So, since this obviously seeps through in other discussions, and since we have some people with an interest in political discussions here, if you want a place to clarify your political ideology and the reasons for it, you can do so here.
Because I want this to remain inoffensive, I feel like we need some rules for this thread:
No hate speech (obvious, forum rule)
Remain civil and abstain from defamatory remarks against people, groups or other ideologies
Try to stick to explaining or justifying your own adherence to your personal views, not what you think is wrong with every other ideology or those adhering to them
In short, this is not the "bash your political opponents"-thread, I think we already have topics where that would fit better (e.g. "things you hate"), it is the "explain your own political views"–thread.
I might post mine at some point in the future when I have the time to figure out how best to describe it.
Post by creature386 on Aug 30, 2019 22:37:04 GMT 5
From another forum:
Here it goes.
There are many labels you could give me. Social liberal, progressive, whatever. It means being center-left economically and socially.
I could parrot The End of Curiosity’s justification, but whatever.
I don’t care so much about economics, tbh, but I guess the Nordic model is fine. I don’t believe that people are poor out of laziness and that most have enough of an incentive to work. You get that problem when you go too far down the socialist route and abolish market competition though. The environment is among the biggest issues for me, economically speaking, and it can’t be saved without heavy market regulation, IMO.
I’m very progressive socially speaking. I am not religious and I believe that most social taboos and laws we have are arbitrary and harmful. My ethics revolve around maximizing well-being and minimizing harm. Personal freedom does that quite well and I think many of our taboos stand in the way of it. So, as long as a behavior does not harm others, it should be legal, as a rule of thumb.
I don’t know if the ideology also contains statements about how nationalist one is.
I’m a bit on the international side, since environmental protection and peace are only possible through cooperation. On the other hand, I’m none of these open borders enthusiasts, so I’m center-left here, too. [I'm strongly against national chauvinism and national over-identification, BTW.]
I could add that I don't believe in free will or retribution and justice should hence center around rehabilitation.
Moreover, I support discourse instead of revolutions so long as the revolution is not targeted towards an authoritarian regime.
Post by creature386 on Aug 30, 2019 22:50:30 GMT 5
If you don't know what pragmatism means (I didn't do so either until I was 17), it is often used as a contrast against an ideology in the political sphere.
Whereas the ideologue always looks at a bigger picture, the pragmatist focuses at the situation at hand. Moreover, the former usually has a more specific set of desires than the latter. Both have their pros and cons. In the worst case, the pragmatist doesn't know what they want while the ideologue is too inflexible and not willing to adapt to circumstances they did not predict. Ideally, you should have a mixture between ideology and pragmatism.
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 31, 2019 2:43:40 GMT 5
Logically I'm all for rehabilitation, as creature386 mentioned earlier. But a part of me is unsure of where we draw the line and say "nope, you're beyond help", which may or may not leave us to decide on a criminal's fate (depending on whether or not you advocate capital punishment).
"Let every creature go for broke and sing Let's hear it in the herd and on the wing"
This might be good subject for another thread (i.e. our death penalty thread), but I do think there are people (read: psychopaths) who just can't be rehabilitated (then again, deterrence doesn't work on them either). For pragmatic reasons, I'm against killing them, but that's more something for the death penalty thread.
Well, I don't want to force you into anything, but the thread's rules were writing explicitly to prevent these sort of heated debates here. Think of this thread as the opening speech to a formal debate where you read out your pre-written script while the cross-examination or rebuttal phases take place in other threads.
Yes, I made this so people could share their own ideology in a way that hopefully will be inoffensive enough to not necessitate any debates. But for that to work, I request people respect the rules, then we can also all agree not to have debates in here.
Example: I would not be willing to keep silent if someone were to call the entire left wing a bunch of hysterical liars and hypocrites who want to legalize incest and child abuse and destroy our society. And I also strongly presume Grey would not stay silent if someone were to compare Donald Trump to Hitler. Simply, none of this belongs on this thread–hence the rules.
Also as a general rule of thumb; if we can only explain our own ideology in terms of insulting other ideologies, then we are probably not doing a very good job at explaining the actual ideology. So this also serves the interest of clarity.
Members can of course also view this as an opening statement for a debate if they are willing to discuss it further elsewhere, or perhaps to help people elsewhere understand better where they are coming from (there are many valid motivations why one might want to make a post here). I simply ask that members avoid knowingly provoking a discussion by making statements that offend some people (especially derogatory ad hominem statements).
Ok, here we go. I’ve rewritten this a few times and it is hard to spell out everything consistently, so I might have to do some corrections later on.
Unsurprising considering my profession, I primarily come from a background of environmentalism, but I embrace a number of other viewpoints not directly part of it, but commonly associated with it, often originally because I think they are necessary or at least important for achieving our environmental goals. You will find most of my political views quite firmly on the left wing, many somewhat radical, but none "destroy western society"-radical. I have a few more "conservative" views as well (e.g. on abortion), but those don’t play a huge role in my ideology as a whole, so I haven’t included them.
