Don’t laws against indecent exposure (including, for example, public masturbation) fall into this category? Do you mean you’ve got no sympathy at all with such laws?
For me:
MOST: Support for school vouchers; opposition to handgun control.
LEAST: Support for the denial of human rights to any category of sapient humans.
Daniel
Most sympathize: pro-choice folks. I absolutely understand what they’re thinking - this is a blob of tissue – I mean, LOOK at it! Close second: death penalty proponents: these crimes are so heinous, the only rational response is to kill the offender.
Don’t agree with either, but I understand the thinking, and my opposition to both views is rooted in a principle I know but cannot objectively prove.
Least sympathize: all those who believe the federal constitution should right all wrongs, regardless of what the text says.
Human society is a wealth distribution scheme – wealth redistribution schemes are just attempts to correct errors in the distribution. Being against wealth distribution schemes implies that the wealth is ALWAYS distributed properly in the first place, a Pollyanna-ish notion at best.
I think this is at my address. 
I don’t advocate capital punishment because I think it’s crueler, but because it answers the need to permanently remove some people from society based on their demonstrated inability to live with others. “Life means Life” sentencing is something I have no trouble hearing, though, my view of the judicial review process that allows such people as an Arthur Shawcross out after being sentenced to life in prison once before makes me skeptical of how doable that might be. I’m disgusted by the death penalty opponents (Specifically, Mario Cuomo as poster child for this position.) who, having lost the fight to keep it completely off the board, start talking about life in prison as being the more punishing alternative - which means, suddenly that, according to their own reasoning, my support for executing criminals is suddenly both a rational position, and the more moral one - since it’s the merciful alternative. :rolleyes:
To respond to a Dead Badger’s comment about how much esteem there is here on the SDMB for people on opposing sides of two of the biggest emotional hot button issues - capital punishment, and abortion: I don’t think you can really expect the SDMB to provide a representative cross section of the public - even here in the pit we usually try for more civility than most of the advocates of any position are willing to spend. Hell, lookit the recent thread about suggestions for posters for an upcoming Phelpsian protest, even there the insults are erudite, and clever rather than crude. Which, of course, is part of why I paid for my subscription to the Dope.
I don’t.
Most Sympathy: Pro-lifers; polite atheists
Least Sympathy: Moral fascists–especially those who use religion to justify their fascism; asshole atheists
Most sympathetic: Gun control opponents. I don’t know why people feel they need them, but restricting their use flies in the face of my old-fashioned liberalism. Plus I know several decent folks who own guns and use them for stuff like hunting. None of them owns assault weapons though – they’re more into rifles with scopes.
Least sympathetic: People who are OK with the 2000 election. Hell, it wasn’t an election, it was an assault on democracy! The Pubbies stopped being “the loyal opposition” and became simply “the opposition” with that one, as they demonstrated they would stop at nothing to win power.
Auuuugh! That isn’t straddling the fence – that is the central pro-choice position. We don’t like abortions, but it ain’t up to us.
–Cliffy
Oh, as to the topic of the thread, please cut and paste Max’s OP for my answer.
–Cliffy
Most
Opposition to abortion after the first trimester. It bothers even myself, a pro-choice advocate. It seems that in the first few months of pregnancy, you need to decide to carry to term or not.
Preservation of the right to own a handgun. Hey, if you want a handgun under your pillow, knock yourself out! Not my cup of tea but if you sleep better, fine by me.
Opposition to affirmative action. I’m in the “fix it, don’t end it camp.” But I can also see the other side: "when will it ever be enough? " and “so Tiger Woods’ kids are going to have an edge on a scholarship on a white coal miner’s son?”
Least
Anti tax zealots. If grownups were in power, we’d figure out what government programs we need and what they would cost. Then figure out the most reasonable way to collect that money. Demanding government services (like an imperialistic war) but refusing to pay for it is immature.
Second Amendment zealots. There has never been a Supreme Court ruling in your favor, and virtually all Circuit Court rulings have been against you. Give it up. Society has the right to put reasonable restrictions on citizen weaponry (no silencers for example). Nobody with any credibility wants to take away your handgun or your hunting rifle.
