Debate:Liberal beliefs
(→M) Humanitarian intervention in other nations) |
(→S) Public funding to develop energy alternatives) |
||
| Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
* Private companies are slacking on this one, so yes. We need to find alternatives to oil and coal before they run out, not after. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | * Private companies are slacking on this one, so yes. We need to find alternatives to oil and coal before they run out, not after. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
* Yes. --[[User:Arcan|<font color="#99CCFF">'''Arcan'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Arcan|<small><font color=silver>¡ollǝɥ</font></small>]] 13:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | * Yes. --[[User:Arcan|<font color="#99CCFF">'''Arcan'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Arcan|<small><font color=silver>¡ollǝɥ</font></small>]] 13:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
| − | * Absolutely. [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']] 15:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | + | * Absolutely. Private investment was never going to put a man on the Moon. [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']] 15:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT) |
* Of course. There are certain projects that can't be done ''without'' government support; the free market won't support anything that can't be monetized semi-immediately, and science doesn't work like that. [[User:EVDebs|EVDebs]] 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | * Of course. There are certain projects that can't be done ''without'' government support; the free market won't support anything that can't be monetized semi-immediately, and science doesn't work like that. [[User:EVDebs|EVDebs]] 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
* Yes. [[User:Weaseloid|Weaseloid]] 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | * Yes. [[User:Weaseloid|Weaseloid]] 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 6 August 2008
User:Rembrandt.ryan kindly supplied a list of liberal beliefs from somewhere, to which we've added our comments. it was originally on his talk page, where you'll find the edit history (and the history of my bungling attempts at moving it here!)
Liberals are assumed to be IN FAVOR OF:
A) Affirmative action
- Depends how far it goes - drives to recruit certain under represented groups - generally good. Selecting people simply on the basis of an unrelated aspect - not so good. Silver Sloth 11:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Almost universially (in the US anyhow) misunderstood as "quota"s by those white men who didn't get a promotion. The reality is that the only time "minority" preference come into play in the hiring sense, is when "all else being equal" one is of a minority. But, white men have an "out" when they do not get a promotion saying "she only got it because she is a woman" "he's black, it's not like he really deserved it." At least that's what i see after 20 some odd years in the American academic and legal sector.--Waiting for Godot 11:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I've got no problems with it (note: I'm a white guy). --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Racism will always be around and needs to be counterbalanced. Quotas are probably a bit crap though - the candidate needs to be good enough for the job. Totnesmartin 13:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I understand the need for affirmative action, but I can't really support it. See Andy's "Affirmative Action President." It's used against any and all minorities who do succeed. I would like to find another method for dealing with racist hiring practices. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hundreds of years of systemic racism in the US makes some form of counterbalance necessary. It's an easy program to defend when you see the massive slide in admissions to Universities (California is an obvious case) the instant AA is removed - that's not a good thing for society. But admissions should be colour blind - so perhaps the best options is to preferentially overfund primary and secondary-level education systems in underprivileged areas? But without a shadow of doubt, no-one should be picked that isn't qualified for a given position. DogP 14:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's a simplistic, Band-aid solution to a complex problem. I'm neutral on it, but I feel there has to be a better way. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with it in terms of furthering equality, & as long as it is handled with common sense. Occasionally it does result in incompetent people holding a job just because they fill a minority quota. However, this does not happen very often ~ not nearly as often as critics of affirmative action suggest. Weaseloid 16:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Like any tool, needs to be used in the right way, at the right time. In the past, it was a good way to alleviate racial inequality by simply giving black people the opportunity to work, when otherwise inherent racism would have denied them this chance. Unfortunately, it seems that it now gives people the chance to claim a black person got a particular position or status due to 'affirmative action' rather than merit or hard work, even if this is not true. Zmidponk 17:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- AA must be applied carefully. Quotas, and giving positions to less qualified people for any other reason, are never a good idea. Helping disadvantaged people find opportunities is entirely fair and acceptable, but I generally believe such efforts should focus more on helping the economically disadvantaged (PC euphemism for "poor people") contribute more to society, rather than on helping minorities. OneForLogic 18:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
B) Anthropogenic Global Warming legislation
- It's good to see the US slowly joining the rest of the world on this.--Bobbing up 11:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Whether or not man caused Global Warming (we did IMHO) - it makes sense not to accelerate it.
