So how do you guys identify politically/philosophically?

[Soviet Gregor]

Oh hey, first post of 2013

I identify as a socialist. I am agnostic, I guess. I would need to be questioned to really get in depth about my political/philosophical beliefs.

Waiting for the buzzword reactions.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Pahn

[Rehab]

I mean, dancing in the streets when bad stuff happens to Americans is bad.

I think I saw newspaper clippings of a story that showed way back when 9/11 actually happened, there was a public outpouring of sympathetic displays, sort of antiprotests in Iran, as it happened.

Shit's complicated, I think.

[Life]

We're also told to have unity with other monotheists. ;__;

Doesn't the Koran refer to us Jews (and Christians) as "People of the book"?

With regards to Jewish politics/philosophy, it's really simple. We like you if you won't try to kill us.

[Excellen Browning]

Doesn't the Koran refer to us Jews (and Christians) as "People of the book"?

With regards to Jewish politics/philosophy, it's really simple. We like you if you won't try to kill us.

It does but as always it's kind of schizophrenic and at several points it tells you not to make friends with Jews and Christians because they will betray you etc etc etc. And then at other points it tells you that men of the book are perfectly normal people, and there's all the stuff that's in between. Probably the biggest point here is that muslim theology doesn't stand in the way of peace between jews and muslims if it wants to.

Also isn't Israelian government quite zionistic? How are you guys gonna make a peace that's acceptable to both sides of the conflict if at least one side thinks the other is filled with barbarians trying their hardest to kill them, wants to annex their lands for themselves, and of which certain parts think it's a great idea to get rid of the arabs in Israel, because they are forming a majority?

[PresidentEden]

While I tend to favor the Palestinian over the Israeli cause in that conflict, it would be in error to assign all of the blame for difficulty in establishing a lasting peace to Israel. I'm of the position that Israel should never have been created in the manner it happened, but that now that it is here and its removal would involve the same degree of unethical upheaval that a one-state solution favoring Israel would involve, there must be a valid 2-state solution. There are significant and appreciable elements within the Palestinians that demand the complete expulsion of the Israelis from the area that have contributed to the difficulty in creating a peace.

On another point in the thread I saw a lot of people identify as socialist, with one in particular claiming that his views are "scientific." I meant to ask about it earlier and it may be too late to revisit that, but how does one derive the "scientific" conclusion that socialism is best?

[Life]

Also isn't Israelian government quite zionistic? How are you guys gonna make a peace that's acceptable to both sides of the conflict if at least one side thinks the other is filled with barbarians trying their hardest to kill them, wants to annex their lands for themselves, and of which certain parts think it's a great idea to get rid of the arabs in Israel, because they are forming a majority?

Need to correct you a bit. We don't think that they're trying to kill us. I have seen Palistinians attempt to smuggle bombs over the West Bank border with my own two eyes. We know that they want us dead (and I'm not talking only about the soldiers).

In the past, I'd argue without end about how the world has this misguided perception that they understand the conflict here but I've given up. Now, I just point to the movie Rock The Casbah and say "that". No matter what side of the argument you're on, watching that movie leaves you with the idea that you have to be wrong.... because it's neither pro-Israel or anti-Israel. It just shows the actual reality of the soldiers there.

Look, an Israeli soldier is neither a hero nor evil. They're just necessary. They're kids that just want to be at home rather than a shit little border base for 28/3. That"s the truth of the situation.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Tricky Dick

[Keiya]

Who? Me? Oh, I think I belong to the "Let's Get Things Done" school of thought. As in, the "you can argue all you want all day, all night about ideology and how certain programs and certain departments offend you, but unless you got an objectively better solution to the problem, you better help me pass this bill to help Iraq War veterans get the aid they need before they actually die of lack of aid". There are real solutions to real problems out there, and because society is an imperfect creation, we should strive for real, if imperfect solutions.

@PresidentEden: there's equal scientific and philosophical reasons you can argue for a more "socialist" or a more "libertarian" society, depending on how you interpret current data. However, because this is an imperfect world, you cannot apply ideologies that need ultimately perfect situations to function properly.