Prayer in School zealots. Nobody stops your kid from saying prayers at home or at church. Nobody would ever know if your kid said a silent prayer anytime in the school day. Why does your faith depend on a public prayer ceremony in a secular location? And a double dose of unsympathy to those who would consider the Lord’s Prayer to be neutral and acceptable by everybody.
Most:
Abortion: In the case of someone who is talking about her own abortion. I can support the woman without even asking or ever knowing which decision she is going to make. In either case, she is making a decision I will never have to make, and it is going to have long term consequences on her life, whichever way she decides.
War: When an armed enemy is in your native land, killing and destroying your nation. When you have to pick up a gun, and put your life on the line right now, in order that your children will have a nation to live in.
Religion: When you are speaking of your own faith, or belief, whether in God, or Karma, or the absence of all such things.
Sex: When you don’t want any, in my case.
Least:
Abortion: Opinions of Governments. Let’s all work on the absolute responsibility of society for the child to be cared for, fed, educated, and loved after it is born before we allow society to make the judgement on something that most judges and lawyers will never experience.
War: When you aren’t going to fight yourself, whatever your excuse is.
Religion: Your opinion of mine.
Sex: When I already made it clear that I don’t want any.
“You can’t always get what you want.” ~ M. Jagger/K. Richards ~
Most:
-Economic protectionism. While I don’t believe it works, when people start calling for taxes/tariffs to protect domestic jobs, a part of me agree with them.
Least:
-The idea that somehow the insurgents in Iraq are ‘legitimate’, and are simply seeking freedom from ‘oppression’ or ‘occupation’ or whatnot. Crock. Of. Shit.
-The whole ‘If you support the war, you might fight in it’ meme. Utter hypocritical bullshit.
At the risk of hijacking my own thread, can you expand a bit on what you’re talking about here, and why you have so little sympathy for it?
Thanks to Merijeek and Homebrew for explaining my positions. (Homebrew, my mother was half-Indian as well. I am 3/4.)
The only correct way for wealth to be distributed is among volunteers in a context of peace and honesty.
Most:
Pro-Lifers: It’s not a baby yet, but it will be. Their arguments get tiresome, and I can’t understand why they aren’t even more extreme than they are, but I understand the opposition in general.
True “small-l” libertarians/Small-Government advocates: I think some social safety net is needed, as well as government jumpstarting some areas of research and achievement. They think the potential for waste and abuse is too great. Fair enough. We’re in agreement on social issues, which is where my passions lie anyway.
Polite and understanding atheists, and theists of other flavors than mine.
Least:
Second Amendment Fetishists: The thing is, I’m pretty much on their side, practically speaking. I only ask for the barest of coverages against convicted violent felons getting their hands on guns, and laws keeping heavy military ordinance off the street (not the late stupid assault weapons ban, something that made sense). But the “Rambo” and “Rebel” attitude of some of these guys scares me. I don’t want to live in a world where I have to carry a gun to keep safe.
Anti-gay advocates, gay marriage opponents NOT excluded: Hateful bigots, one and all. Some are more polite than others, but that doesn’t really matter.
Those that still believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do: Not those that think we need to finsh the job right, those that, if they found themselves transported back to pre-war 2003, would still support the invasion. I just don’t get it. They were no WMDs, terrorist connections were sketchy at best, and we’re utterly filing to build a better Iraq. What’s to like?
MOST:
Pro-life: I’m pro-choice but I think abortions are generally wrong. However, I don’t think other people should have to follow my personal beliefs.
Reducing government: Any big organization is going to have some inefficiency. I agree in principle that government waste should be reduced but I’ve never seen a rational plan for reducing only waste. I also agree in principle that some government services are unnecessary but most often people who are asking for a reduction are really saying that a particular government service doesn’t benefit them.
LEAST:
Dogmatism: You pick a side and you stand by it - fine. I understand somebody feeling they picked the best person for the job. But everybody’s human. Why do some people feel the need to insist that every politician they voted for is absolutely perfect and has never said or done anything that was the slightest bit wrong. Would admitting your side made even a single mistake cause the entire edifice to fall?
