Thread: Why is dreamviews more liberal than society at large?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I think there's some wisdom in what you say, but I'm not quite sure I follow. And I don't believe conservatives are really immoral so much as that their morality just doesn't extend outside of their own group. Extreme conservatives are often racists and see nothing wrong with it.

Also, Rand promoted selfishness. I remember one example she used - she said if you take one excellent worker and force him to work with a noob (not the word she used, but same thing) then all it does is hurt the good worker while lifting up the noob, so it isn't 'fair'. This is only true if each person is looking out for their own reputation. Short term yes, the good worker will not be able to function at his best, and his output will suffer, but long term he;ll be teaching the new employee skills and attitudes he needs to become a better worker and overall the entire company will benefit by his sacrifice.

I used to feel this way when I was working at a restaurant - I was a kickass worker and used to get mad when I had to work with a slacker. It slowed me down and I ended up having to pull more than my fair share of the load. But when I became a manager I learned to see the big picture, and its not about individual pride so much as putting people where they can do the most good. So I'd say liberal is big picture thinking, while conservative is small picture.

I just think that if you take the high ground and look at both perspectives, the manager and the worker in your example, you see that they just both misunderstand each other. They are mutually confused by the others moral communications, because they encode moral language differently. Even if the same person moves from one position to the other, the change in position brings a change in attitude.

Small picture and big picture are both legitimate (maybe even if racist), so it's not really about right or wrong in absolute terms, but from the limited perspective of one or the other, right and wrong enters into their thinking whether they mean to let it or not. This will show through in their communications to each other. You really have to think about, not only what the perspective of both sides is, but how both sides interprets the perspective of the other. I think that both sides inevitably misinterpret the other.

I'm flopping like a fish on the deck here trying to make sense, lol.

I do get what you're saying, and this is what I love about this board - that we call all have different views and yet talk intelligently and try to accept each others' points without just arguing.

I do agree that some selfishness is necessary and healthy. I also believe in the Buddhist idea of transcending opposites, but I must admit ntil now I thought the opposites in this case meant opposing viewpoints between selfish groups and that the big picture/global village represented transcending that. But in a sense maybe it's still an opposing viewpoint and needs to be transcended also.

I must say, managers who understand the individual pride of their employees are far better than those who just say "Shut up and do your damn job!"

Ok, time to go back into deep pondering mode.

Oh, and speaking of fish, I love your new sig pic!!!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, again (for like the 12th time) - when I use the terms liberal and conservative I'm not talking about political parties - but about basic hardwired human mindsets. Everyone leans more one way or the other, it doesn't matter what your party platform is.

Example - many black or hispanic people in the US vote democratic because democrats are liberal and defend the rights of minorities, but at the same time, those same people can be very conservative in their core values - preserving their own cultural heritage and not concerned with letting outsiders in to their neighborhoods or homes.

If we had the proper traditions, being conservative doesn't have to mean being selfish at all. That's what I'm saying. The conservative personality type can be conservative in order to preserve traditions for the good of the whole.

It's not really traditional values I have a problem with so much as the large dose of "my people are better than YOUR people " that tends to go along with it.

Holy forum change, batman.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Holy forum change, batman.

this topic was doomed to ramble from the start

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Um. The United States definitely is a hegemony. But it doesn't sound like you know what the word means. It sounds like you think it means one ruling culture, a Hegemony is when one state controls all the others, The US controlling the Americas is a hegemony.

Really? Venezuela is the lap dog of the US right now huh? A hegemony isn't necessarily a state. It is a controlling/dominate power that can be applicable to culture. This servile White Nationalist probably thinks that America is just White, Protestant Christians thus his "nationalism." He thinks such people are a hegemonic force in the actions of the country. If he does believe this, then he is obviously delusional because what can be termed as "America" (the geographical location) has numerous individuals, each with ideas/thoughts.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Within the US borders, however, its a cultural warzone. Traditions that can't continue to prove their value over time are slowly being lost to more valuable ones. Just as our genes have junk DNA, our society has a lot of traditions, values and cultural diversity that are simply ignored by the controlling factors of the state. But they're still present and can have leverage in the right atmosphere. It's not a perfect metaphor. The point is our system is working on our behalf, and we're working on its behalf. This relationship is what allows this organism to continue to exist and not get destroyed by cancer or invasion.

