I feel that, while it can be said that a lot of Liberals usually use modern science in their thinking, they still misinterpret it to their end. Their point is not to use the science for its sake, but to use it to get votes and earn power.
Any political group isn't particularly interested in giving you the full story when it comes to non-political things, or even political things for that matter. Liberals may have less idiotic things they support, relying on their way of thinking as a basis is bad.
My overall idea is that you should come up with ideas on your own, and interpret the world around you as it makes sense to you.
I feel that, while it can be said that a lot of Liberals usually use modern science in their thinking, they still misinterpret it to their end. Their point is not to use the science for its sake, but to use it to get votes and earn power.
You're conflating politicians with voters.
Anyway, I consider myself an independent. That said, I tend to side with Leftists far more often than others. Just about the only high profile issue I disagree with most Liberals on is gun control.
I don't get my news from a few trusted friends, I trust my friends to interpret the news. I'm the only one who actually follows any of it (high school's a bitch). My actual news comes from the AP and C-SPAN (as mentioned before), but mostly govtrack.us for policy and gallup for politics. And I watch the Daily Show, but the only things I actually learn from there is what people are saying on network television, which I don't particularly care for because I believe people aren't controlled by television.
NPR is good, but they don't actually cover the news very much. It's a lot more arts and lifestyle sort of stuff. BBC and Al Jazeera are probably the best names in journalism. I poked at Mother Earth News, and it looks like a fine magazine, but not an actual news source. The news aggregators is where you're in danger. I subscribe to /r/politics because I need a daily dose of idiot liberals to remind me that both sides polarize each other. People up-vote stories that help their viewpoint, and if everyone has generally the same viewpoint then the other side doesn't get a voice.
Let's take for example the Paul Ryan budget. Everyone became infuriated over "attacks on the lower class" and "devastating cuts to social security." I didn't trust these and instead read the budget directly (which isn't actually hard, just a little intimidating) and saw that these weren't accurate and people were fighting over an insignificant amount of the budget.
Anyway, I consider myself an independent. That said, I tend to side with Leftists far more often than others. Just about the only high profile issue I disagree with most Liberals on is gun control.
Gun ownership isn't a right. I don't care if you own guns because the data doesn't support gun control counteracting violence, but it's not a right.
If you think that /r/politics is dominated by Liberals, you either don't read it very often or extensively, or you have some major confirmation bias going on. While it's true that left-leaning headlines tend to dominate, the comment section is a very different story.
Anyway, I consider myself an independent. That said, I tend to side with Leftists far more often than others. Just about the only high profile issue I disagree with most Liberals on is gun control.
Gun ownership isn't a right. I don't care if you own guns because the data doesn't support gun control counteracting violence, but it's not a right.
Sorry, I think anything not specifically denied by law IS a right, and a few things that ARE denied by law SHOULD be rights.
If the government can arm itself to unreasonable heights, so should the people be able to. A flaccid, unarmed, afraid populace is not good for a democracy.
If you think that /r/politics is dominated by Liberals, you either don't read it very often or extensively, or you have some major confirmation bias going on. While it's true that left-leaning headlines tend to dominate, the comment section is a very different story.
In my experience, any argument on reddit is going to be %70 logical fallacies, regardless of topic.
Sorry, I think anything not specifically denied by law IS a right, and a few things that ARE denied by law SHOULD be rights.
If the government can arm itself to unreasonable heights, so should the people be able to. A flaccid, unarmed, afraid populace is not good for a democracy.
I haven't heard that before. I'm taking a mental note that that opinion exists because I think it's interesting.
Anyway, I consider myself an independent. That said, I tend to side with Leftists far more often than others. Just about the only high profile issue I disagree with most Liberals on is gun control.
Gun ownership isn't a right. I don't care if you own guns because the data doesn't support gun control counteracting violence, but it's not a right.
The constitution has been interpreted to mean that gun ownership is a right, though a right that can in certain circumstances be limited (much like free speech).
Guns are extremely limited here in New York, with good cause. I couldn't care less about gun ownership in other places (other than that background checks and waiting periods make a lot of sense and I'd rather they be in place everywhere).
In my experience, any argument on reddit is going to be %70 logical fallacies, regardless of topic.
That doesn't invalidate or devalue the remainder, that isn't. Reddit's problem is that it's becoming too popular for its own good, from a quality and standards perspective. Behold, the effects of democratic voting!! ;-)
If the government can arm itself to unreasonable heights, so should the people be able to. A flaccid, unarmed, afraid populace is not good for a democracy.
I'm sorry, but that's a stupid argument. No arms a populace could reasonably bring to bear could possibly couterweigh the might of the US military. This is literally no way that any reasonable level of weapon possession could ever actually matter in a situation like the one you're implying.
In the Constitution it explicitly states that the right is granted to the states, not individuals.
The Constitution is subject to interpretation. Your literal analysis doesn't outweigh court precedent, no matter how hard you wish for it to be true. ;-)
If the government can arm itself to unreasonable heights, so should the people be able to. A flaccid, unarmed, afraid populace is not good for a democracy.
