#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Why are most Liberals against Conservatives?
| Add New Argument |
|
Sure, I can agree on that. Liberals over here don't want complete anarchy either, never did. Only Anarchists want anarchy. The European liberals do support freedom of speech, and want it to stay. They support Individualism and values it more than collectivism. They also support patriotism and some nationalism, though they also see that their country has problems, thus try to fix it. Individualism over collectivism is only the social view of the liberals, NOT the economic view. Socially, collectivist mentality is that of Conservatives (that fundamentally everyone is the same if they are of the same gender and race and those who are outliers are mentally ill and should be deemed 'wrong'). If you refer to economic individualism as opposed to economic collectivism then you are not referring to the liberal outlook and DEFINITELY not the European liberal outlook. While liberals are rarely full communists/socialists and agree competition matters to keep society improving in many ways, it doesn't mean they entirely oppose economic collectivism just not 'everyone earns the same' as a 'rule' as such. Ultimately most liberals also agree that there is such a thing as a 'true burden' since being human shouldn't entitle one to simply be protected by an unquestionable, irremovable safety net. Nonetheless, liberals of the variety I prescribe to believe that our duty is to motivate and help (by means) to get the non-contributing to want to and be able to contribute as best they can. The concepts of patriotism and nationalism are not the liberal outlook. This is fundamentally divisive and most conservatives go further and turn it into Jingoism (national supremacy). This is a toxic mentality to the world and over time, if liberals win over time, the world will be one nation. Nations that have problems/issues need those issues solved. The solution is rarely the one the conservatives offer in the long term. I forgot to say they were mostly pro-capitalism in economic terms. I forgot to mention that, and that's on me. Also, I thought it was the Leftists who believed in collectivism, while Conservatives and Liberals believed in Individualism. Conservatives don't like collectivism, but support family over individuals. I did not refer to economic individualism, I didn't even know there was such a thing before you mentioned it. I haven't read into economic politics as much as you probably have so I am of course not as knowledgeable on that. If the world will be one nation, wouldn't that be globalization? Not every Liberal is for globalization like you. Patriotism and Nationalism is probably not the Liberal outlook in the US, however it is in Europe. Though there are people who don't support those in Europe too, just not as much as the Modern American Liberals. Nations that do have problems either do try to fix them, or don't know how to take care of them. Modern American Conservatives are different from European Conservatives, so they have some different solutions, just like Modern American Liberals have different solutions from European Liberals. You are stating actual lies about the progressive movement in Europe. It was the Liberals who are pro-remain and conservatives who were pro-Brexit. You have a LOT to learn about European politics EVEN IN YOUR BELOVED NORWAY, what you say is lies. This isn't a matter any longer of debating the thinking based on agreed information, this is you giving misinformation and then applying correct thinking to reach the wrong conclusion. I will now quote your lies and write the truth under each one. You are thinking soundly, you are just incorrect and if not lying you are a victim to liars and spreading their words and representing a malicious agenda against your will. "I forgot to say they were mostly pro-capitalism in economic terms. I forgot to mention that, and that's on me." Liberals are not MOSTLY PRO CAPITALISM they are MOSTLY PRO SOCIALISM. ESPECIALLY THOSE OF EUROPE "Also, I thought it was the Leftists who believed in collectivism, while Conservatives and Liberals believed in Individualism." Liberals believe in social individualism and 'leftists' are HUGELY MAJORITY 'liberal' so???? You want to use right-wing libertarian movement which is so tiny and tiny because it contradicts itself in its value system economically and socially?! *"If the world will be one nation, wouldn't that be globalisation? Not every Liberal is for globalisation like you. Patriotism and Nationalism is probably not the Liberal outlook in the US, however it is in Europe. Though there are people who don't support those in Europe too, just not as much as the Modern American Liberals."Globalisation is liberal, it is quintessentially conservative to be divisive in one's vision of utopia. Pro Remain in UK? Liberals. Pro-Brexit? Conservatives. Pro 'increasing the meaning of borders'? Fundamentally Trump view and fundamentally UKIP view in UK and fundamentally conservative view in the right-wing parties in Netherlands and Italy even to date those parties are running with that as a lowkey