Why do people even vote Democrats/Socialists?

[Sagittaria]

But how will you ever be able to discus something if its not clear what that something actually means?

My preferred solution has always been to discuss a particular measure on its on merits, without resorting to ideological appeals.

Should we have universal healthcare? Y/N on the basis of what it will cost versus the benefits it will impart. Not some meaningless "Obamacare is socialist/communist/Nazi!" drivel.

And you cant prove me wrong cause i have given another meaning to the words "table, house and Tuesdays".

Discussions of politics should be about what well better the nation, not about proving someone else wrong.

[Deleted]

Eh, sorry, it's late and I didn't articulate my point well.

I realize that Socialism is a means to control the distribution of wealth (for lack of a better term,) and Capitalism is a system of wealth accumulation. I wasn't trying to draw direct correlation between the two, though my post certainly did so.

Still, a "pure" Capitalism and a "pure" Socialism would be fairly non-friendly situations.

However, my main point was simply that neither "pure" Capitalism nor "pure" Socialism is truly workable in the real world, when you factor in the human component. Checks and balances have to be inserted, whereby the people can exert influence when necessary to stop imbalances.

Oh ofcourse i can /agree with you there. I do believe we should find another alternative to capitalism tho, the system is just flawed and there should be a better way. My bet would go to a resourced based society, but there are quite a few kinks that need looking at befor something like that could ever work.

[araine]

But i really wonder when the far right will stop tossing the socialist scare card around, Democrats and Obama is to the RIGHT politically of pretty much every right wing government in the world. It is an insult to socialists to be compared into being democrats.

[LurkerOnly]

But how will you ever be able to discus something if its not clear what that something actually means? If you dont use the words, with the meaning that is given to them, there is no discussion. Then i might as well go:" House oversea going under the table on Tuesdays" And you cant prove me wrong cause i have given another meaning to the words "table, house and Tuesdays".

I agree with you, and I think it's unfortunate that modern logic and philosophy too often portray "Let's make sure we're all using the same definitions for terms so that our arguments can be free of confusion about each other's meanings" have become interpreted at best as grammar-nazi-ing and at worst some sort of ad hominem "I'm attacking the semantics of your word choice instead of addressing your points."

It's important that we all use the same terminology instead of assuming we understand each other's intents. Pro-life/Pro-choice suffers from this greatly, as does God/No-God and Creation/Evolution. A lot of people would be a lot less angry at each other if we realized that our discussion partners are talking about very different things than we think they're talking about sometimes.

[Sagittaria]

I agree with you, and I think it's unfortunate that modern logic and philosophy too often portray "Let's make sure we're all using the same definitions for terms so that our arguments can be free of confusion about each other's meanings" have become interpreted at best as grammar-nazi-ing and at worst some sort of ad hominem "I'm attacking the semantics of your word choice instead of addressing your points."

No, I think that's the result of people innately preferring strawmans to actual arguments.

Pro-life/Pro-choice suffers from this greatly, as does God/No-God and Creation/Evolution.

Abortion maybe. The rest, really not so much. Especially not evolution which is only challenged by irrational fanatics, and hence all defending arguments are geared against that.

[zera]

Sagittaria Your clearly american (right?) where as the guy that started this is european. I actually wrote somth but scrapped it cause fuck me if I'm going to argue about this considering there are pros and cons to both sides (also he seem to lack some common sense considering he thinks having kids is a income).
My point is americans have no Left wing and should stop talking about that kind of politics considering you have a extremely right wing governement and even the lefties would be considered right or mid at best in europe. I mean most europeans would be considered crazy if they had their view in america where taking care of sick people that don't have a job is considered normal.

[Sagittaria]

I actually wrote somth but scrapped it cause fuck me if I'm going to argue about this

Not sure what you think you'd be arguing about. Since:

My point is americans have no Left wing and should stop talking about that kind of politics considering you have a extremely right wing governement and even the lefties would be considered right or mid at best in europe.

Is kinda of what I just said last page.

[Deleted]

No, I think that's the result of people innately preferring strawmans to actual arguments.


Abortion maybe. The rest, really not so much. Especially not evolution which is only challenged by irrational fanatics, and hence all defending arguments are geared against that.

No it is not, especially if you are on a forum with not just English speaking people, it is very important to get the semantics right.
How can you say to not question evolution? I do! and i believe in it! You should question everything you do not understand, so you can either understand it or improve on it's theory.

[LurkerOnly]

No, I think that's the result of people innately preferring strawmans to actual arguments.


Abortion maybe. The rest, really not so much. Especially not evolution which is only challenged by irrational fanatics, and hence all defending arguments are geared against that.

You say "I believe in creation."

I say "I believe in evolution."

