Well, also, you don’t necessarily find a lot of conservatives hand-wringing about world hunger, and food shortages. This is something you hear from liberals a lot. GMOs will alleviate world hunger, so by being against them, liberals shoot one of their pet causes in the foot. And the irony totally fails them.
GMOs would stop, or at least slow things like deforestation as well, another thing that tends to be a liberal cause.
Well, there’s PETA for the ultra-left, but both sides of the fence hate them.
Food fads like quinoa that have unintended consequences.
^^^
Deforestation is a cause, but it’s certainly not a stupid one.
The biggest one I come across relates to business. Basically, all corporations are evil, rich people are evil, etc.
It is, in social matters (let us not confuse diversity with other meanings… like, for example, devision)
It is not, thought, in mass production. A totally different field.
It is, until proven otherwise. You can have my plate.
They are. They have to be. In “a dog eat dog” situation you can’t afford to play “nice”.
Those that play “nice”, get quickly eaten, and what is left are these really, really, evil dogs.
(I assume you are referring to capitalist corporation)
It does.
If you have a small business, lets say in America, try selling your goods in Europe.
No way!
With the profit you will be making, by selling these few boxes of your few goods,
you will not be able to pay even the rent of your small office in Europe.
Let alone get yourself involved in some kind of trade war.
You will go bankrupt in no time.
The so called “Free” trade is only for big players.
Who, in their turn, will start to eliminate the small players one by one.
It crashes the weak and the small, and it strengthens the strong and the big.
And it is anything but “free”.
Inevitably, the so called “free” trade leads to monopoly, the opposite of freedom.
And monopolies have no issue taking advantage of anyone, including the poor.
===============================================
Many liberals believe that…
you can fight fascism with discussions, flowers and songs!
there is good capitalism and there is bad capitalism!
one day we can all live as one. Humanity can become a big happy family!
mankind is not part of nature. Mankind is the enemy of nature!
if we abandon technology, life will get better!
The OP was about which are more likely to be held by liberals, not which are held by a majority of liberals, though finding ones that a majority of liberals hold would be good. Ones where major politicians also hold them would be great.
PETA may be a bunch of jerks who traffic in incorrect information, but their core message is that you should treat animals well, which is not a factual statement and can’t really be objectively wrong.
While the popularity of quinoa may have problems for the people who use to live off of it, it is not like there is a some delusional belief about it.
That is exactly the kind of belief I am getting at. There is little reason to believe there is a problem other than fear of technology, yet people still think they are dangerous.
Yeah, these aren’t really doing it for me.
I didn’t say it was. World huger is not a stupid cause either. But if you support those causes, and are also against GMO, it’s a contradiction, that’s all I’m saying.
And not what I said at all. I said “food fads like quinoa”. Folks on the left seem to go in for the latest whole food craze, whether or not there is anything supporting its use. Acai berries, et al. If you believe it’s good for you without any supporting evidence, then yes, it’s delusional.
RivkahChaya: ah, I see what you were getting at.
[quote=“phouka, post:7, topic:690210”]
Then maybe one of them could run for office.
Gah! This is pet peeve of mine. I always ask people to watch Penn and Teller’s Bullshit episode for this. They (not Penn and Teller) think GMOs are bad, pesticides are bad, modern farming techniques are bad AND that the ‘organic’ foods taste better or are somehow of higher quality.
My girlfriend is like this. Personally, I think she just likes the stuff that is more expensive because if it costs more, it must be better.
Typo, going broke, quickly.
I’d rather be cautious.
When an new drugs is invented, you have to test it to see if it is dangerous, or what implications it might cause.
When you design a new braking system for cars (let’s call it ABS), you don’t go…
“Will sell it to the people. See how many crashes and deaths have because of this new system. Investigate. Make improvements…”
Food and living creatures are not computer software… debugging it after it’s been released…
There are mushrooms growing in my yard… have no idea what they are… they sure look tasty… should I? … no, thank you.
Just how long do you need?
Having your kid play competitive sports, especially football, is evil. Why? Football teaches violence, excludes women (except cheerleaders), and until recently was kind of homophobic.
The only acceptable sport is soccer and thats because Europeans play it and anything Europeans do is great.
And why do liberals hate the Boy Scouts so much? I’ve seen them labeled as “right wing hate groups” by lefties and they do everything to stop recruiting, keep them out of parks, and just do everything to slam and undermine them. Really, what the hell is their problem?
I’ve always said if they dont like the Boy Scouts, then dont join. Or better yet, start your own group. Its funny that the only serious attempt is a group called Spiral Scouts.