What are these traditions and when are you going to show me where in American history the tradition of that fundamental value you were discussing before? Also why are you treating an abstraction like a living entity? Invasion? Cancer? Destroyed? On its behalf?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Also I do not respond to people that break my posts apart. Find a cohesive means to respond to me.

It's good grammar to break apart ideas that are separate from each other (Paragraphs). I also do this so people can't say I am missing a point they brought up. Perhaps if you broke up my statements into quotations, you would of actually responded to my question about the "fundamental value." This is of course assuming you have an answer.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I think Darkmatters hit the nail right on the head. Slave owners were conservatives...abolitionists were liberal 'nuff said

Many abolitionists were pious yankees who wanted to ban beer, whiskey, white bread and sugar while also beating people who worked on Sundays. They destroyed private property in the form of saloons and alcohol distributors. They wanted to "free" slaves in order to convert them and keep them from their masters who may entice them to do things that "clouded their minds" disallowing them from entering heaven. They were millienialists who thought that if everyone didn't go to heaven then they were doing something wrong and their mission was to setup a kingdom of heaven on Earth for when Jesus Christ came back.

But really I like your oversimplification. The good guys were the liberals and the bad guys were the conservatives.

The Republican Party used to be about personal freedoms... Lincoln was a Republican. (Although of course he had other motives behind emancipation but freedom is a part of it.) It's become a "conservative" party rather than "libertarian" like it used to be.

We should go back to Federalists and Anti-Federalists... much better description of what people want. Although I don't see many politicians being anti-federalists that can DO much about it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Really? Venezuela is the lap dog of the US right now huh? A hegemony isn't necessarily a state. It is a controlling/dominate power that can be applicable to culture. This servile White Nationalist probably thinks that America is just White, Protestant Christians thus his "nationalism." He thinks such people are a hegemonic force in the actions of the country. If he does believe this, then he is obviously delusional because what can be termed as "America" (the geographical location) has numerous individuals, each with ideas/thoughts.




What are these traditions and when are you going to show me where in American history the tradition of that fundamental value you were discussing before? Also why are you treating an abstraction like a living entity? Invasion? Cancer? Destroyed? On its behalf?



It's good grammar to break apart ideas that are separate from each other (Paragraphs). I also do this so people can't say I am missing a point they brought up. Perhaps if you broke up my statements into quotations, you would of actually responded to my question about the "fundamental value." This is of course assuming you have an answer.

It's bad philosophy to break ideas apart that form a central thesis. It shows you have poor analytic skills when you cannot listen to a complete statement and formulate a complete response.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

The Republican Party used to be about personal freedoms... Lincoln was a Republican. (Although of course he had other motives behind emancipation but freedom is a part of it.) It's become a "conservative" party rather than "libertarian" like it used to be.

We should go back to Federalists and Anti-Federalists... much better description of what people want. Although I don't see many politicians being anti-federalists that can DO much about it.

No the Republican party was about and is about being the party of "high moral values." They were bible beaters in the 1850's and they are still bible beaters today. The Democrats use to be the party of personal freedom and free markets but that changed in the 1890's

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It's bad philosophy to break ideas apart that form a central thesis. It shows you have poor analytic skills when you cannot listen to a complete statement and formulate a complete response.

So when you are writing a paper, you don't use paragraphs? Bad form I say but whatever, I'm not your teacher. It is not as if I am not forming complete responses. Your complaint was that I was breaking them up, not that I wasn't saying anything responsive. Anyways, are you actually going to respond to my statements? Or are you just going to make all these ridiculous platitudes about tradition?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So when you are writing a paper, you don't use paragraphs? Bad form I say but whatever, I'm not your teacher. It is not as if I am not forming complete responses. Your complaint was that I was breaking them up, not that I wasn't saying anything responsive. Anyways, are you actually going to respond to my statements? Or are you just going to make all these ridiculous platitudes about tradition?