You're trying to say "I think that it's improbable that simple molecules spontaneously generated very complex ones on their own. After all, carbon and silicon atoms have never once in recorded history spontaneously or gradually assembled into a teacup, and we're pretty sure scientifically that it can't happen. It seems that there might have been a hand that made the teacup, as it were. It seems to conform to Occam's Razor. We should think about it."

I hear you say "I think science is a myth because the bible says so and besides you're a heathen and you're going to hell."

I say "Scientific evidence shows that evolution happened, it stands up to observation, to deny it is foolish."

You hear me say "Because I see the process by which a thing occurred, I ignore the possibility that there are underlying processes that guide those processes. It's like a waterfall: gravity pulls the water down, so obviously gravity is both directly responsible for the hole at the bottom of the waterfall, and the only force that works on the water."

You say: "But evolution isn't a complete theory."

You meant to say "Evolution is an observable fact but it doesn't necessarily explain the existance of DNA: what did it evolve from? What did the precursors of DNA evolve from? Can evolution itself explain why some atoms eventually became people while others just stayed rocks?"

I hear you say: "I don't understand what a 'scientific theory' is. I'm uneducated. I don't believe a single word of evolution because it wasn't in my bible."




Hopefully that illustrates, in combination with your comment (which is an excellent example of exactly what I mean), how assuming we understand each other's terminology can lead to unnecessary arguments. My above example is a flame-war between two people that actually have similar views and might be able to work together towards a greater understanding, but in assuming the other person already believes they have complete understanding, we lock ourselves into our own incomplete view of reality.

[Kaleredar]

My point is americans have no Left wing and should stop talking about that kind of politics considering you have a extremely right wing governement and even the lefties would be considered right or mid at best in europe.

We don't have an inherently "right wing" government. Look at the president. Look at the senate. Look at public opinion regarding issues like gay marriage and gun control laws.

It's just that the right wing guys are the ones that are being constant and loud sticks in the mud. A job becomes very easy when all you have to do is break things so you can complain about how things are broken.

[belfpala]

No it is not, especially if you are on a forum with not just English speaking people, it is very important to get the semantics right.
How can you say to not question evolution? I do! and i believe in it! You should question everything you do not understand, so you can either understand it or improve on it's theory.

I have a degree in Physics. I don't understand gravity. Is it useful to anyone for me to question it?

...

No.

But... on topic... it is useful for the NSF to give grants to people who, like me, don't understand gravity.

[Sagittaria]

No it is not, especially if you are on a forum with not just English speaking people, it is very important to get the semantics right.

Oh for crying out loud. Everyone who has spent 5 minutes looking at politics realises that Socialism/Capitalism is not a matter of foreign-speakers-semantics. Socialism is not defined by people differently because of the poster's language. It's defined differently out of political talking point convenience.

Also I'm not quite sure how this whole post relates to what you actually quoted.

[zera]

Is kinda of what I just said last page.

Exactly then stop mentioning american specifc policies with 14% taxes
You can't just take a statement and use it whenever you like then discard it for the rest

Edit: also I was talkling about the original poster which seemed quite clear if u took a sec to think about it when you went amg but what to argue about

[LurkerOnly]

I have a degree in Physics. I don't understand gravity. Is it useful to anyone for me to question it?

...

No.

But... on topic... it is useful for the NSF to give grants to people who, like me, don't understand gravity.

Questioning the existance of gravity: idiotic.

Questioning whether gravity is the sole force responsible for the relative motions of planets and other bodies: General Relativity.


This making any sense?

[belfpala]

Questioning the existance of gravity: idiotic.

Questioning whether gravity is the sole force responsible for the relative motions of planets and other bodies: General Relativity.


This making any sense?

No... because by "Gravity" I meant "General Relativity". :P

[Polarthief]

Because I don't hate gay people, women, immigrants and so on.

Period.

Was that too short?

Pretty much my answer also.

I'll admit, there are a TON of idiotic things that my side (Democrats/blue) does, but I see even more retarded things on the red side.

[Sagittaria]

You say "I believe in creation."

I say "I believe in evolution."

You're trying to say "I think that it's improbable that simple molecules spontaneously generated very complex ones on their own. After all, carbon and silicon atoms have never once in recorded history spontaneously or gradually assembled into a teacup, and we're pretty sure scientifically that it can't happen. It seems that there might have been a hand that made the teacup, as it were. It seems to conform to Occam's Razor. We should think about it."

Which is a batshit insane bullshit strawman that completely fails the scrutiny of reason or logic or reality. It is at best a criticsim born out of scientific illiteracy failing even gradeschool level biology, or much more likely a disingenuous attempt at undermining science using logically fallacious appeals to ignorance.