suggestion. "Nations that do have problems either do try to fix them, or don't know how to take care of them." The former being the left-wing, liberal nations of western Europe, Australia, Canada and other nations approaching such an outcome. The latter being anything but. I could not get the last word and rub it in the face of a person who resorts to sock-puppeting. It's completely countered by their form of rebelliousness which is similar to yours in vulgarity usually but better at overcoming discipline albeit in a disgustingly juvenile manner. I could not get the last word and rub it in the face of a person who resorts to sock-puppeting That’s something I don’t do , I am who I say I am unlike you who’s too cowardly to use his real identity It's completely countered by their form of rebelliousness which is similar to yours in vulgarity usually but better at overcoming discipline albeit in a disgustingly juvenile manner. A typical finger wagging piece of drivel from you as anticipated, you’re such a predictable idiot ....... Now toddle off and continue your inane bleatings elsewhere Saying that I’m lying does not change the fact that you’re conflating Liberty and Anarchy, or that anarchy is detrimental to Liberty. In your next post, attempt to mention the substance of the post, it will be the first step toward actually addressing what you are responding to. Thank you for addressing the substance. Anarchy is unfettered, pure and undiluted liberty. No it isn’t. Anarchy is the lack of governmental or order, which is a very important difference. https://www.merriam-webster.com/ The liberty to prevent liberty without any legal restraints is... Liberty. The Liberty to prevent Liberty without restraint (anarchy) merely assures the prevention of Liberty, as I said. Anarchy creates the conditions in which thousands of small tyrants thrive. Consider the example of anarchic Somalia. Compare the condition of Liberty there to the condition of Liberty in any modern western nation. Anarchy is the opposite of Liberty. Left Wing Liberals, unlike the right-wing variety, understand that diluted freedom is optimal. Right wing liberals understand that a government aimed at diluting freedoms, rather than protecting them, will always grow in its capacity to do so. Anarchy originated as a Leftist movement. It’s founders were contemporaries of Marx. 1
point
No it isn’t. Anarchy is the lack of governmental or order, which is a very important difference. Demonstrably false. Your definition depends upon "government or order" predating the condition of anarchy, but of course the precise opposite is true. Anarchy is the natural, default state and government came much later in the history of civilisation. Therefore, to define anarchy as the lack of something which did not even exist when it was the accepted social order is sophistry at its very ugliest. 2
points
Anarchy is the natural, default state and government came much later in the history of civilisation. Therefore, to define anarchy as the lack of something which did not even exist when it was the accepted social order is sophistry at its very ugliest. But Anarchy IS the lack of something that didn't exist yet. Just because it didn't exist yet doesn't mean you can't lack it, in fact you inherently lack it as it doesn't exist yet you raging simpleton. 1
point
But Anarchy IS the lack of something that didn't exist yet. Oh Jesus, shut up you moron. Is gravity the lack of anti-gravity? Is a plane the lack of a teleportation machine? You can't put effect before cause and expect to be taken seriously by anybody with half an iota of intellect. 1
point
You can't put effect before cause and expect to be taken seriously by anybody with half an iota of intellect. Sure, good thing that's not what I'm doing. I will try to make this as simple as possible for your puny cerebral, Anarchic societies lack governments and governments didn't exist before governments not existing existed therefor Anarchy lacks something that used to not exist. Get it? Demonstrably false. Demonstrably true dumb shit. You’ll notice how I domonstrated it’s truth not only with a dictionary definition, but with a real world example. Your definition depends upon "government or order" predating the condition of anarchy First, it’s not my definition, it’s Webster’s and any other legit dictionary’s definition. Second, Anarchy is an absence of government. This does not in any way imply that government preceded anarchy. I would expect a journalist to have better reading comprehension. Therefore, to define anarchy as the lack of something which did not even exist Does the definition of Atheist assume the existence of God prior to God’s non-existence? sophistry at its very ugliest. Funny you should mention it ugly. Democrats try to be fascist while claiming to be liberal. Simple logic on this is that if you support Islam, which hates Jews , gays, and sees women as secondary citizens, you are pro fascism, which makesyou a fascist. And then you look at Republicans and they actually reject Islam, which is fascist, and choose gay and women's rights over Islamic rights. Who ismore liberal gain? Repubicans are. |