When I write a paper in response to someone else, I don't take all their quotes out of context and reply to them one by one. I ascertain the thesis of the argument and reply to it with my own thesis which breaks off into multiple paragraphs from there. You can reply to all my points separately but think in a more cohesive manner. Otherwise it's basically the same as a straw man, you're misconstruing someone's point by not seeing the forest through the trees. I honestly tried formulating a response to you but your so off base my argument there's not any point to it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

When I write a paper in response to someone else, I don't take all their quotes out of context and reply to them one by one. I ascertain the thesis of the argument and reply to it with my own thesis which breaks off into multiple paragraphs from there. You can reply to all my points separately but think in a more cohesive manner.

Ok you don't like my writing style...whoopie. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Otherwise it's basically the same as a straw man, you're misconstruing someone's point by not seeing the forest through the trees. I honestly tried formulating a response to you but your so off base my argument there's not any point to it.

How is it off base? I asked you to show this "fundamental value" in the course of American history. How is it off based to ask you to justify your statement? Why do you treat the United States, an abstraction, as a living entity which can be "invaded" and "cancer"-ous? You said that the US is a hegemony in the Americas, a hegemony being by your definition one state that controls other states therefore implying that the US (a state) controls the Americas (which is a term to include all North, Central and South America states), yet we don't control Canada, Venezuela, Cuba. How can you still consider the US a hegemony in the Americas when it doesn't follow your own definition? Honestly, what is off base about these questions and statements?

You know what, let's just get this over with.

My above response.
*Crickets*
Your Response: You're a troll.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok you don't like my writing style...whoopie. Let's move on.



How is it off base? I asked you to show this "fundamental value" in the course of American history. How is it off based to ask you to justify your statement? Why do you treat the United States, an abstraction, as a living entity which can be "invaded" and "cancer"-ous? You said that the US is a hegemony in the Americas, a hegemony being by your definition one state that controls other states therefore implying that the US (a state) controls the Americas (which is a term to include all North, Central and South America states), yet we don't control Canada, Venezuela, Cuba. How can you still consider the US a hegemony in the Americas when it doesn't follow your own definition? Honestly, what is off base about these questions and statements?

You know what, let's just get this over with.

My above response.
*Crickets*
Your Response: You're a troll.

I suppose this will have to do. But just so you know for future referencw hen you pick my posts apart I won't reply. I'm sure you could care less, but if you do reply to me in the future you should keep that in mind.

The answer to your question is very simple. In my opinion, groups of organisms are a more complex organism than single organisms, but they do not stand apart from the same basic mechanisms and vulnerabilities of any single organism. The actual cancer itself transforms to mean different things but in your body cancer can be conveyed as the cells of your body changing their DNA (thus changing their behavior) to a more selfish routine. A very direct metaphor for this would be embezzlement when people don't pay their fair share of the tax burden as cancer cells often skim nutrients off the top that they ought to be feeding forward. However, cancer and disease take many forms in a society.

Nonetheless, what I am essentially arguing is that society is a living organism, just a more complex one than the individuals within it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The answer to your question is very simple. In my opinion, groups of organisms are a more complex organism than single organisms, but they do not stand apart from the same basic mechanisms and vulnerabilities of any single organism. The actual cancer itself transforms to mean different things but in your body cancer can be conveyed as the cells of your body changing their DNA (thus changing their behavior) to a more selfish routine. A very direct metaphor for this would be embezzlement when people don't pay their fair share of the tax burden as cancer cells often skim nutrients off the top that they ought to be feeding forward. However, cancer and disease take many forms in a society.

Nonetheless, what I am essentially arguing is that society is a living organism, just a more complex one than the individuals within it.

