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

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

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.



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?



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?

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If you respond to my ideas one piece at a time, you're saving yourself the work of formulating your own counter-opinion and instead are taking a purely critical position which makes it impossible for other people to take sides in the debate. It dissembles into pieces and then into tinier pieces as we continues to break claims down without ever bothering to put them back together again. I remember what I said. You don't need to respond to the individual qoute. I'm much more interested in what you actually have to say rather than just what holes you can poke through my opinion. List the holes, by all means, but write the subject matter in a cohesive way so its at least bearable for other people to read and maybe even include themselves in.

The "self" is an abstract idea, too. What is a human being? It's a collection of cells. These cells operate cohesively because they're following directions given to them by DNA. In the macrocosm, we see this play out as people are conditioned to behave a certain way by the values and traditions that surround them. One such tradition is the legitimization of the law we grow up with. We know the law, we all follow the law, if we don't we are breaking the guidelines and in the microcosm we would call this a mutation.

I'm not trying to describe this as a perfect metaphor, in fact if I'm trying to say anything I'm saying that we should make government work more like an organism, not that it already is. But evolution follows the same laws on the macrocosm as the microcosm. There is something bigger than the self, it's the group you serve. Your family protected you, because of them and their love for you, you did not die. Because of your empathy (if you're not a psychopath) you are able to form bonds with other people and thus form a network where people look out for each other. Like your cells telling your brain what you need, the voters express their needs in the ballot box.

Unfortunately right now this works in a very top-down manner and it should work in a bottom-up manner. A healthy person listens to their body, they don't read a book about health care. A healthy company listens to their experienced employees, they don't hire an outside consultant.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If you respond to my ideas one piece at a time, you're saving yourself the work of formulating your own counter-opinion and instead are taking a purely critical position which makes it impossible for other people to take sides in the debate. It dissembles into pieces and then into tinier pieces as we continues to break claims down without ever bothering to put them back together again. I remember what I said. You don't need to respond to the individual qoute. I'm much more interested in what you actually have to say rather than just what holes you can poke through my opinion. List the holes, by all means, but write the subject matter in a cohesive way so its at least bearable for other people to read and maybe even include themselves in.

Are there other people taking sides in this debate? You are putting forth the argument here that society is a living organism. It is your job to justify and defend it, so far all you have actually said is the Constitution and Protestant religion. Everything else is pure fluff, and that is me being kind.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The "self" is an abstract idea, too. What is a human being? It's a collection of cells. These cells operate cohesively because they're following directions given to them by DNA. In the macrocosm, we see this play out as people are conditioned to behave a certain way by the values and traditions that surround them. One such tradition is the legitimization of the law we grow up with. We know the law, we all follow the law, if we don't we are breaking the guidelines and in the microcosm we would call this a mutation.

No, the "self" is a concrete example because it is actually on a physical plane. Even if the "self" is an abstract idea, there is still a gap between your conclusions. Why do individuals have no self, yet they are cells that composed a greater organism? If people are conditioned to follow the law then why are there law breakers? You are already assuming there is a hegemonic tradition in human history that allows you to say what is and isn't a "mutation." Where did you get this tradition? What are the others that supposedly surround individuals?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm not trying to describe this as a perfect metaphor, in fact if I'm trying to say anything I'm saying that we should make government work more like an organism, not that it already is that. But evolution follows the same laws on the macrocosm as the microcosm. There is something bigger than the self, it's the group you serve. Your family protected you, because of them and their love for you, you did not die. Because of your empathy (if you're not a psychopath) you are able to form bonds with other people and thus form a network where people look out for each other. Like your cells telling your brain what you need, the voters express their needs in the ballot box.
Unfortunately right now this works in a very top-down manner and it should work in a bottom-up manner. A healthy person listens to their body, they don't read a book about health care. A healthy company listens to their experienced employees, they don't hire an outside consultant.

