TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELVES! The Worrying rise of a conservative youth! (3 Viewers)

[Heisenberg]

can you explain please.
i dont know much on this area but i really dont understand how someone could agree with both these statements; that every decision you make is based only on your genetics and your environment, and that you have free will.

It's infeasible to offer everyone perfect choice, and often choices are restricted due to the consequences of past choices which weren't so much constrained.

 

[gerhard]

i dont really understand how that related to what i was saying, but thats ok.

to me, if you believe in free will you would believe that -

if two people had exactly the same genetics and environment and had exactly the same choice they both wouldnt necessarily make the same decision.

in other words, there is something other than genetics and environment that effects our thinking. i think this approach is unscientific and smells of religion.

 

[Bricktop]

I'm not sure whether you think the BoS sucks because of people like me entering teaching, or because we're not entering the profession in large enough numbers.

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. Haha.

I was referring to your point about males and females being inherently different, and that the BOS is yet to recognise this.

 

[withoutaface]

i dont really understand how that related to what i was saying, but thats ok.

to me, if you believe in free will you would believe that -

if two people had exactly the same genetics and environment and had exactly the same choice they both wouldnt necessarily make the same decision.

in other words, there is something other than genetics and environment that effects our thinking. i think this approach is unscientific and smells of religion.

If they had the exact same genetics and environment, yes they would theoretically make the same choice, being the choice that best uses said means to create the best outcome. However if the government enforces things upon people from above, then two people from completely different genetics/environments would be forced into the same decision, which would not necessarily suit them both.

 

[crazyhomo]

YOU FUCKWIT THAT IS IN INCORRECT. YOU STALINIST MOTHERFUCKER GO VOTE FOR HITLER.

A liberal promotes liberty in the negative sense. Until the early 20th century everyone agreed on this term until you stupid motherfuckers who should never have gone beyond primary school decided to take it upon yourselves to rape English. You are the Hilaly's of the linguistic world.

The Liberal Party has nothing to do with liberal either, the conservatives have equally abused the word.

you're a nob

first of all, the english language is not dead. words from the year 1850 do not necessarily have the same meaning as they do now. if you don't like it have a cry

secondly, liberalism is not the same as liberal politics. see above. if you don't like it have a cry

 

[Captain Gh3y]

i dont really understand how that related to what i was saying, but thats ok.

to me, if you believe in free will you would believe that -

if two people had exactly the same genetics and environment and had exactly the same choice they both wouldnt necessarily make the same decision.

in other words, there is something other than genetics and environment that effects our thinking. i think this approach is unscientific and smells of religion.

This is easy; take identical twin children to an ice cream store and if you're right they should want the same thing every time.

 

[BlackDragon]

"The Worrying rise of a conservative youth!"??!?!!?

Who cares?! What a stupid thread. Let people be the people they want to be.

 

[dagwoman]

Well, there are 12 pages and 173 replies, so I think quite a few people care, or at least think it's a relevant topic to discuss.

 

[gobi]

my first exam is tomorrow morning.

Wow. Burn.

 

[crazyhomo]

liberalism SHOULD be the same as liberal politics. If you examine the first chapter of Bruce Smith's Liberty and Liberalism you will see that he was upset with the abuse of the term.

There are two major political philosophies : liberalism and communitarianism.

I realise English is a changing language. At the same time, language is meant to promote clear meaning. Any use of the word liberal to describe a position which is illiberal is still wrong.

Without clear language there can be no clear thinking. Socialism is socialist, not liberal. Don't engage in doublethink.

if you don't like it have a cry

i'm glad you took my advice

 

[ElGronko]

liberalism SHOULD be the same as liberal politics. If you examine the first chapter of Bruce Smith's Liberty and Liberalism you will see that he was upset with the abuse of the term.

There are two major political philosophies : liberalism and communitarianism.

I realise English is a changing language. At the same time, language is meant to promote clear meaning. Any use of the word liberal to describe a position which is illiberal is still wrong.

Without clear language there can be no clear thinking. Socialism is socialist, not liberal. Don't engage in doublethink.

I disagree.

I believe that the two main political paradigms are better summarised by the liberal, and the democratic ideologues.

We live in a liberal-democracy.


I personally am a fan of many libertarian ideals, but due to my selfish nature I am much more inclined to vote labour, as I am an increasingly independent young person that is soon to enter the workforce. Having said that, the liberal government has benefited my family very much and it has been in my interest for them to be in power.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Calm down people.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I wonder if you guys consider me the friendly centrist or the far-right extremist, given that economically I'm about as far right as waf? I guess I'm one of those people you have to worry about, thread poster, considering how I'm very libertarian with a slight conservative streak.

Have you ever heard of 'separate but equal'? Women are not men; men are not women. Neither should be privileged above the other. It is not discrimination to recognise that women are different to men.

Yes women are differnt to men. Old men are different to young men, old women are different to young women, everyone is different. I can accept that.

Yes I've heard of seperate but equal. It was used in such fabulous societies as South Africa to justify apartheid, and in America/Britain/Australia to justify widespread racism.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Men != Women. We analyse and interpret things differently, we have our own strengths and weaknesses.

These are commonly known things.

So what if a woman wants to be a housewife, that's not any bad thing.

By the same token if a woman wants to be a career woman or whatever and not have kids, that's her prerogative Also.

I love being called a fascist, btw. Keep it up, guys. Libertarians 4 Lyef.

I didn't call you a fascist. And I don't have a problem with women being housewives or career women.
I think you are for the most part correct as long as you remember there are exceptions to every rule

 

[lengy]

*looks at self, likes what he sees, ejaculates.

 

[bshoc]

I didn't call you a fascist. And I don't have a problem with women being housewives or career women.
I think you are for the most part correct as long as you remember there are exceptions to every rule

The thing is on the whole, housewives seem to be better at their jobs than househusbands, and career men seem to be far more successful than career women.

 

[dagwoman]

The thing is on the whole, housewives seem to be better at their jobs than househusbands, and career men seem to be far more successful than career women.

Did someone say "stereotypes"?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

The thing is on the whole, housewives seem to be better at their jobs than househusbands, and career men seem to be far more successful than career women.

but don't you think that is changing as more and more roles are exchanged?
after all, going back to the 50's, with a working husband and a housewife is not possible under todays economy.

how exactly are you testing whether housewives are better at cooking, cleaning and raising kids or whether househusbands are? Surely both genders are capable of filling either role adequately, and some of us girls would be absolute rubbish at fulfilling that traditional role as housebound housewife, without necessarily being feminists.

 

[dagwoman]

If you want to discuss/argue a point someone has raised, fine. That's the point of these forums. But attacking someone personally and swearing at them is just rude and unnecessary.

 

[lengy]

Don't bother arguing with bshoc dyke, he hates women and is anti-abortion and wont consider your opinion. Everyone else doesn't consider your opinion cause you're somewhat of a joke.