ContribsTalk
- Well, you aren't going to tell me that polar bears did it with farts, or trees did it from dying, are you?--Waiting for Godot 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know - it's not my area - so I'll go with the majority of scientific opinion and agree. Silver Sloth 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I definately believe that use of fossil fuels by humans is a major contribution to global warming. Either way, we're the only species on the planet with a conscious ability to fix the problem. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Oh yes - this needs solving, fast. Totnesmartin 13:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with Silver Sloth an Susan. Whether or not we "did it" is irrelevant. If we can stop it, why shouldn't we? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Climates do fluctuate naturally, but we're making things far, far worse. And, again, even if we aren't the cause, can we all please stop filthying our own bath water? DogP 14:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- The data is in. The focus should be on fixing the problem. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's always seemed daft to me that people did not realise pumping loads of exhaust fumes, and various gases from factories, etc, into the atmosphere was going to have bad effects. If we can alleviate some of those effects by doing now what we should have done years ago, let's do it. Zmidponk 17:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
C) ACLU
- I do not know who or what this is.--Bobbing up 11:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Murcan - no opinion
ContribsTalk
- What about it. Yes, I believe they exist. in fact i even have evidence that they exist.--Waiting for Godot 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- As a Brit I don't have any strong opinion but, as long as they act within the law, I believe that organizations like the ACLU are good for a society. Silver Sloth 11:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't agree with everything they do, but I think that is a positive. It makes me feel as though they're looking out for more than just a singular point of view. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I am a big supporter of the ACLU. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm an ACLU supporter. There's staggering amounts of corporate cash lined up against everything the ACLU fights for, so without them we'd all just be steamrollered over. They're not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the forces of darkness. DogP 14:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Vitally important organization that does a lot of thankless work and draws much misunderstanding and unnecessary abuse. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". To me, that perfectly sums up the ACLU - I dislike some of the causes they've supported, but their overarching aim is to protect what is, to me, the most important Constitutional freedoms. Zmidponk 17:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
D) Banning prayer at football games
- Do people pray at football games? Why? For their team to win?--Bobbing up 11:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't give a damn - I dislike all organised sport
ContribsTalk
- I'd just rather they ban the football games. it's school - you know, Education?--Waiting for Godot 11:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't care, up to them if they want to. Totnesmartin 13:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Umm... maybe? I don't know. This seems rather kooky compared to the first few of these questions. I've got no problems with it as long as it is the individual's choice. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Whose prayer? "Hail Mary," while perhaps appropriate, won't jive well with non-catholics, will it? To whose god? Should we pray to Jesus, YHWH, nature, Ba'al? It makes much more sense to me to let everyone pray privately. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes - the crowd will never be all of one religion, and you can't be pissing off others with prayers they don't agree with. DogP 14:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's only ever been an issue at public schools, and in their case, yes. At private schools, who cares? EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Pray about the game? If God exists, why should he care who wins in a ball game? Or do people just make a general 'grace' type prayer? Either way it sounds kinda silly. Weaseloid 16:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Impossible - every Premiership striker does it after every goal. They run up to the crowd coming to a sliding stop on their knees. They then pull the material of their shirt to enable them to kiss the holy emblem of Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, or whatever. Oh, you mean praying to a deity - what a daft idea! Silver Sloth 17:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- What kind of prayer? Personal prayer? That's no-one's business but the believer(s) and his/their relevant non-existant Sky-Daddy. A minister or someone standing up and expecting the crowd to follow them in a prayer? Sorry, that could very well cause offense to those not of that religion. Zmidponk 17:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
E) Banning smoking
- About as logical as banning suicide.--Bobbing up 11:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- If it stops kids starting to smoke.
ContribsTalk
- Strongly support. The public health benefits are enormous. Every country that's tried it has deemed it a success. Silver Sloth 11:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- grown ups are grown ups. laws should be in place for kids, but if you want to do something that may or may not be healthy - like drinking, pot, ciggies, sex-till-you-drop, drugs, work-a-holics, playing guitar till you 'got blisters on me fingers', or play Doom 24 hours a day, i really could care less. Show up to work on time, do your job, and your free time is yours.--Waiting for Godot 11:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I assumed this meant smoking in public places. There is does affect you. Second hand smoke kills. Silver Sloth 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not even sure i agree there. I mean I agree that it can be dangerous, yes. but I don't know if i care that a resturant has an *enclosed* smoking section, or that the smokers can go outside. Denver's new regs say they must be 25 feet from any door and 10 feet from teh building, and it can't be a special room provided for them. in otherwords. "during snow storms, suffer, damned smokers". that's outrageous to me (as a non smoker, that is).--Waiting for Godot 13:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- One year, yes, only one year after Scotland brought in their ban on smoking in public places heart disease fell by 17%. In England The Daily Mail, not a paper noted for it's leftist leanings, reported that the drop after one year was as high as 41%. That's a good enough reason for me. Silver Sloth 17:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not even sure i agree there. I mean I agree that it can be dangerous, yes. but I don't know if i care that a resturant has an *enclosed* smoking section, or that the smokers can go outside. Denver's new regs say they must be 25 feet from any door and 10 feet from teh building, and it can't be a special room provided for them. in otherwords. "during snow storms, suffer, damned smokers". that's outrageous to me (as a non smoker, that is).--Waiting for Godot 13:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I assumed this meant smoking in public places. There is does affect you. Second hand smoke kills. Silver Sloth 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- For a ban, although over here the ban even extends to railway platforms, which are a) mostly outdoors and b) regularly visited by trains pumping out deisel fumes. Totnesmartin 13:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Although it has a little of that "smacks of heavy handedness" sort of thing, I have to say that I am for it. I really hate smoking. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think banning smoking in places like bars and restaurants should be up to the owner of the establishment. In places like parks etc., I don't really have a stance. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Not a fan (ex-smoker). Although obviously smoking does no-one any good, banning it seems like the thin end of the wedge. What happens if they start banning alcohol? Bans are having terrible effects in rural Ireland - all the ould fellas who used to get together in the rural pubs now have nowhere to go to chat, on top of which strict drink-driving legislation is curbing their ability to go anyway. As a result, rural pubs are closing at a rate of about one a week, and rural society is being broken up. Nanny-Statism of the worst kind, I think. DogP 14:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I support curbing smoker's rights, but lately it's started to become punitive. That's just mean-spirited, and I hate the damn cancer sticks. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Only in certain places, with administrative penalties. We all have rights. --JayJay4ever??? 16:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Only in some public places. Also I agree with bans on tobacco advertising (like we have in the UK). Weaseloid 16:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think 'informed consent' should be the standard here. If you are aware of the risks, but want to do it anyway, no-one should be able to stop you. In enclosed public places (bars, restaurants, cafes, etc), it should be up to the owner - he can have a 'no smoking' section, ban smoking entirely or have smoking throughout as they see fit. If, as a customer/member of staff, you think the risks of 'second-hand smoke' aren't worth it, you walk out/quit. Zmidponk 17:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
F) Democracy
- There are people who are against democracy?--Bobbing up 11:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Duh!