So essentially you think there is this living organism that actually is tangible and exists on the physical plane and this orgasm is the "United States?" This is the "complex one" you speak of?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So essentially you think there is this living organism that actually is tangible and exists on the physical plane and this orgasm is the "United States?" This is the "complex one" you speak of?

Human beings are made up of individual cells working in harmony right? Why is it so difficult to expand your awareness to consider society as a collection of individual cells working towards harmony? Truthfully as of now it's a very confused organism but the Laws and Traditions we live by are the DNA this confused organism is currently operating with and our inevitable goal is to become more like a properly cohesive organism. Nationalists make up the core of the Social Organism I am referring to because they do not change, they do not adapt. They preserve these traditions over time and protect them by being loyal to them and proud of them.

Every human being is raised by a collection of beliefs and traditions given to them by parents, teachers and anyone they listen to. Obviously the person does not agree with every single idea they're given as so many conflict, but the person consciously weighs them all in order to form homogeneous response. Do you think you're a single identity locked within your body? Your a collection of conditioning, about 50% from your genes and 50% from your environment. Societies at large are essentially the same thing. Communities, Cities, States and Nations are all just the macroversion of the same evolutionary mechanism.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Human beings are made up of individual cells working in harmony right? Why is it so difficult to expand your awareness to consider society as a collection of individual cells working towards harmony? Truthfully as of now it's a very confused organism but the Laws and Traditions we live by are the DNA this confused organism is currently operating with and our inevitable goal is to become more like a properly cohesive organism. Nationalists make up the core of the Social Organism I am referring to because they do not change, they do not adapt. They preserve these traditions over time and protect them by being loyal to them and proud of them.

Because of varying ideals and states of being which don't necessarily conflict but that doesn't infer that individuals are all working toward the same goal. Again, I ask you to show these "laws and traditions" in American history. Continually asking you to show this is starting to get annoying.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Every human being is raised by a collection of beliefs and traditions given to them by parents, teachers and anyone they listen to. Obviously the person does not agree with every single idea they're given as so many conflict, but the person consciously weighs them all in order to form homogeneous response. Do you think you're a single identity locked within your body? Your a collection of conditioning, about 50% from your genes and 50% from your environment. Societies at large are essentially the same thing. Communities, Cities, States and Nations are all just the macroversion of the same evolutionary mechanism.

What are these "traditions? You keep referring to them but never say what they are, do you fault me for thinking they don't actually exist when you continue such an act? Do I think I am a single identity that is locked into my body? Yes I do. No other individual has the same exact experience as me, makes the same exact decisions for the same exact reasons, how the same exact goals and the same exact means of achieving those goals, has the same exact eudiamonia as myself. You start from the top and say "well everyone is kinda looking for the same thing" but that is the improper place to start. You are putting the cart before the horse. The proper place to start is with the individual, that is what makes up "society," it is the basic unit of measurement and if you started with an individual then built up for there you would be forced to see that we are so divergent that there really isn't a hegemonic force like you think there is in the world of culture. Individuals really are "unique little snowflakes."

See how pointless it was to break my post into two statements and then respond the same way to both? Even if it's two paragraphs, I articulate one idea. Breaking a single idea into multiple ones is a fallacy. It twists the argument into something that was not intended by the speaker.

Anyways, for the United States the bulk of DNA is the Constitution and the Protestant Church. Though its more accurate to say the DNA is the gestalt of every individual's laws and traditions within the US, these are what conservatives tend to hold valuable so this is the homogeneous image it presents to the world. In nations like China, the philosophy is very different and religion can be considered a liberal endeavor as the nationalist, conservative base has adopted a very secular structure and religious ideas are becoming foreign to the central entity.