I think humans have certain rights that even (and especially) the state can never be allowed to deprive them of, and in this regard we must hold states to especially high standards because they wield the most power that can potentially be abused. I don’t believe in retributive justice. For criminals, I make only the exception that those who do harm should be obliged to do what they can to repair or repay it, and people who pose a danger to society need to be separated from it for everyone’s safety. I am more concerned about state-sanctioned injustice than about some individuals committing crimes, because the former tends to have much wider-reaching implications (if you asked me if I would rather live in North Korea or Mexico...obvious choice to me). There think there need to be checks on the power of the state when it comes to excessive use of force from police or military, surveillance or arbitrary restrictions on personal freedoms and civil rights. And I think we need to start being at least as tough on police who break the law as on any other criminal, arguably more because we give them much more responsibility and hence need to hold them to higher standards.
Climate change, and more broadly the environment in general, is the most important issue of our time in my view, and increasingly I’ve had to conclude that we can not be afraid of making radical changes in order to solve it, because whatever could go wrong is probably still better than the alternatives. The 1.5°C goal is seeming more and more unrealistic by the day, which means we will likely see catastrophic consequences affecting hundreds of millions around the world, and possibly even more catastrophic cascade reactions beyond our control. If standing a chance at still making this goal means we have to stop driving cars, stop flying, reduce consumption of goods, services and energy dramatically, change what we eat and the ways we produce food, and transform large sectors of the economy that still rely on fossil fuels, then that has to be done. And it will mean at least a considerable part of those things. It becomes more the longer we wait and change nothing, so by all means we should start right now. In the interest of fairness and practicality, I think the most drastic changes have to be made by those who have done the most damage and profited from it the most, such as large energy suppliers, car manufacturers, heavy and chemical industries and large-scale agriculture, but everybody will have to do their part.
My economic views revolve around maximizing . The total sum of wealth generated in the world is quite sufficient for everybody to live a comfortable dignified existence. The challenge is to fairly distribute it and maintain it. If the global average per capita GDP is considerably higher than what I live on (reasonably comfortably I must say), then there is no excuse for many people to still have no access to food, water of proper housing and medical help. I am not fundamentally opposed to free-market mechanisms where they make sense, but I have more confidence in an overall economy controlled, or at least tightly regulated, by a democratically elected administration at least theoretically motivated to serve the common good than one controlled by large corporations answerable mainly to their investors. If a business cannot work while also furthering the good of society as a whole, then maybe it shouldn’t work at all. If some people have disproportionate amounts of wealth, then a large part of that wealth will have to be redistributed back to those who need it. I think this if fair, firstly because by and large one person’s work isn’t worth tens or hundreds of times more than another persons, and doesn’t deserve to be valued as such, and secondly because the only way such wealth can even be achieved is by in some way, whether by intention or not, exploiting others (e.g. by not valuing their work fairly while overvaluing one’s own).
I think equal access to education regardless of national, cultural, ideological and economic background is a basic prerequisite for a functioning democracy, and lack of it a main reason for flaws in our current ones. People need proper education from a young age in order to make informed decisions about their own life and those of others, so if they have that right, they also need to have the right, and the duty, to be sufficiently informed on the world around them.
Generally I think both education and political decisions should be informed by rational thought and the scientific method. There should be no accomodations for some fringe-groups’ personal beliefs if those are inconsistent with these principles, especially if they are harmful. That means I don’t think public schools should teach religious ideologies (which are almost always irrational), especially if that conflict with values of personal freedom and equality, or that public healthcare should finance treatments with no scientific support. There is no such thing as an "alternatives" to facts, and feelings and beliefs are no argument in a discussion about them
Socially, I believe in individual freedom, which means people should allowed to do what they want in their personal lives as long if others aren’t harmed due to it. Therefore I think religious and social norms, values and taboos that conflict with such freedom for no rational reason deserve no presence in politics, and should generally be discouraged in public life in favour of tolerance. People absolutely should be allowed to smoke whatever they want, live as whatever gender they want, do whatever they want despite that gender, including to marry and have sex with whichever consenting adult they want, believe in whatever supernatural beings they want and express their opinions and identity in whichever way they want, as long as these don’t interfere with the individual freedoms of others. In fact philosophically I have some anarchist leanings, but I cannot realistically reconcile those with real world issues (for example there is just no way environmentalism or social security could be organized in a society without rules). As much as I think it is wrong to force individuals to live under inescapeable rules they didn't make, it is blatantly obvious that society needs some rules to function. However I would want everyone to be allowed to build their own society as freely as possible if they want to. So obviously, on those grounds I struggle a lot with the idea of territorial nation states.
People should be free to embrace and protect their own cultures and identities, but not cling to national or cultural identity as an excuse to reject or demean everyone else. People should be allowed to freely choose where they want to live. It is nobody’s fault or personal achievement where they are born, and it should not dictate their entire life. From a purely practical perspective, relatively free migration also offers a solution to important problems such as global inequality, cultural and international tensions, but also aging populations with low birthrates found in the developed world. If resources in some places are not sufficient to support the people living there, which we see (and will see a lot more of as climate change progresses), it is only fair for people there to be allowed to leave for a place where they are.
Last Edit: Sept 19, 2019 4:14:26 GMT 5 by theropod
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5