ContribsTalk
- Personally, I hate the idea. No one has time to be educated on the millions of things our local, state, and federal legislators have to contemplate every day. I say, let's vote for our representatives and let them do the dirty work ! oh wait, that's what we do.--Waiting for Godot 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- There is no alternative I would wish to live under. Silver Sloth 11:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. Totnesmartin 13:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- "I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy just doesn't work." - Kent Brockman
- That said, what kind of question is this? Actually, I'd prefer a Triumvirate. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
-
Liberals are against Democracy? Really? I haven't heard that outside of CP and Fox News. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT) - Arcan, this is the "In favor of" list. Liberals are supposed to be for it which I guess that means Conservatives are against it. (Although I haven't heard many actually voicing that opinion.) Personally I think that barring myself being elected as some sort of galactic emperor, democracy is the best of all the poor alternatives. People may say democracy is crap but I say it is at least fairly crap.
Genghismutating 14:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course - it's anything but perfect, but what other reasonable systems do we have? Although, like Genghis, I'm quite keen on being made Overlord. I think that would be the best system for everyone. DogP 14:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course. Any government which exists without the express will of the governed is, de facto, totalitarian.
- As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, but from everything we have, it's the best. Or something like that. --JayJay4ever??? 16:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. I remember my A-level history teacher using that quote but I've never been able to remember who it came from. The way I remember it was something like 'democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the other forms of government'. Sums it up pretty well. The majority view isn't always correct, but a good democratic government should balance it with restraint & common sense. Weaseloid 17:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- The best form of government, theoretically, is an absolute dictatorship by a completely perfect, selfless, utterly incorruptible person. Owing to the fact I'm busy with other things, I'll take democracy instead. Zmidponk 18:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
G) Enforcing political correctness
- How would one do such a thing?--Bobbing up 11:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Common politeness should do.
ContribsTalk 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- "enforcing?" I think that if you kill some kid in wyoming cause he's gay, you should be tried for Domestic Terrorism.--Waiting for Godot 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- PC = treating people with respect - who'd be against it? Totnesmartin 13:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- People who regard certain other people with utter hatred and contempt, and don't want to have to hide it to pretend to be civilized? --Gulik 13:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm totally with Susan on this one. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I agree about common courtesy, but enforcing it? No. However, there is a difference between enforcing courtesy and prohibiting a hostile work environment. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Sometimes it is necessary to be blunt and even impolite, but not just because someone is of a different race, gender, sexual orientation, physical difference (unless they're just really, really fat), political persuasion or religious belief. And punching someone in the gob because you don't like what they said isn't on.
Genghismutating 14:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Like Susan said. DogP 14:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Political correctness is a problem all over the political spectrum. If everyone treated it as a matter of simple politeness rather than a grand show of righting wrongs, it wouldn't be an issue. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Enforcing political correctness where? Governments can't enforce what people say & think. They can enforce equal opportunity laws for employers & suchlike. The media should exercise political correctness out of respect for their audience. They shouldn't necessarily be forced to do so by law. Weaseloid 17:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Depends how far you go. If you go as far as banning certain words on the grounds that they are considered offensive, then you've gone too far - I've always been of the opinion that it's the intent that counts, not the words used to express it or accomplish it. Zmidponk 18:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
H) Ethanol production
- Against producing ethanol? Is it highly toxic or what?--Bobbing up 11:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- If it supplants food production probably not good.
ContribsTalk
- World Food Prices Skyrocket. how bout wind, water, even nuclear power, thanks.--Waiting for Godot 11:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I used to be for, but now it's bust. There's no point driving cheaply to an empty food shop. Totnesmartin 13:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- WfG is right. There are plenty of other things we could be doing to solve energy problems. Susan's point is very good too. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with Susan and WfG, and I'm in the same position as Totnesmartin. Though, I have to say, I would like to learn more about non-corn based ethanol. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I was just now thinking of Back to the Future. Americans waste LOTS of food. Do we ever see a time when that wasted & rotting food could be turned to fuel?--Waiting for Godot 14:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- There's nothing wrong with ethanol production per se. However, what is important is how it is produced. Diverting resources from food production, cutting down rainforest or utilising petrochemical fertilisers are all gross stupidities. Using waste products like straw, grass or wood chippings is acceptable but not likely to major inroads into world petroleum consumption.
Genghismutating 14:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- PS I remember several years ago driving through the U.S. bible-belt (Alabama, Mississippi etc) and seeing gas stations proclaiming that there was no ethanol in their gas. I always presumed this was to dissociate themselves from the demon alcohol.
- All it's done is remove resources from food production globally, destroy more rainforest, and jack up inflation. Terrible idea which started with the very best intentions. DogP 14:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Depends on the feedstock and the impact on the food supply. Brazil made it work with sugar cane; for the US it's been a disaster with corn because of the greater energy requirements for processing. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- No opinion, as I haven't looked into it. Zmidponk 18:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I) Fairness Doctrine (radio shows)
- What is this?--Bobbing up 11:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I care not what anyone says on the radio - I,ve got a channel changer & an off switch
ContribsTalk
- you have a remote control???? what a concept. By the way, can we tell fundamentalists that if they don't like certain show or that some tv uses violence--to make a point, can they just not look? Waiting for Godot 11:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- What, and be deprived of WIGO material? Rush and his friends only have power because people listen. Totnesmartin 13:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I just wish that there were a lot more intelligent people who would do as Susan suggests and stop listening. Therefore making conservative talk radio go bust on its own. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's a complex issue that interweaves technical, cultural and political issues. Broadly, yes, but it's impossible to give a short answer. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm a staunch supporter of Freedom of Speech, and parents should decide what their children can or can't hear/read/see. --JayJay4ever??? 16:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
J) Gun Control
- I think that controlling guns is a good idea.--Bobbing up 11:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm so glad I live in a country where I've never seen a handgun. I hope I never do. Strongly in favour. Silver Sloth 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- What Silver said.
ContribsTalk
- I've hunted all my life. Guns can be sports. But there is no reason we can't get a rain in on weapons--Waiting for Godot 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT) used against humans.