Death Penalty: An issue I’m so divided on, I can’t even declare what my position is with any consistency. There are certainly people who deserve to die and there are certainly cases of appalling miscarriages of justice. In this mess I can’t see how anyone can declare they’re positive that one side is always right.
What, then, of people who are both anti-tax and anti-government-programs?
LEAST - People who are willing to give aid in a crisis, but only if they can denigrate and manipulate the religious beliefs of suffering victims during the most painful and confusing experience of their lives: “So then, your family and friends and everything you’ve ever owned have been swept away in the blink of an eye. Now you’re sick, destitute, and surrounded by those with similar stories. God has been your sole source of comfort throughout this horrible ordeal. That’s pretty harsh! Here, have a tiny sip of this medicine and let me tell you why your God is wrong.”
Anti-Gay-Marriage Dolts - Look, you still haven’t come up with one good, concrete reason that this is even a slightly bad idea, let alone proven that it’s such a horrible concept that it justifies denying rights to homosexuals. And vague appeals to “the sanctity of marriage,” along with confused mumbles about the “moral decay” of the “traditional American family” aren’t going to convince anyone with a functioning brain.
Flag Buring - Hell, it’s a goddamn piece of colored fabric. Burning it doesn’t hurt a soul. Prevent someone from doing so through legislation and you may as well be using his lighter to torch the Bill of Rights. Besides, your red, white, and blue symbol of enduring freedom was probably made by overworked children in Communist China.
One-Issue Voters - And usually that One Issue is abortion. They don’t care if a Pro Life candidate is indifferent to the effects of pollution and to quality- of life-related initiatives in a hundred different arenas - just so long as his position on abortion is correct. I guess the saved babies will just be happy they’re alive and not care so much about the polluted wasteland you’ve left for them.
Drug Warriors - Maybe if a small army kicked down their doors in the middle of the night while yelling and pointing high-powered firearms at them, then tossed them in prison to get beaten and brutally raped for a few years - just because they happen to enjoy drinking beer - well, maybe then they’d understand. Then again, maybe not…
MOST - Good Christians: The ones who actually try to follow Jesus’ teachings. The ones who really do turn the other cheek. The ones who sometimes get beaten down by association in intellectual circles due to the actions and opinions of other Christians. The ones to whom “WWJD” is less of a cheap bracelet, and more of a way of life.
Abortion - Like others in this thread, I understand that it’s a difficult issue and respect the opinions of Pro-Lifers.
I don’t really want to get into a hijack, but I disagree. I’ve had enough arguments with pro-choice people who seem to think that the foetus is valueless until birth that I don’t really feel comfortable describing myself as pro-choice without qualification. That said, I do realise that a great number of pro-choice people feel as you (and I) do. Perhaps fence-sitting is the wrong term; what I want to say when asked if I’m pro-choice or pro-life is “both”.
Most:
Non-fundamental theists of any stripe: I personally don’t think there is a God, but, well I could very easily be wrong.
pro-lifers: it’s been said in this thread.
Least:
Christians who act victemized by secularization: I’m sorry, but not allowing the government to evangelize, isn’t an attack, it’s protection for those who don’t want to be evangelized to (or don’t want their children evangelized to).
anti-gay marriage: as far as I can see, allowing Gay marriage will hurt no one, and will help the gay community greatly. I mean, the best argument I heard against it was that common law marriage law would have to change, but well…Oh No!
My Dad, a university cop, has a philosophy about this that (IIRC) he’s told to a couple of people who were getting in his face about their flag burning. That, since the flag represents a country that gives you the freedom of political expression, you actually honor the flag by destroying it.
Heh. 
Anyway…
•Least
Anti-Gun people who seem so completely ignorant about the things they’d like to ban. (Like the people who defined assaults weapons as “having a pistol grip, and a bayonnet lug”; or who wanted to ban .50 sniper rifles. Stuff like that.)
Probably more. I’ll think on it.