[Nightmare]

Doesn't the Koran refer to us Jews (and Christians) as "People of the book"?

It does.

It does but as always it's kind of schizophrenic and at several points it tells you not to make friends with Jews and Christians because they will betray you etc etc etc.

What? Where are you getting this from?

Edited March 23, 2013 by Nightmare

[PresidentEden]

there's equal scientific and philosophical reasons you can argue for a more "socialist" or a more "libertarian" society, depending on how you interpret current data

Do you mind elaborating here? (Agreed with the second sentence about applicability btw.)

[Keiya]

Do you mind elaborating here? (Agreed with the second sentence about applicability btw.)

I think "philosophical reasons to argue for political positions" is kind of redundant, because liberalism and conservatism are exactly that: philosophies. So let's talk about scientific data.

You can use observed, scientific data in order to show that policies pushed by either liberals or conservatives as wrong. You can easily argue for more construction spending (as the Society of American Engineers did), citing that US infrastructure is due for an upgrade because roads, bridges and public convention centers are aging and being run down in certain parts of the country. At the same time, you can argue that our infrastructure is doing better because we have smoother and better roads than the majority of countries out there, and there's no real need to call for the $3 trillion spending over a number of years by the SAME, especially since that's what Japan did with overspending on their railroads, and that's why they have such a massive deficit right now.

Personally, I believe that both ideologies present great solutions; it's up to us to determine which policy will work best, given our situation.

[PresidentEden]

You can use observed, scientific data in order to show that policies pushed by either liberals or conservatives as wrong.

I'm not really following how. You can use positive analysis of data to answer positive questions, but data doesn't answer normative questions like whether a policy is "right" or "wrong." I understand that one can conduct one's own normative analysis to determine as much, but the specific claim made by at least one (and I think multiple) people was that their "scientific" analysis of the issues had led them to embrace socialism. As one who believes the economic theory underpinning socialism to be fundamentally dysfunctional (to say nothing of its oft-maligned practical implementation), I'm naturally rather curious as to what clear, objective analysis I've been missing....

[Keiya]

Well, two things: Pragmatically/scientifically speaking, you can address the negative results/effects of implementing such a policy, and can judge whether it is "right" or "wrong", or, maybe, to use a better phrase, "effective" or "ineffective", based on whether that policy will do more ill than good on society. Philosophically speaking, you agree and think a policy is "right" or "wrong" based on how said policy resonates with your own set of beliefs, principles, and ideals. Combining those two will form your view on whether a policy, ideology, or political party fits with you or not. For them, it seems, the solutions put forward by that particular ideology resonates with their idea of what is ideal.

The other thing, and what I believe is more dangerous, is the absolutist and mistaken approach by people not well-versed in policymaking to have one ideology or policy solve everything, or solve nothing at all (related to the old fallacy that if a policy or bill can't solve everything, then it's not worth passing or implementing). Perhaps they saw some more liberal or socialist-leaning (I don't know how far of the spectrum they are, exactly) solution to a problem, or two, and have decided, "well, there we go... we better implement this and get rid of our current system." I'd ask if they would also embrace all the bad that comes with implementing such a system, much like I ask progressives if they want health care rationing, and pretty much all the things that happened in the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War Era should they fully implement socialism, or much like I'd ask libertarians if they want to transform the States into that crazy underwater world from Bioshock if they remove the government overnight.

As an aside, the problem with socialism as the world knows it is that Karl Marx has forgotten that people are selfish, and they continue to be selfish to this day. It's both a virtue and a vice: human selfishness fuels competition, and it's what capitalism is built on: an endless cycle of people trying to one-up one another. What "socialist" governments have tried to do was to eliminate selfishness artificially, not even recognizing that the leaders are indeed selfish themselves (need proof? go ask Kim Jong-Un about cognac and Mercedes-Benz cars). The end result is as President Eden says: fundamentally dysfunctional economies due to "maligned practical implementation".

Edited March 24, 2013 by Keiya