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

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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.

Actually if someone were a devout Nationalist they were be a neo-mercantilist which is anti-antithetical to capitalism.

cuz we blazin

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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



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.

Calm down bro. I'm sorry if my vocabulary in describing evolution is upsetting to you. Please do your best to get over it.

Everything I said was an attempt to explain basic biology. You pulled this intelligent design claim you're referring to out of thin air.

Evolution was introduced to me in terms of "intent", and "progress", with the emphatic insistence that these were simply figurative ways of understanding it. I don't see why benefit-of-the-doubt is so hard to give sometimes.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Calm down bro. I'm sorry if my vocabulary in describing evolution is upsetting to you. Please do your best to get over it.

Everything I said was an attempt to explain basic biology. You pulled this intelligent design claim you're referring to out of thin air.

Where does intelligent design come into this at all?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Where does intelligent design come into this at all?

I'm explaining how empathy, cooperation and intelligence are emergent phenomena derived from natural selection. You're telling me that my point is that all these organisms are strategizing their evolution. I'm saying cause and effect was accidental, you're saying that I'm saying it was purposeful.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Actually if someone were a devout Nationalist they were be a neo-mercantilist which is anti-antithetical to capitalism.

I'm quite new to this concept of neo-mercantilist but I would say that nationalism generally opposes unregulated capitalism, as it doesn't work in the itnerest of the nation, but in the interest of the capitalist.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm explaining how empathy, cooperation and intelligence are emergent phenomena derived from natural selection. You're telling me that my point is that all these organisms are strategizing their evolution. I'm saying cause and effect was accidental, you're saying that I'm saying it was purposeful.

No. I'm telling you your metaphor breaks down because the cells don't possess the intelligence to perform actions such as "acting selfishly" or "making agreements." I said nothing about purpose or intelligent design or anything of that sort. I don't know where you got any of that.

"Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? Was there no communication in this car?"

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No. I'm telling you your metaphor breaks down because the cells don't possess the intelligence to perform actions such as "acting selfishly" or "making agreements." I said nothing about purpose or intelligent design or anything of that sort. I don't know where you got any of that.

I just explained to you that selfishness is the root factor of natural selection and you're still trying to act like there's some intelligence going on. There is no intelligence, selfish behavior is initially rewarded by evolution with any new species or new circumstances in the habitat. Organisms end up grouping together because this is evolutionarily most beneficial to the individuals grouping up. When this happens, it changes the game and evolution rewards the most cooperative. The reason behind this cooperation is still for the preservation of individuals within the whole.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No. I'm telling you your metaphor breaks down because the cells don't possess the intelligence to perform actions such as "acting selfishly" or "making agreements." I said nothing about purpose or intelligent design or anything of that sort. I don't know where you got any of that.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I just explained to you that selfishness is the root factor of natural selection and you're still trying to act like there's some intelligence going on. There is no intelligence, selfish behavior is initially rewarded by evolution with any new species or new circumstances in the habitat. Organisms end up grouping together because this is evolutionarily most beneficial to the individuals grouping up. When this happens, it changes the game and evolution rewards the most cooperative. The reason behind this cooperation is still for the preservation of individuals within the whole.

Gentlemen, I think we have a failure of communication here...

Herman Cain 2012!

I had an epiphany about why dreamviews is more liberal than society at large before. Very lateral thinking epiphany.
And now I fucking forgot what it was

Maybe I'll remember later.

I already explained why, then trolls ate my posts. But does this have anything to do with your epiphany?


Liberals are also more likely to do the following

Try drugs
Change their faith
Visit a foreign country
Read

Conservatives are more likely to do the following

Eat mostly traditional food (or fast food in US)
Attend community events such as church and fairs
Remain within their home town their entire life

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I already explained why, then trolls ate my posts. But does this have anything to do with your epiphany?


Liberals are also more likely to do the following

Try drugs
Change their faith
Visit a foreign country
Read

Conservatives are more likely to do the following

Eat mostly traditional food (or fast food in US)
Attend community events such as church and fairs
Remain within their home town their entire life

You are basing these facts on..?

Stereotypes, Stereotypes everywhere

No, wasn't to do with that. As I said it was very lateral. Not just, we are interested in dreams, so obviously want to be more free.

I wasn't saying liberals want to be more free.

I was saying liberals experiment more. Conservatives follow traditions.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I wasn't saying liberals want to be more free.

I was saying liberals experiment more. Conservatives follow traditions.

If liberals don't want to be free, the term just doesn't have a meaning.

Originally Posted by Suicideking

You are basing these facts on..?

Stereotypes, Stereotypes everywhere

Trends are helpful. They provide insight.

Conservatives represent the nationalist core of a nation and the values intrinsic to the nationalist core. Liberals are everyone else still affiliated with that nation. Does that help?

(Tommo, maybe the movie Waking Life?)

"Liberal" means free... but the terms have changed drastically, just like our political parties. "Republican" has changed from a libertarian/anti-federalist party into conservative. Democrat has changed from a Federalist to... well maybe it hasn't changed aside from adopting progressivism.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'm quite new to this concept of neo-mercantilist but I would say that nationalism generally opposes unregulated capitalism, as it doesn't work in the itnerest of the nation, but in the interest of the capitalist.

Well yes and no. Yes in the idea that they opposed unregulated capitalism because they see it as "chaotic" and "disorderly." Why have 5 different shoe companies instead of just having one "good" one? It would be a waste of resources to them. Also because of the xenophobia, they dislike trading with other nations (hence the tariffs and subsidies to domestic businesses). That is another reason to dislike capitalism, because it is global and allows for the transportation of goods to another party without third party (the state) interference. So foreign businesses can trade together without the state being involved in the matter. So it's not just the interest of the capitalist but also the consumer because tariffs, subsidies, embargoes are harmful to the consumer.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Trends are helpful. They provide insight.

Conservatives represent the nationalist core of a nation and the values intrinsic to the nationalist core. Liberals are everyone else still affiliated with that nation. Does that help?

(Tommo, maybe the movie Waking Life?)

You can have Nationalist Progressives.

Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Henry Cabot Lodge.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well yes and no. Yes in the idea that they opposed unregulated capitalism because they see it as "chaotic" and "disorderly." Why have 5 different shoe companies instead of just having one "good" one? It would be a waste of resources to them. Also because of the xenophobia, they dislike trading with other nations (hence the tariffs and subsidies to domestic businesses). That is another reason to dislike capitalism, because it is global and allows for the transportation of goods to another party without third party (the state) interference. So foreign businesses can trade together without the state being involved in the matter. So it's not just the interest of the capitalist but also the consumer because tariffs, subsidies, embargoes are harmful to the consumer.

Nationalistic capitalists can exist, think Reagan. But it only works as long as domestic companies are competing against each other and not international businesses coming in.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You can have Nationalist Progressives.

Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Henry Cabot Lodge.

Yeah I'm mucking patriotism in with this dynamic. It's more about old tradition vs new idea and has less to do with arbitrary national borders so much as arbitrary focal points for different cultures.