I hear you say "I think science is a myth because the bible says so and besides you're a heathen and you're going to hell."

As someone who routinely argues against evolution doubters, I think this may just be you.

[Skyduke]

It seems a lot of people on this thread have a knee-jerk reaction to this post. I do not believe my tone was inflammatory in any way.

Some posters believe I do not want the rich to pay taxes. That is not the case. I simply think that raising the percentage of the income you have to pay the more you earn is nonsensical. The argument "Well they make enough money so we can take away more" simply proves that the people speaking are on the low end of the income scale or harbor some kind of grudge against well-off people. If they were on the upper end they probably would think otherwise.

Many rich people devolve a lot of their money to charities. That is commendable, but it is also THEIR CHOICE. I believe a uniform income tax would make more sense.

I do not hate poor people or gay people or minorities. Where did that come from? Most of my workers happen to belong to a north African ethnicity, and they uniformly work harder and better than the people from the European country I live in, who almost always turn out to be lazy or extremely picky, to say the least. I respect them a great deal and understand that if they could have actually led a prosperous life in their country, they would not have come to Europe; because let's face it, it's just not the same thing.

As for gays or minorities I believe that we are all equal. People being "more equal" because they belong to specific groups is racism... You can pack it nicely and call it positive discrimination I guess. In my line of work I always tell people: "No one forced you to work here. I certainly did not. I expect you to work as hard as you can and is reasonably possible, because it is not fair some of other workers to work hard so you can relax."

As for people commenting on my initial line:

In America there are two political parties: Republicans and Democrats. Democrats lean to the left, Republicans to the right. That is correct.
And in Europe we have tons of political parties but MOST countries have a Socialist party (or Social democrat... Name differs but ideas seldom do). Which is usually moderately to the left. There are of course parties more to the left of it. I don't know why people have to criticize this point, which is fair and true.

Or shall I give you examples of socialist parties and parties more to the left of them? Like Parti Socialiste/Front de Gauche in France, or SPD/Die Linke in Germany or Partito Democratico and... well a lot of tiny communists parties in Italy?

I did not say DEMOCRATS ARE SOCIALISTS HURR DURR. I simply said they are the "Left in the political spectrum" of respectively, the US and Europe. I wish people actually read my posts.

As for contrite phrases and one-liners like "Swearing on the bible to uphold the constitution and not swearing on the constitution to uphold the bible", they are very catchy but I do not believe I put religion anywhere in my initial post.

[Deleted]

I vote socialist because we have enough food in the world to stop world hunger, and we waste 60% of it.
I vote socialist because i hate the fact that someone has to sell their house when they get cancer to pay for the hospital bills.
I vote socialist because i loathe farmacuetical company's that ask 200k a year for treatments for Pompe & Fabris when the initial cost for the cure was 2k.
I vote socialist because i believe everyone has an equal right to try and become rich, not only the children of the rich or the lucky.
I vote socialist because in this system, someone that works 70 hours a week still earns 1% of a CEO salary that spends 99% of his time in the golfcourt. A CEO that got there not by his skills, but by his connections.
I vote socialist because i think its wrong that company's like Facebook can abuse loopholes to only pay 100 bucks on bilion dollar profits.
I vote socialist because i believe those who can pay a great deal should pay a great deal to preserve education, nature, innovation and technologic growth instead of buying 5 types of Ferrari, because they don't know what to do with the money.

This is coming from someone who makes 150k a year, and i pay 52% in taxes here. I still got more money than 99% of the world, i go on holiday 3x a year and i drive a nice car. I don't own 5 cars because i don't need 5 fkn cars, like most muricans think they do. If all rich people would all be a little less greedy, and if they would just pay their taxes instead of stashing billions in far away countries to dodge taxes, there would not even be an economical crisis.

Amazing how some people question ethics, compassion and moral, when at the same time, they allow company's to build guns for 5 year old children by the way. And still questioning themselves why the entire world hates the USA... Just wow..

By the way, all the above is just why i vote socialist from a FINANCIAL STANDPOINT. Don't even get me started on the rest...

[Sagittaria]

Exactly then stop mentioning american specifc policies with 14% taxes
You can't just take a statement and use it whenever you like then discard it for the rest

The OP mentioned America specifically. I used an example of a situation that is common everywhere. You're the one discarding context and reality to pretend it's "american specific policies".

Edit: also I was talkling about the original poster which seemed quite clear if u took a sec to think about it

You quoted me. Twice. It seems quite clear you are talking to me if you took a braincell to think about it.

---------- Post added 2013-05-06 at 08:52 PM ----------

Questioning the existance of gravity: idiotic.

Questioning whether gravity is the sole force responsible for the relative motions of planets and other bodies: General Relativity.

General Relativity is a theory of gravitation.