was nuts. Sweden is socialist, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sadly, people do tend to get carried away. I try to be civil, so long as people are civil with me.
And no, Sweden is not actually socialist. It has had a long tradition of left wing democracy, but there has been little talk of socialism since PM Olof Palme died in 1986. For the last 8 years, we had a conservative government, following ten years where the social democrats and allies were in power. Currently, the social democrats won out, but failed to reach the numbers required for a majority government, leading to a crisis of government, as the neo-fascist party gained traction with 13% of votes. The current solution is a joint government between Social Democrats (centrist left), Moderates (centrist right) and the environmentalist party (left wing/social justice/environmentalism).
Our politics, historically, have gone from worker's movements contra conservative wealth, into the building of a welfare state. Having stayed out of both world wars, we were in a good economical position, and we now enjoy some of the best living standards in the world.
TLDR: Not socialist, but generally very centrist. Socially very progressive, economically libertarian with some elements of regulation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, I was just asking. I'm guessing you guys don't have a rigid two-party system then. What I don't like about the two-party system is that when you state which one you are (you're either a Republican or a Democrat) you are labeled with ALL of the party's connotations, even those you don't believe in. Washington advocated for a single-party system because he thought political party shouldn't influence voting...back then the Vice President was actually whatever chump lost the presidency, sort of like a SIC.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For the longest time, we had seven parties- The Moderates, the aforementioned centrist right, the Centre, an agricultural party, The Liberal People's party, who kinda sorta represent classical liberalism, and the Christ Democrats, a largely irrelevant minor party of social conservatives. Together, these four form "the alliance", a conservative block. On the other hand, we have the Social Democrats, the centrist left, the Left Party (formery the communist party), a small left wing party and probably the only one for actual socialism, and the environmentalists.
...and then a while back, shamefully enough, the Sweden Democrats got into our riksdag. They are extreme right wing, originating in white power and neo-nazi movements, exploiting the fears about immigration to gain power. Currently, they are the third largest party.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We have environmentalists here, but it's more of a movement than a political party. Here there are a lot of little groups you can belong to (Feminists, environmentalists, etc.) but we only have two clearly defined political parties.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup, I know all about that- two party system, one that allows a minority of voters to take victory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, people CAN vote, but many of them don't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The problem isn't voting percentages, but the system itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That not enough people have a voice?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rather, that the system is set up for only two parties, and also lets a minority claim victory over a majority under certain conditions. Over here, we have eight parties in our Riksdag, each one with a number of seats corresponding to the percent of votes they got.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think George Washington once said that there should only be one political party because he didn't want the parties to fight. I don't think that opinion is shared by many people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is probably a worse option still- the one-party systems of today are all dictatorships.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Vice President actually used to be the sucker who lost as opposed to a guy who just runs for V.P. As in, two guys would run for President, one would win and the other is Vice President.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. Hard to imagine now. Pretty much everybody hated the government during Vietnam, for example.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am aware, and it was quite understandable too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We won militarily but lost politically. It was different from previous wars because there was no clear enemy to fight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You didn't even win militarily. You left because it was a massive resource sink that gained you nothing, without defeating your enemies. The best you could call that is a draw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We destroyed the Viet Cong. We were unfamiliar with the fighting style and environment though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You were never able to defeat them, nor make any siginificant headway. You gained nothing, and lost thousands of men.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To be honest, I don't know exactly what it was about...something having to do with Communism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The north vietnamese were communist, I believe, and were being backed by other communist nations. It was a war by proxy. Oddly enough, it was started by the French, and later adopted by the US.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was started by the French, yes. But they gave up quickly...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, those people make me laugh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Laugh, or facepalm very hard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually freedom is about individualism and the right to choose. So if someone chooses to be a racist or sexist that's still technically their right to do so, just as it's the right of that person of different race and sex to oppose the racist or sexist. If everyone is forced to get along with each other by the government regardless of these things it's probably a dictatorship.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
But that's freedom for one person at the expense of another. By that logic, what's wrong with dictatorship? Sure, a lot of people may suffer, but it contributes to the freedom and happiness of a tyrant so ya just gotta live with it. That's freedom bro!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Treat =/= feel/think about
You can hate someone for some reason all you want but you don't have to treat them differently for no reason. Would you like me (as your dentist) not treating your pain as quickly as a female patient because I think men should just accept pain and "get over it"? No. And that is what I meant. I mean I can think men are whining if they want treatment and they want it now because they "can't take it anymore" but that doesn't mean I can just treat you different from my other patients.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I said absolutely nothing about healthcare and doctors. I'm talking just about how people treat each other. If the government makes everyone be nice to everyone else, that's NOT freedom. That's totalitarianism disguising itself behind good intentions. The progress of society has come from a combination of democracy and free market capitalism, allowing for social revolutions to change the way society generally thinks about different races and different sexes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>