Yes you can form bonds and friendships but these are things you choose to incorporate and you do these things because they serve to better you in some capacity. Again, nothing is higher the the self. We are all just egoists running around doing things in our own self-interest because all action is purposeful behavior and serves as means to an end we are trying to achieve. We act to better our environment around us. That is the whole point of action and it is always about us, therefore even logically there is nothing beyond the self. Also, are you trying to say that voters aren't electing these officials into office? Then how are they getting there if not by the voting public? And yes, sometimes a company does hire outside consultants.

Originally Posted by Suicideking

your right i started to ramble about the old republican party, and I like Ron Paul as a 2012 presidential candidate, just thought i should add that

Yet you desire higher taxes? Very weird....like that guy who is for NASA.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yet you desire higher taxes? Very weird....like that guy who is for NASA.

higher for the ultra rich, see my original comment

Originally Posted by Suicideking

higher for the ultra rich, see my original comment

Still doesn't match with your support of Ron Paul.

Ya Ron Paul is pretty cool....except for, ya know the fact that he is a creationist and he doesn't believe in separation of church and state, no biggie.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Are there other people taking sides in this debate? You are putting forth the argument here that society is a living organism. It is your job to justify and defend it, so far all you have actually said is the Constitution and Protestant religion. Everything else is pure fluff, and that is me being kind.



No, the "self" is a concrete example because it is actually on a physical plane. Even if the "self" is an abstract idea, there is still a gap between your conclusions. Why do individuals have no self, yet they are cells that composed a greater organism? If people are conditioned to follow the law then why are there law breakers? You are already assuming there is a hegemonic tradition in human history that allows you to say what is and isn't a "mutation." Where did you get this tradition? What are the others that supposedly surround individuals?



Yes you can form bonds and friendships but these are things you choose to incorporate and you do these things because they serve to better you in some capacity. Again, nothing is higher the the self. We are all just egoists running around doing things in our own self-interest because all action is purposeful behavior and serves as means to an end we are trying to achieve. We act to better our environment around us. That is the whole point of action and it is always about us, therefore even logically there is nothing beyond the self. Also, are you trying to say that voters aren't electing these officials into office? Then how are they getting there if not by the voting public? And yes, sometimes a company does hire outside consultants.

People are not taking sides because no one else wants to deal with you. I frankly don't care. Troll on, I say, you'll come around or suffer more. It doesn't matter to me if you get the wisdom or not. I enjoy formulating my arguments with other people. I just prefer open discussions where we can create platforms of agreement to build upon with multiple people involved. If you lurk moar, you'll see lot's of people doing it right.

The cells exist on the physical plane, too. They are concrete, real things. They operate with basic components which form very complex orders. At the end of the day, the line between physical and abstract is purely conceptual. The cells in our bodies work together for the same reason we work together, because it allows them to survive. Single celled organisms became multicellular in order to survive. Animals form herds and packs in order to survive. They're all doing it for selfish reasons. Including the cells. The concept of a single "self" is only compatible with God. A human being is a collective. Cells work in harmony for their own benefit. They made an agreement. When they break the agreement and work for themselves, it's cancer. I see a metaphor here.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The cells in our bodies work together for the same reason we work together, because it allows them to survive. Single celled organisms became multicellular in order to survive. Animals form herds and packs in order to survive. They're all doing it for selfish reasons. Including the cells. The concept of a single "self" is only compatible with God. A human being is a collective. Cells work in harmony for their own benefit. They made an agreement. When they break the agreement and work for themselves, it's cancer. I see a metaphor here.

Holy biology misunderstanding, batman!

Single-celled organisms do not become multicellular in order to survive--that would imply some sort of intelligence on their part. A single-celled organism does not evolve into a multicellular organism because the cell thought: "Hey, if I become multicellular, I could better survive in this environment!" Organisms at that level do not possess such a level of intelligence. The same goes for cells allegedly acting selfishly.