- Five American children are shot dead every day, mostly with legal, home guns. Time for this to stop, I think. Totnesmartin 13:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm of the opinion that there are certain guns that are only people-killers and no one should have them. On the other hand, a total ban (on most anything) is never a good thing. It just leads to black markets and more crime. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I like guns (though I wouldn't mind living without them) but I don't see why guns can't be "controlled." Trigger locks, waiting periods, I don't see the problem. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Strongly in favour. DogP 14:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Most parts of the world consider unfettered gun ownership to be a mark of a broken society. The real problem is the inflexibility of firearms advocates, who are trying to force a one-size-fits-all gun policy on a very diverse country. I think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete and the NRA/libertarian position is astonishingly irresponsible in a country with huge divides between urban and rural and a long history of ignoring or exacerbating race and class issues. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- In favour. In an ideal world where everyone was nice, there would be no reason shooting enthusiasts couldn't own guns. In the real world, gun crime is too big a problem. Weaseloid 17:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
K) Hate crime legislation
- Seems a good idea to have legislation against crimes - hate or not.--Bobbing up 11:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't think that a hate crime should be any different from any crime.
ContribsTalk
- "hate crimes" are domestic terrorism. the intent is to cause FEAR in a particular society, group, gender, religion, etc., due to acts of violence or threats. It should be charged not as a so-called thought crime, but as domestic terrorism. We see what terrorism does to middle class american white families when Muslims do it, how is that any different than what gay kids in Wyoming feel after one of their own is scarcrowed on a fence - just cause he hit on the wrong person?--Waiting for Godot 11:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm with WfG. I'd much rather see these crimes labeled as terroristic. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Cautiously for - If you mean "hate speech" (crime is crime, whatever the motive) - then yes, stopping people stirring up riots or just-short-of-inciting attacks on minorities is a good thing - but watch that slide... Totnesmartin 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It depends on your definition of "hate crime." WfG is right, but when the definition/use gets too broad, the intent of the legislation is diluted to mean nothing. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Cautiously for. DogP 14:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Cautiously for as well, with the proviso that they should not be used as bludgeons just to get a longer sentence from a judge. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course restrictions on hate crime are necessary. The title doesn't make it clear what kind of specific legislation we are giving an opinion on. Weaseloid 17:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
L) Helmet laws for motorcyclists
- You could argue this one, but it seems like a good idea.--Bobbing up 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ever since an idiot motorist hit me on a roundabout I, and my family, have been strongly in favour. I owe my life to my helmet. Silver Sloth 11:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course- it saves money on the health services as an added bonus!
ContribsTalk
- in states with mandatory helmet laws, motorcycle accidents that result in death go down by (honest to god) 66%. http://motorcycles.about.com/b/2008/06/27/another-study-reveals-death-rate-increase-after-helmet-law-repeal.htm--Waiting for Godot 11:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hey, if you want to be a dumbass and ride a motorcycle without a helmet, go ahead. I just don't want to be burdened with the cost of scraping your brains off the ground. You can lay there and rot like so many roadkill deer for all I care. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Why is this "liberal"? It's just common sense, surely? Totnesmartin 13:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think it should be an "at your own risk" situation (for instance, not wearing a helmet would forfeit your right to sue over head injuries). --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- But in that case should the National Health Service put you back together if you have an accident?--Bobbing up 14:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Head injuries are so serious that a public health system needs ample protection against them. A relative nearly died in a serious motorcycle accident, but was saved by his helmet, so I'm all for enforcement. DogP 14:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, it's a public health issue. Dying of a head injury in a motorcycle accident -- or worse, not dying -- has ripple effects on family, emergency services, and health care systems. Helmets reduce those effects by reducing serious injury. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. It's a basic road safety requirement. Weaseloid 17:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
M) Humanitarian intervention in other nations
- If this means - "should we help other nations?" then yes.--Bobbing up 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- By invitation or international (UN) consensus
ContribsTalk
- GENOCIDE because no one looked. Starvation cause no one cared. anyone who thinks we shouldn't interveen as some of the most powerful nations in the world, is simply no human.--Waiting for Godot 11:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- yes, we should help out the less fortunate. Totnesmartin 13:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I agree we should help other nations, as long as we don't lose sight of our own people's needs. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. It's just like public healthcare - a civilised global society cares for all its citizens. DogP 15:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- With great power and wealth comes great responsibility. Even if it's just a possible exchange of favors, humanitarian intervention tries to raise the standard of living as a whole; if you've got, someone else wants, and hundreds of millions of lives throughout history have been lost because of wars over resources. Better to share and be a good neighbor. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Absolutely. Many of the developing world's problems are at least partially caused by economic manipulation by us wealthier nations. Helping out in a crisis is the least we can do. Weaseloid 17:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
N) Penalties on companies that hire offshore
- Why?--Bobbing up 11:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Err ... No? - don't really understand this.
ContribsTalk
- Dolphins deserve equal pay. Look, as long as we are saying "no immagrant labor forces", and demonizing aliens - then we should hold corporations accountable for spending money in places where not only will the US lose employment taxes, but the bread winners are bying foreign bread. either it's ok for us not to get taxes from employees or its not. you can't have it both ways just cause you like cheep products and hate mexicans.--Waiting for Godot 12:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's either an open market or its not - I say, those who wish for open global trade get what they wished for. The argument is a bigger one. DogP 15:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's a far more complex issue than that. I'm certainly not a fan of offshore outsourcing though -- it shows a lack of understanding of the "human" part of "human resources". EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Overseas outsourcing is often exploitative, but redressing this would be very complicated, & 'penalising' companies or forcing them to stop outsourcing may not be the answer. Weaseloid 17:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
O) Penalizing oil companies
- Why?--Bobbing up 11:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- For excess profiteering or poor environmental activities - yes. Otherwise No.
ContribsTalk
- what are we penalizing them for?
- Ditto to Susan --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- As per Susan. DogP 15:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ditto Susan. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
P) PETA
- I don't know enough about them.--Bobbing up 11:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- In theory - Yes. Don't agree with their extremist actions though.