Watch some Naruto, it may help you learn some of this. Basically there is a philosophy within every culture. This philosophy is unique to their culture and even more unique to the families within the culture and most unique to the individuals of the family. Nonetheless, this is essentially something greater than ourselves. Religions can be looked at in the same format. They are a collection of laws and traditions that a loyal base protects and spreads to others. This type of self-sustainability is life, no question about it. It is simply life on a bigger scale than the individual or genetics.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

See how pointless it was to break my post into two statements and then respond the same way to both? Even if it's two paragraphs, I articulate one idea. Breaking a single idea into multiple ones is a fallacy. It twists the argument into something that was not intended by the speaker.

Breaking a single idea into multiple ones is a fallacy? First you have to show how I am making a single idea into multiple ones simply by quoting your statements. You can say its a continuation of a single idea but your not putting forth a new idea, you are just explaining a single idea in another fashion. Second you have to tell me which logical fallacy is the act of breaking a single idea into multiple ideas.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Anyways, for the United States the bulk of DNA is the Constitution and the Protestant Church. Though its more accurate to say the DNA is the gestalt of every individual's laws and traditions within the US, these are what conservatives tend to hold valuable so this is the homogeneous image it presents to the world. In nations like China, the philosophy is very different and religion can be considered a liberal endeavor as the nationalist, conservative base has adopted a very secular structure and religious ideas are becoming foreign to the central entity.

I'm guessing by DNA you mean tradition. What makes the Constitution and the Protestant Church a "tradition?" Not even all American subscribe to the Constitution and/or aren't a Protestant Christian. Also only conservative values project an image to the rest of the world? Do you naively believe that the world thinks America is just full of conservative people?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Watch some Naruto, it may help you learn some of this. Basically there is a philosophy within every culture. This philosophy is unique to their culture and even more unique to the families within the culture and most unique to the individuals of the family. Nonetheless, this is essentially something greater than ourselves. Religions can be looked at in the same format. They are a collection of laws and traditions that a loyal base protects and spreads to others. This type of self-sustainability is life, no question about it. It is simply life on a bigger scale than the individual or genetics.

There is nothing bigger then the self. The laws of the Bible only exist because they are practiced by the people who supposedly believe in them. They would cease to be in individuals weren't actively participating in them so how can you say they are bigger then individuals?

Being a Republican myself I believe i have an answer to this question, as others said earlier, being open-minded enough to actually believe that dreams have real meaning is a stretch of the imagination for most people to even believe, and going above and beyond to take other's seriously implies that the listeners are indeed very liberal. Now, i know others in this thread have also said this, but the Republican party was all about freedoms of the individuals, people still think that the right-wing today is still republican, well its not, its corporate capitalism and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

If republicans today were truly for individual freedoms they would support:
Marijuana legalization

All drugs are legal

Gov't taxes the rich more (Eisenhower, a true republican and my fav pres., taxed the rich 91% after their 4th million)

Gov't puts those taxes dollars towards education, though private schools are perfectly acceptable

The current republicans would be fine with gay right and gays in the military

Abortion would be fine (though the religious would still frown upon it)

Iraq would have never have happened (role out the conspiracy debate, it was for oil and everyone knows it)

Military is still big, but very well organized (but not so huge its inefficient like it is today)

Current repubs wouldn't look down on other religions
---------------------------------------


There is a reason why the 50's were the (arguably) the best times in america, True Repubs controlled the Gov't and the economy steadily flourished under tight regulations

EDIT: Ron Paul ftw

Originally Posted by Suicideking

If republicans today were truly for individual freedoms they would support:

Gov't taxes the rich more (Eisenhower, a true republican and my fav pres., taxed the rich 91% after their 4th million)

Gov't puts those taxes dollars towards education, though private schools are perfectly acceptable

Military is still big, but very well organized (but not so huge its inefficient like it is today)

There is a reason why the 50's were the (arguably) the best times in america, True Repubs controlled the Gov't and the economy steadily flourished under tight regulations

EDIT: Ron Paul ftw

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

....... what is your point.......

Originally Posted by Suicideking

....... what is your point.......

How does what I quoted from your post relate to "Ron Paul ftw?" Or even individual freedoms for that matter.