And the notion that cells "made an agreement" is a major breakdown in your metaphor. Have you ever taken a biology class? Material doesn't come together because atoms decide "hey, let's go for it!" The same goes for humans existing because cells had some sort of convention.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Holy biology misunderstanding, batman!

Single-celled organisms do not become multicellular in order to survive--that would imply some sort of intelligence on their part. A single-celled organism does not evolve into a multicellular organism because the cell thought: "Hey, if I become multicellular, I could better survive in this environment!" Organisms at that level do not possess such a level of intelligence. The same goes for cells allegedly acting selfishly.

And the notion that cells "made an agreement" is a major breakdown in your metaphor. Have you ever taken a biology class? Material doesn't come together because atoms decide "hey, let's go for it!" The same goes for humans existing because cells had some sort of convention.

I'm not implying cells are intelligent. I'm implying humans are a collection of stupid cells, actually. These cells happen to conglomerate via mutation, the same mechanism every organism evolves with. The reason multicellular organisms are able to out compete single celled organisms is because of this mutation. Intelligence is a myth.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm not implying cells are intelligent. I'm implying humans are a collection of stupid cells, actually. These cells happen to conglomerate via mutation, the same mechanism every organism evolves with. The reason multicellular organisms are able to out compete single celled organisms is because of this mutation. Intelligence is a myth.

You imply cells possess intelligence when you say they act selfishly and made an agreement because those actions require intelligence. I don't know why you think intelligence is a myth so you'll have to explain that.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Ya Ron Paul is pretty cool....except for, ya know the fact that he is a creationist and he doesn't believe in separation of church and state, no biggie.

Yea I have problems with him too. Seems like everyone does.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

People are not taking sides because no one else wants to deal with you. I frankly don't care. Troll on, I say, you'll come around or suffer more. It doesn't matter to me if you get the wisdom or not. I enjoy formulating my arguments with other people. I just prefer open discussions where we can create platforms of agreement to build upon with multiple people involved. If you lurk moar, you'll see lot's of people doing it right.

Called it...well kinda

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

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

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The cells exist on the physical plane, too. They are concrete, real things. They operate with basic components which form very complex orders. At the end of the day, the line between physical and abstract is purely conceptual. The cells in our bodies work together for the same reason we work together, because it allows them to survive. Single celled organisms became multicellular in order to survive. Animals form herds and packs in order to survive. They're all doing it for selfish reasons. Including the cells. The concept of a single "self" is only compatible with God. A human being is a collective. Cells work in harmony for their own benefit. They made an agreement. When they break the agreement and work for themselves, it's cancer. I see a metaphor here.

Well at least you think the self is now concrete, see you're coming around. Oh wait no...you think the line between physical and abstract is conceptual..which is weird because a concept is an abstraction so you think the line between physical and abstraction is abstraction. Either that or you misused the word conceptual. Let's go with the latter because I think you know the difference between the physical and the mental plane. If not, try putting your hand through your computer screen in a fast, jerking manner. You'll understand then. What I myself don't understand is how you think intelligence is a myth and that human cells are stupid yet they somehow work in harmony for their own benefit and are capable of making an agreement. It's as if you think my cells combine into...wait WAIT....I have witness this before....



I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!!

No...wait..that's not true. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You imply cells possess intelligence when you say they act selfishly and made an agreement because those actions require intelligence. I don't know why you think intelligence is a myth so you'll have to explain that.

Those actions do not require intelligence. Competition proves what strategies are beneficial to an organism and which are not through time. When a mutation prospers within a species that mutation has proven itself beneficial through the act of being beneficial. These cells were not thinking about what way to best survive. They either survived better, or they did not.

And Laughing Man. It seems the reason to me that you have no interest in formulating cohesive responses to my argument is because you don't have any interest in understanding what I'm saying. Let me just apologize right quick for being wrong, okay?