ContribsTalk
- Don't agree with most of their policies - they are far to extreme for me. That said, I am for the ethical/humane treatment of animals. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes - we hideously mistreat animals and abuse our role as their safekeeper. I say it's a good thing someone's fighting for the critters. DogP 15:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- They're a complete con job. They are irrational extremists. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
R) Progressive tax system
- On income, progressive systems are good.--Bobbing up 11:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes - as long as income differentials are as obscene as they are now.
ContribsTalk
- Yes, rich people can easily afford to pay a bigger relative slice for things. Totnesmartin 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ditto to Totnesmartin, but my support is predicated on a reasonable system. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Tax the fuck out of the rich. They can absolutely afford it. DogP 15:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- If you can afford more, you're obligated to give more. I do think the tax brackets ought to top out at 50%, but the flat tax is a scam. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yep. People who earn the most should be giving the most back. Weaseloid 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
S) Public funding to develop energy alternatives
- Yes, or some kind of encouragement.--Bobbing up 11:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. Yes. Yes.
ContribsTalk
- Yes. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Private companies are slacking on this one, so yes. We need to find alternatives to oil and coal before they run out, not after. Totnesmartin 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Absolutely. Private investment was never going to put a man on the Moon. DogP 15:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course. There are certain projects that can't be done without government support; the free market won't support anything that can't be monetized semi-immediately, and science doesn't work like that. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. Weaseloid 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
T) Seatbelt laws
- We insist that cars have working brakes - why not insist that they have every available safety measure working. Silver Sloth 11:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Again, there is a civil liberties argument, but in general I think we need these. --Bobbing up 11:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course - be selfish & think of the health costs if nothing else.
ContribsTalk
- And the benefits to children!
Genghismutating 12:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- My answer to L above seems to cover this enough. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think this is more clear cut than the helmet laws. Yes to seatbelt laws. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Comments as per helmet laws - yes. DogP 15:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Public health issue, same as helmet laws. I've nearly been killed twice in car accidents, and I am therefore a fanatic about seatbelts. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. Basic safety issue. Weaseloid 17:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
U) Trade Unions
- Bob, I used to work for Texas Instruments and one of the employment conditions was no trade unions.
Genghismutating 12:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Wal-Mart probably does. They closed down a store in....Canada, I think? After some of the employees unionized. --Gulik 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, please. I owe my annual pay rise to the hard work of the PCS. Silver Sloth 11:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Definitely
ContribsTalk
- Trade unions have a role to play in protecting worker rights, particularly for the low-paid. However, during the 60s and 70s in the UK they overplayed their hand in certain industries. So they need to be regulated just as companies need to be regulated.
Genghismutating 12:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Workers (who create the profits) should be allowed to organise to protect their rights, yes. Totnesmartin 13:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I am both for unions and a member of a union. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Absolutely. As per ACLU comments, the staggering amounts of capital lined up against the workers of the world means they need defense systems. DogP 15:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, though they need to work to repair their image after the scandals of the late 20th century. The abuses many employers get away with are staggering. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Trade Unions are a great idea. In practise modern TUs are often too tied up in bureaucracy & take forever to achieve results. Weaseloid 17:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
V) Universal healthcare
- Essential in a civilised society Silver Sloth 11:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Obviously a good and necessary thing.--Bobbing up 11:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Is there any question (I'd be 6ft under without!)
ContribsTalk
- And I'd be married to a box of ashes.
Genghismutating 12:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Sloth said it best. worth repeating.Essential in a civilised society--Waiting for Godot 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I've never quite understood people who are against this. In my eyes, you are nothing short of monstrous. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Saved my life and my eye, so yes. Totnesmartin 13:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Support. Is there a reason to let the poor die? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Absolutely. The very definition of a civilised society is its ability to care for the health of all its members. DogP 14:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. Again, public health issue. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Essential. Weaseloid 17:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
W) Wealth redistribution
- Government action to help obtain a fairer society is a good thing.--Bobbing up 11:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- The obscene differences between bottom income & top income is disgusting. Inherited wealth is also a bit nasty.
ContribsTalk
- Agree with Susan, inherited wealth exacerbates inequality over time and is also anti-meritocratic, thereby not encouraging the recipients to contribute to society.
- A fair society should ensure an equal starting line for all. If someone has the ability to surge ahead after that, they will - but only because of their own ability. Totnesmartin 13:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yep - death taxes are a good thing. If you did well in life in a society, you owe a big debt of gratitude to that society when you pass away. DogP 15:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- There needs to be incentives to do this. Trickle-down economics isn't it. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Wealth redistribution would be good, & high earners should certainly be investing in raising others' quality of life rather than widening the gap, but this is hard to enforce. Weaseloid 17:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
X) Welfare
- The welfare state is a good thing in general. (If that's what this question is about.)--Bobbing up 11:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Like Bob I'm not sure exactly what the question is but the part of my UK taxes that goes to support the disadvantaged members of society is not a part I begrudge. Silver Sloth 11:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- What Bob & silver said!
ContribsTalk
- ...is keeping me from sleeping in shop doorways. Totnesmartin 13:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I support welfare. Like any system, it can be abused, but its benefits outweigh the potential problems. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Like healthcare, in a civilised society, those who do well should help those in less fortunate circumstances. DogP 15:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Similar to health care. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, welfare is good. Weaseloid 17:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Y) Windfall Profits Tax
- Can be justified under some circumstances.--Bobbing up 11:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Windfall profits are usually at someone's expense & should be TAXED.