I'm sorry, but that's a stupid argument. No arms a populace could reasonably bring to bear could possibly couterweigh the might of the US military. This is literally no way that any reasonable level of weapon possession could ever actually matter in a situation like the one you're implying.
It's more about cultural norms and the role and assertiveness of the citizenry than whether a guy with a glock can outshoot a tank.
It's more about cultural norms and the role and assertiveness of the citizenry than whether a guy with a glock can outshoot a tank.
New Yorkers don't have guns, and other weapons are extremely limited. Despite this, they are far from passive, both personally and politically.
So far, and for other reasons.
The issue of gun ownership is one of whether rights should be taken away from people because a vocal minority has a bordering-on-religious belief that it should be. It's in the same camp as abortion in that sense. Citizens should fight tooth and nail over every single right they've got. There's no good reason that responsible, licensed, gun ownership should not be allowed. Getting in the habit of allowing our rights to be stripped on the strength of campaigning and propaganda is the reason my kids get searched at the airport on the way to Disney World now.
If the government can arm itself to unreasonable heights, so should the people be able to. A flaccid, unarmed, afraid populace is not good for a democracy.
I'm sorry, but that's a stupid argument. No arms a populace could reasonably bring to bear could possibly couterweigh the might of the US military. This is literally no way that any reasonable level of weapon possession could ever actually matter in a situation like the one you're implying.
I'd also like to say that yes, it's great that we live in a country where we really don't need to be an armed populace. However, there's a whole lot of Syrians who wished they were as well armed as we are right before they were killed by gov't sponsored hit squads.
In the event of military occupation, which is unlikely to the point of being laughable here. Even then, they make do and are effective mostly with long guns and self-assembled weapons, both of which I could get pretty easily and legally anyway.
In the US, for the foreseeable future, no amount of "citizen armament" would have any impact on government or policy, and any level enough to cause a real issue is already banned (e.g., RPGs, tanks, etc...).
Liberal stances correlate pretty closely with reality. That's your problem there, Greg.
That depends. Liberal stances on things that can be objectively and quantitatively measured and analyzed do tend to correlate with reality. However, when you get into more philosophical and emotional debates, well, things get more complicated. For example, looking at the Israeli-Palestine conflict, both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have equally valid concerns despite looking at the issues from opposite sides.
Liberal stances correlate pretty closely with reality. That's your problem there, Greg.
That depends. Liberal stances on things that can be objectively and quantitatively measured and analyzed do tend to correlate with reality. However, when you get into more philosophical and emotional debates, well, things get more complicated. For example, looking at the Israeli-Palestine conflict, both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have equally valid concerns despite looking at the issues from opposite sides.
And there are others that don't - you'll find that Liberal supporters tend to be strongly against nuclear power far more commonly than Republicans, for example.
Comments
EDIT: Ninja'd by you not dodging my question.
Any political group isn't particularly interested in giving you the full story when it comes to non-political things, or even political things for that matter. Liberals may have less idiotic things they support, relying on their way of thinking as a basis is bad.
My overall idea is that you should come up with ideas on your own, and interpret the world around you as it makes sense to you.
Anyway, I consider myself an independent. That said, I tend to side with Leftists far more often than others. Just about the only high profile issue I disagree with most Liberals on is gun control.
NPR is good, but they don't actually cover the news very much. It's a lot more arts and lifestyle sort of stuff. BBC and Al Jazeera are probably the best names in journalism. I poked at Mother Earth News, and it looks like a fine magazine, but not an actual news source. The news aggregators is where you're in danger. I subscribe to /r/politics because I need a daily dose of idiot liberals to remind me that both sides polarize each other. People up-vote stories that help their viewpoint, and if everyone has generally the same viewpoint then the other side doesn't get a voice.
Let's take for example the Paul Ryan budget. Everyone became infuriated over "attacks on the lower class" and "devastating cuts to social security." I didn't trust these and instead read the budget directly (which isn't actually hard, just a little intimidating) and saw that these weren't accurate and people were fighting over an insignificant amount of the budget.
If the government can arm itself to unreasonable heights, so should the people be able to. A flaccid, unarmed, afraid populace is not good for a democracy.
Guns are extremely limited here in New York, with good cause. I couldn't care less about gun ownership in other places (other than that background checks and waiting periods make a lot of sense and I'd rather they be in place everywhere).
The issue of gun ownership is one of whether rights should be taken away from people because a vocal minority has a bordering-on-religious belief that it should be. It's in the same camp as abortion in that sense. Citizens should fight tooth and nail over every single right they've got. There's no good reason that responsible, licensed, gun ownership should not be allowed. Getting in the habit of allowing our rights to be stripped on the strength of campaigning and propaganda is the reason my kids get searched at the airport on the way to Disney World now.
EDIT: x2 Ninja.
Not to mention I read not too long ago that "regulated" might have been considered a synonym for "supplied" at the time of writing.
In the US, for the foreseeable future, no amount of "citizen armament" would have any impact on government or policy, and any level enough to cause a real issue is already banned (e.g., RPGs, tanks, etc...).