I am wrong about everything I say. You are infallible. Now that we've settled what's what, please feel free to lurk moar.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Those actions do not require intelligence. Competition proves what strategies are beneficial to an organism and which are not through time. When a mutation prospers within a species that mutation has proven itself beneficial through the act of being beneficial. These cells were not thinking about what way to best survive. They either survived better, or they did not.

I don't even know where to begin. Laughing Man beat me to the punch, but you said cells act selfishly and made an agreement, which REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE no matter how you spin it, yet cells are stupid. Now you're saying acting selfishly and making agreements doesn't require intelligence while simultaneously agreeing with me that cells don't willfully evolve. What the hell is going on?

This thread amply demonstrates that if any political ideology is inordinately represented on DV, it's libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

For some reason and I'm not really sure exactly why or how it happened, apparently the membership of Dreamviews used to be largely Christian but atheists kept increasing and reached critical mass and pretty well drove the Christians away except for those who like to fight it out in R&S.

That is an odd impression. There never really was a vocal Christian majority, and the majority of people in any religion-oriented discussion have always been atheist and/or New Age, with typically one to three truly nutter Christians with something to prove entering the fray--that hasn't changed. There remained a barely-visible majority of politically moderate Christians who mostly kept to on-topic and the lounge, and those do seem to have waned, though it's hard to tell given that they were never vocal about the relevant variable. If anything, I suppose DV has gone increasingly and inordinately gay/pansexual, which does tend to correlate with liberal politics (though far from perfectly). Regardless, the number of Christian views expressed in R/S should not be taken for the predominance of Christianity on DV in general.

Originally Posted by cmind

Bingo. Also, to the OP: Liberal is such an abused word these days. Liberal used to mean what today people refer to as "libertarian" (read about classical liberalism). A better word might be socialist, cultural marxist, or statist.

Interesting that you would contrast the OP's professed Nationalism as a view opposite of "statism." Care to elaborate? Keep in mind that the nation being -ismed by the OP is England (he might take offense at a designation as broad as Great Britain or The United Kingdom) and he's already cited Stormfront as an ideological inspiration.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And Laughing Man. It seems the reason to me that you have no interest in formulating cohesive responses to my argument is because you don't have any interest in understanding what I'm saying. Let me just apologize right quick for being wrong, okay?

I am wrong about everything I say. You are infallible. Now that we've settled what's what, please feel free to lurk moar.

Just because you are wrong doesn't mean I am infallible. See there you go again making incoherent statements.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Interesting that you would contrast the OP's professed Nationalism as a view opposite of "statism." Care to elaborate? Keep in mind that the nation being -ismed by the OP is England (he might take offense at a designation as broad as Great Britain or The United Kingdom) and he's already cited Stormfront as an ideological inspiration.

A British Nationalist. It's kind of ironic because the British kingdom once spanned 20% of the world population and 22% of the world land.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't even know where to begin. Laughing Man beat me to the punch, but you said cells act selfishly and made an agreement, which REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE no matter how you spin it, yet cells are stupid. Now you're saying acting selfishly and making agreements doesn't require intelligence while simultaneously agreeing with me that cells don't willfully evolve. What the hell is going on?

Just because you're jumping to conclusions does not mean I implied any of the bullshit you're claiming I did. I'm attempting to show you how evolution works on the bigger scale by showing you how it works on the smaller scale. You're taking everything I'm saying at face value. Good Job. Congratulations at being able to twist words to mean whatever the fuck you want. If you'd stop aggressively attacking everything that raises an eyebrow and simply attempt to understand a different point of view you might learn something.

You see, this contains everything I need to refute both your arguments so I'll just repeat it. Try again

Those actions do not require intelligence. Competition proves what strategies are beneficial to an organism and which are not through time. When a mutation prospers within a species that mutation has proven itself beneficial through the act of being beneficial. These cells were not thinking about what way to best survive. They either survived better, or they did not.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Interesting that you would contrast the OP's professed Nationalism as a view opposite of "statism." Care to elaborate? Keep in mind that the nation being -ismed by the OP is England (he might take offense at a designation as broad as Great Britain or The United Kingdom) and he's already cited Stormfront as an ideological inspiration.