ContribsTalk
- As it applies to the oil industry right now, I am completely for it. All of that profit is from speculation and had nothing to do with the actual costs of producing oil products. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- taxing one-off excess profits looks fine to me. The economy needs reset buttons like this to ensure a level playing field for all companies, and the people who work for them. Totnesmartin 13:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ditto to Susan. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Absolutely. Egregious profits over and above some predetermined level should be much more heavily taxed. But that level could be set quite high. DogP 15:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Looking specifically at the current oil crisis, driven as it is by market speculation, yes. But not as a blanket principle. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Liberals are assumed to be AGAINST
1 Building nuclear power plants
- Controversial, but inevitable if we want to reduce CO2 production, and reduce Global Warming.--Bobbing up 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Bob's nicking my points :-)
ContribsTalk
- Agree. Western reactors have always been safer than the Russian type used at Chernobyl. However, the technology has improved and modern designs are self-limiting. The only real issue is disposal of waste which can be dealt with by deep burial and is mainly a technical challenge.
Genghismutating 13:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I have no problem with new nuclear power plants. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- But how to deal with the waste? And the low heat efficiency? I'm dubious about this. Totnesmartin 13:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I believe nuclear power can be an excellent alternative energy solution. Also, I live near a reactor, and safety has never been an issue. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Nuclear is an excellent carbon-free option, but we have no known safe or politically acceptable method of disposing of the waste. So we can't do it. DogP 14:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, along with intensive research into failsafes, fuel reprocessing, and disposal. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes to developing nuclear plants responsibly. More research is needed to sort out the waste issues, but this is a more sustainable energy resource than oil or coal. Weaseloid 17:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
2 Corporations paying huge salaries to CEOs
- Inevitable under a capitalist system.--Bobbing up 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Any free market will result in this. However, with progressive taxation... Silver Sloth 12:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- The constant increase of top salaries in "competition" with each other is suspect. There must be more able people out there who could do these jobs and bring down the price. I think it's very much an 'in crowd' system. So yes Against it!
ContribsTalk
- No one is worth what these people are paid. But, if they want to do it, it's not really my place to say. However, it seems as though there would be plenty of better ways for a corporation to spend the money. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- And how many worked to bring in that money? Totnesmartin 14:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think it's obscene. Then again, I think sports stars are paid too much as well. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Disgraceful, but as Bob says, how can we hope to control that in this system? DogP 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Give them a modest base salary and pay them in stock or equity for the rest. They want the money, let their income be tied to the company's performance. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think the salaries at the top end are pretty obscene. Overall I reckon corporations are a pretty corrupt invention & a huge negative influence on society. How to counter this is difficult to say. Weaseloid 17:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
3 Dog fighting
- Evil - file along with bull fighting and any activity where animals are harmed for human enjoyment. Silver Sloth 11:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Obviously hurting animals for our enjoyment is wrong.--Bobbing up 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Fucking Hell!How can anyone NOT be against it?
ContribsTalk
- Like the others said. What's "liberal" about hating this? Totnesmartin 14:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- This showed up on Ymmenos's (or whatever his username is) questionnaire, too. Didn't make any sense then either. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- You would have to be an enormous dickhead to be pro-dogfighting. DogP 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ban it. A relic of a past age; even buzkashi players stuff the goat carcass before playing horse-rugby with it. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Is this for real about fighting dogs? (Not WW1 aerial combat?) It's a bizarre issue to bring up. I would assume that pretty much every reasonable person in the civilised world thinks that dog fighting is a disgrace. Weaseloid 17:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
4 Drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR
- Against - this is a sticking plaster solution to a much deeper problem. It won't make things better. Silver Sloth 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Depends on many things. Where is ANWR?--Bobbing up 11:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Believe ANWR refers to the Great Lakes? Might as well - it'll only stave off the end for 10 years more or so.
ContribsTalk
- 8-10 years before we see any oil from either location, and it doesn't help the need, now. I'm for finding new technologies to either reduce consumption, find new renewable fuels or both.--Waiting for Godot 12:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm definately in the new technology crowd. The word oil shouldn't even be used when we discuss solving energy problems. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Get rid of SUVs, patio heaters etc, fit insulation and solar heating where apprpriate, and there won't be such a need to drill everywhere. Totnesmartin 14:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't have a car, so I'll keep up my shoe pressure. With a foot pump, arf arf. Totnesmartin 14:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's rather like the guy who has a drink problem. To the drunkard the only problem is not enough to drink. To his family it's trying to wean him off it. Believe it or not oil is actually cheap for what you get! People habitually pay more for bottled water and a lot more effort goes into producing gas for your car than drilling a water well. Higher prices are a good incentive to be more economical with a limited resource. There is no inherent right to be profligate with the earth's resources. And from a cynic's POV, as oil prices are destined to go higher, why use up a valuable national resource until it really is necessary?
Genghismutating 14:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- BTW I drive an economical diesel and have my own air compressor at home.
Genghismutating 14:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Solve the problem by moderating demand and increasing efficiency, not by increasing supply of an ever-diminishing resource. What's the plan when the ANWR oil runs out guys? DogP 15:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Drilling needs to be done with sensitivity towards the local environment. Oil companies have not shown a willingness to do that. Allow only if str4ictly necessary, regulate very tightly. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
5 Nuclear weapon development
- Many countries already have nuclear weapons. The US and Russia have lots. Should other countries develop them? It would be better for the world if they didn't.--Bobbing up 11:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube but Nuclear weapons are unusable. Ok, we no longer have the MAD standoff we had during the cold war but starting a nuclear war has the potential to destroy the world. It won't just be a couple of Japanese cities next time. Silver Sloth 12:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I was in CND in the 60s. So you can take it that I'm against it!
ContribsTalk
- It's like gun-control but for nations rather than individuals. The less of them there are then the smaller the chance of anything getting out of hand.