My problem with Boy Scouts is that my atheist son isn’t welcome. Its getting better, but its been a very discriminatory organization. I wouldn’t call them a hate group though - at the same time, I don’t tend to buy too much popcorn from an organization that wouldn’t take my kid (Navigators, Campfire, Scouting for All, and the YMCA all have similar opportunities for boys - my son went to a Y camp for a few years and was very welcome - despite it being formerly known as the Young Men’s Christian Association, they are inclusive.)
(And he’s never played soccer - well, one or two years when he was little. Baseball is his sport. No football - mostly because football has always been a “commitment” sport - not as bad as hockey though. I know lots of liberals who have hockey playing sons - and daughters - if you want violent).
It’s because very recently, the Boy Scouts have practically been taken over by the Mormon Church, and the Scouts have very homophobic policies regarding gay scoutmasters, and gay scouts themselves. They have also excluded boys who are openly atheist.
This doesn’t mean that there may be individual troops where they have bucked the system, and have a gay or atheist scoutmaster, but you can bet they hope no one tells headquarters.
Liberal views on capitalism drive me nuts, and I say this as a liberal. The idea that capitalism is an evil system that screws people is just plain wacky in the face of the evidence. Capitalism, as a system, has done more than any other force in history to raise people out of poverty and increase the standard of living of the masses.
In regards to censoring books, it is definitely true on the defensive front of the publishers but sometimes even retroactive for books that were popular and innocent.
Try to buy a Little Black Sambo book sometime. They are very rare because they were pulled from the shelves decades ago and destroyed because people claimed that they were disparaging to African Americans for some ill-informed reason. Sambo wasn’t a black African, he was Indian. Tigers don’t live in Africa and anyone with any general knowledge should know that. Furthermore, there is nothing in the stories that are disparaging to any particular group. It is just a cute children’s fairy tale that was written by an English woman (Helen Bannerman) that lived in India. Sambo was never portrayed as anything less than clever yet the books had to go because an ignorant group of early group of politically correct people assumed that the books were making fun of American blacks even though there is no association at all.
Also, try to find a copy of Disney’s Song of the South. I saw that movie as a child but good luck finding it today. It is forbidden officially. I can almost see the point that it wasn’t an accurate portrayal of antebellum slave life but it is still a good movie and a valuable historical piece (two on top of another; early Disney and 1940’s Southern Revisionist history) but you have to go through a lot of work to view it today. I am not sure what people are scared of today but you will certainly get bad comments if you say you would like to view it for yourself.
Those are just two of many examples. I can give you many more if you want to be here for a few days. Certain socially liberal sects use censorship as a tool at least as much as ultraconservative ones. I wouldn’t say that is a general trait for any mainstream liberals or conservatives in the U.S. It occurs mainly at the fringes but I don’t know of any conservative organizations that have been as successful at censoring once popular works on a large scale as a few liberal ones.
Liberals seem to assume that people are basically good. Personally, I don’t believe that. I do believe that people can be good given the right conditions; conditions that are more possible under Liberalism than Conservatism.
They are more tolerant and compassionate than non-liberals.
That is false on an individual scale as well as an abstract one. If you need someone to save your life and possibly even sacrifice their own life for yours, you need a military member, a firefighter or clergy from a non-corrupt organization (all of those groups tend to be heavily conservative just like people in my life-saving job are; you just get stuff done and don’t care who you offend in the process; lives are at stake). Meanwhile, liberals will be carrying signs in the streets asking for reforms on fire alarms or gun control.
Both tactics have their place but it is patently false to say that social conservatives (and I am not one at all) don’t care about individual people and won’t go to great measures to help them. That is a big part of the divide. Conservatives tend to think that individual people should help other people directly while liberals tend to think that government should handle it and the best that they can do is to lobby for government reforms.
All of this is a gross generalization but I believe it is generally true. If I am ever in a life threatening situation for me or my family, I want a conservative person to be there rather than a liberal that wants to lobby for societal reforms after the damage is done.
I had a huge revelation last night when I woke up from a dream. I realized that like almost all people of all different races, both sexes, all sexual orientations and people from all socioeconomic backgrounds. I have lived, worked with and loved them and do so to this day. I have no prejudices with one exception.
I really and truly hate white, entitled, social liberals that try to enforce their own ill-informed values and distorted values on others. They rub me like a pair of sandpaper underwear. That is my one, true prejudice. I love everyone else from flaming drag queens to my many black and Hispanic friends but the aforementioned group just sets me on edge. When I say something against political correctness, it has nothing to do with anyone you imagine you are protecting, it is about you only if you fall into that category.
The irony is that that they think I am opposed to their general causes. That isn’t the case at all. I just don’t like their approach and don’t share the same general viewpoint as they do so that is a mortal sin in their view.
My general view is just to take people as they are and treat them nicely. Labeling in any form is the exact opposite of general assimilation. I don’t care how you sub-categorize yourself. Everyone has their own categories on a personal level and such subdivisions aren’t that important.