When did I say that? I never mentioned the OP. Boy, I hope you're not asking me to be accountable for imaginary things I never said!

Originally Posted by cmind

When did I say that? I never mentioned the OP. Boy, I hope you're not asking me to be accountable for imaginary things I never said!

Originally Posted by cmind

Bingo. Also, to the OP: Liberal is such an abused word these days. Liberal used to mean what today people refer to as "libertarian" (read about classical liberalism). A better word might be socialist, cultural marxist, or statist.

Low-hanging fruit, omnomnom.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Low-hanging fruit, omnomnom.

Ok, so I mentioned the OP. But I didn't address whatever the fuck he said.

Whatever, let me make it clear now: Nationalism is clearly a type of statism. Personally, I think nationalism is vile and retarded.

Originally Posted by cmind

Ok, so I mentioned the OP. But I didn't address whatever the fuck he said.

Whatever, let me make it clear now: Nationalism is clearly a type of statism. Personally, I think nationalism is vile and retarded.

It certainly can be associated with statism but the two are not married. Neither is liberalism and statism. Nationalism is about identifying with a national entity and preserving values based around the protection and sustainability of this national entity. In the case of the United States, one of the principles that Nationalists hold very dear is Purist Capitalism. The far end of the scope is a Radical or a Foreigner, someone with a different set of values. Inbetween are Liberals, people who identify with the national entity on some level but do not identify with the national values for the sake of being national values.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Just because you're jumping to conclusions does not mean I implied any of the bullshit you're claiming I did. I'm attempting to show you how evolution works on the bigger scale by showing you how it works on the smaller scale. You're taking everything I'm saying at face value. Good Job. Congratulations at being able to twist words to mean whatever the fuck you want. If you'd stop aggressively attacking everything that raises an eyebrow and simply attempt to understand a different point of view you might learn something.

You see, this contains everything I need to refute both your arguments so I'll just repeat it. Try again

Those actions do not require intelligence. Competition proves what strategies are beneficial to an organism and which are not through time. When a mutation prospers within a species that mutation has proven itself beneficial through the act of being beneficial. These cells were not thinking about what way to best survive. They either survived better, or they did not.

If intelligence is a myth, it's only in with you.

The cells in our bodies work together for the same reason we work together, because it allows them to survive. Single celled organisms became multicellular in order to survive. Animals form herds and packs in order to survive. They're all doing it for selfish reasons. Including the cells. The concept of a single "self" is only compatible with God. A human being is a collective. Cells work in harmony for their own benefit. They made an agreement. When they break the agreement and work for themselves, it's cancer. I see a metaphor here.

The bolded parts require intelligence to perform. This is a fact of life. I implore you to show how single-celled organisms became multicellular IN ORDER TO survive (without intelligence). Note the IN ORDER TO part. I implore you to show how cells act selfishly without intelligence. I implore you to show how cells work in harmony for their own benefit and make agreements WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE.

Of course you can't do that, because all of those actions require intelligence. No, don't copy & paste the same "explanation" you gave to me. It doesn't apply. You're giving me an explanation of natural selection, not explaining how cells make agreements or act selfishly or become multicellular in order to survive. Cells don't become multicellular in order to survive, they become multicellular because of natural selection. There is no "in order to." It simply happens.

Your metaphor broke the fuck down 20 miles back. Call AAA.

The internet is always more liberal. Although everyone and their dog has a computer and broadband now, that used to be for only the ones who could afford it. The more education someone has, the more money they tend to have. More education also tends to make people more liberal because they understand the issues better. So at the time when most websites were forming, mostly upper middle class people could derp around for hours, so websites tended to go that way. And in lots of countries, its still that only the top educated people can afford to screw around a lot on the net.

Graph of income vs political views


Graph of internet usage vs income