Genghismutating 13:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- oh, get rid of them now, we're sliding back to the cold war days. Totnesmartin 14:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ban them all. DogP 15:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Given that knowledge of how to build them is fairly easy to come across, and given that we have more of them in the world than could ever be used even in an all-out species-threatening event, there is no reason on earth to do any more work in that area. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Nuclear weapons can't be a good think, & gradually international law should ban them altogether. This will need to be gradual & begin with the nations that seem most intent on using them. Weaseloid 17:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
6 Preemptive war
- This question needs a bit more expansion. War in general is a bad thing to be avoided - pre-emptive or not. At what point does an attack become pre-emptive? Should you always wait to be attacked first to show that you have the better moral case? I don't know.--Bobbing up 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Subjective, but generally against. (Technically Britain pre-emptively declared war in 1939)
ContribsTalk
- Technically?--Bobbing up 13:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- probably a bad choice of words but a whole lot of people think that Germany declared war on us! (was talking about the very subject last week - 4 out of 8 thought that)
ContribsTalk 13:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Really? Remarkable.--Bobbing up 13:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- The Germans declared war on Poland and we sided with the Poles.
Genghismutating 13:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- They were young (all under 40, 2 under 30)
ContribsTalk 13:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- we had a mutual defence treaty with Poland at the time, it's worth pointing out. Hitler asumed we wouldn't honour it. Totnesmartin 14:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- They were young (all under 40, 2 under 30)
- The Germans declared war on Poland and we sided with the Poles.
- Really? Remarkable.--Bobbing up 13:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- probably a bad choice of words but a whole lot of people think that Germany declared war on us! (was talking about the very subject last week - 4 out of 8 thought that)
- How about not being bloody lied to about it first. Totnesmartin 14:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Tricky - should the world have gone to war against the killers in Rwanda, Serbia, or Darfur? Is that war? Maybe. DogP 15:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- For humanitarian purposes only. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't like war in general; I guess sometimes it's necessary. Re preemptive war: each case on its merits. If there is a definite & imminent threat, maybe. But I think preemptive war can be misused to justify wars that have other purposes.
7 Prizefighting
- If people want to do it ...--Bobbing up 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Unlike the dog fighting argument the participants are consenting adults. I have no problem with this. Silver Sloth 12:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Against - hate the glamourisation of violence in any way - the effect on kids can be tragic.
ContribsTalk
- consent. I'm also in favor of legal BDSM but against bestiality.--Waiting for Godot 12:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Are we just talking about boxing as a controlled sport or uncontrolled bare-knuckle fighting?
Genghismutating 12:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Incredibly broad topic, but hey, go ahead and beat the hell out of each other. Consenting adults, and all that. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Another symptom of the caveman mentality that still has currency. Totnesmartin 14:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hard to win against the 'consenting adults' argument. DogP 15:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Unlike dogfighting and cockfighting, humans are assumed to be free agents. Regulate it to prevent exploitation of fighters; it will happen one way or the other, so best to keep it on the level. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Each to their own. Sensible regulations should apply. Weaseloid 17:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
8 School choice
- Is it better if people can chose their schools? I suppose so.--Bobbing up 11:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Did I wish to choose the school my child went to - of course. Am in favour of public schooling - of course. Put the two together. Silver Sloth 12:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Rather instill a desire to learn - by example. Dunno how but role models are poor for modern youth (IMHO)
ContribsTalk
- "school choice" is one of those loaded terms. the issue isn't about school choice. you have the right to put your child into any school you wish, within some limits. the issue is who should pay for LOCAL schools. what the republicans want is that your personal tax money should be exempt from paying for local schools *if* your kids go to some priavte school, cause "i'm already paying for my kid's education elsewhere." The tax on public schools is so EVERYONE can get an equal education. I don't have kids, but i pay for kid's education because this country believes in the right to free, quality education. If you are in favor of school vouchers, then those of us without kids should get our own "no pay" voucher. why pay for what i don't use, is the Republican and libertarian view... so I will stop paying for all schools, right?--Waiting for Godot 12:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- An educated populace is beneficial to all of society. Don't educate the poorest and you are in danger of having a dangerous anti-social underclass. Give them the tools to escape poverty and everyone benefits. People should be allowed a limited choice in deciding which school to send their children but it should not be that it ends up adversely affecting those who do not or cannot exercise a choice.
Genghismutating 12:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- WfG is right. "Choice" is one of those code words, like "Teach the controversy." Then again, I'm a bit biased. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- We can't all choose the same school - there needs to be regulation of school choice, or perhaps (horrified whisper) make all schools equally good? Totnesmartin 14:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- As per Totnesmartin. DogP 15:20, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- "School choice" as it's currently being pushed in the US siphons funds off an already cash strapped public school system. Private schools can provide private scholarships. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- The standard of education should be universal so that schools do not need to compete for parents' choice. In the UK, the school system is currently ruining this with school league tables & undue emphasis on measurable results. Weaseloid 17:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
9 Whaling
- Not in favour of this one.--Bobbing up 11:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I find it hard to support an activity which causes such suffering to an endangered species and which brings so little in the way of benefits. Silver Sloth 12:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Against!
ContribsTalk
- I think that indigenous peoples who can prove they are only supporting their families have a right to continue to hunt, if they continue to use "traditional" weapons, and put their lives on the line the way their ancestors did. If it's just "more macho" than running down to the local 7-11, I have a problem with it.--Waiting for Godot 12:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Whaling by major industrial nations is unnecessary and is more likely to lead to extinction of species. Western society no longer needs whale products so it has become wasteful and only provides gastronomic bling for a small group. For indigenous people in remote areas it can be a necessity for survival. Survival hunters respect their prey and don't take more than they need to ensure future supply.
Genghismutating 12:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't think they're "whaling" really - walrussing?
ContribsTalk 12:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- No, they whale. and it's quite dangerous. You go out in your umiak (or kaiak, never remember which is the family boat), spear the whale, then go for a "joy ride" till the whale tires, when you kill it. It's risky business, i must say! --Waiting for Godot 12:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't think they're "whaling" really - walrussing?
- But in the grand scheme of things it's the big Japanese whaling fleets which are important.--Bobbing up 12:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ok, i'm naieve then. I didn't think they still hunted. sighs. and i also only recently found out that cosmetics used to be one of the biggest "consumers" of whale bits and peices. bleah.--Waiting for Godot 13:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- But in the grand scheme of things it's the big Japanese whaling fleets which are important.--Bobbing up 12:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ditto to WfG and Genghis --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ban it - this "scientific whaling" is a scam and everyone knows it. Totnesmartin 14:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Against. DogP 15:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ban it. Unsustainable. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- If it can be regulated to be sustainable, then it would be no worse than any other type of fishing. (I don't know enough about the complex issues to know if this is possible.) If it was not heavily regulated, definitely a bad thing. Weaseloid 17:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Rank these American presidents from the most intelligent to the least:
I assume that this exercise says something about American liberals - but I don't know what.--Bobbing up 11:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Don't think actual intelligence has a great deal to do with a president's virtues.
ContribsTalk
I don't even know how you rank someone's intelligence. there are tests out there, but experts say even they are flawed and would have found someone like Einstein to be "underintelligent". I do think Bush is either very ill educated, a simple bumpkin, dyslexic, or just totally lazy cause he is terribly unconcerned with what he says and how he says it.--Waiting for Godot 13:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- 32 Roosevelt (FDR)
- 33 Truman
- 34 Eisenhower
- 35 Kennedy
- 36 LBJ
- 37 Nixon
- 38 Ford
- 39 Carter
- 40 Reagan
- 41 Bush 41
- 42 Clinton
- 43 Bush 43
- What the hell is this? How does voting work? DogP 15:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- I just copied it over from Rem's user page as is. I don't understand how people are meant to rate them, or what the significance of such a rating would be. Perhaps Rem has actual records of the presidents' IQ's scores and he is going to see how close RW members get to guessing their real scores scores? Although what this would ay about people being "liberal" or not remains unclear. Rem - could you clarify this?--Bobbing up 16:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- PS - what are the numbers?--Bobbing up 16:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- They're their number as president - Bush is the 43rd President of the USA. Weaseloid 18:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- What the hell is this? How does voting work? DogP 15:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
From dumbest to smartest: Bush 43-Reagan-Truman-Ford-Eisenhower-Bush 41-Kennedy-Carter-LBJ-Roosevelt-Nixon-Clinton. Though if you asked which I thought were the *best* presidents, that list would look very different. EVDebs 16:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
And now over to the pundits for an early reaction to the poll
At first glance it looks like we're generally in agreement but, and here's the rub.
- The agreement is far from 100% Apart from some of the 'Duh!' questions there's a range of opinions and a range of strength of opinions.
- Where there are differences we agree to differ. Debate is seen as a way of educating and being educated, not of scoring points
In the end it's about mutual respect. Silver Sloth 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, Jeremy, from where I'm standing, after five or six votes, we appear to be quite homogeneous. There are some differences but only minor ones.
ContribsTalk 14:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- depends on what6 you mean by homogeneous (that gays are geniuses? sorry...grins) Cause i see very different shades on almost all of the issues ranging from "yeah, this is good but not as a law" to "damn straight make it a law". I just find it to be loaded assumptions from teh start. defining liberals by someone else's categories instead of our own.--Waiting for Godot 14:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well Brian,
I'm opening a boutiquethere's certainly an early swing to the liberals, but let's wait until the Americans get home from work and see how it goes. Totnesmartin 14:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
<--Unindent
There does appear to be a lot of agreement so far but I don't think it all fits in with Rem's stereotype.
Genghismutating 16:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Pundits plowed under, world leaders take note
Wow -- i mean wow! If the gods really want to zap you, they give you what you ask for. An embarassment of riches to be sure, but i am tickled pink. And if i never figure out how to deal with all that info, it's worth it to me -- i got a good laugh (out loud, honest) from your purposeful humor.
I can't tell you why, but Totnesmartin's last comment hit me just right, "Well Brian, I'm (opening a boutique) there's certainly an early swing to the liberals, but let's wait until the Americans get home from work and see how it goes". I don't know who Brian is, but i bet he didn't laugh as hard as i did. Part of it, i guess, was that Americans would have any special insight in evaluating all those answers.
You all know, of course, that it will be well nigh impossible to analyze the "data" in any meaningful, statistical way -- i like to think you all colluded (a global conspiracy) to blitz me silly. (Are you part of the Trilateral Commission? Do you get your marching orders from the Bilderbergers?)
I couldn't wait until i "got home" (i telecommute on most days), i had to read every scrap, so i WILL have some time to make up this evening. C'est la gare (it is the railroad station). All those opinions will keep me going for quite a while ... i will comment on them.
-- RemBeau 15:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Americans don't have "special insight", it's just that you used a politically universal term then applied some very US only topics like prayer at sporting events. In most of the world, religion is just not teh hot button issue it is here, no matter which side. Other than against Muslims, I can't think of a thing Le Pen said that would suggest he wanted school prayer, god in the constitution, or any other religious nonsense that the Right here prattles off.--Waiting for Godot 15:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- "Well Brian, I'm opening a boutique" is from a Monty Python sketch Oooh found it!. My statement about waiting for the Americans is not simply because the question were aimed at them ,but because They're (on average) more right-wing than the Brits - but does this hold true for the RWians? Totnesmartin 15:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- how so are we more right wing then you? I dare say... put up your dukes, put up your dukes!!--Waiting for Godot 16:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- "Well Brian, I'm opening a boutique" is from a Monty Python sketch Oooh found it!. My statement about waiting for the Americans is not simply because the question were aimed at them ,but because They're (on average) more right-wing than the Brits - but does this hold true for the RWians? Totnesmartin 15:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- Americans don't have "special insight", it's just that you used a politically universal term then applied some very US only topics like prayer at sporting events. In most of the world, religion is just not teh hot button issue it is here, no matter which side. Other than against Muslims, I can't think of a thing Le Pen said that would suggest he wanted school prayer, god in the constitution, or any other religious nonsense that the Right here prattles off.--Waiting for Godot 15:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)