Left -vs- Right

[JustWinBaby]

(07-06-2015, 01:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Democrats have been taken over by the progressives.   There is no "democrats"

I'll tell you what the difference is...

The far right accept and understand their ignorance.  Guns and religion....whatever.

The far left...they cling to junk science to justify themselves as having the scientific high ground.


So what it boils down to is you have one side ignoring science to advance their goals, and another ignoring science to advance their goals.  Don't get me wrong - they're all idiots.  But one side deludes itself into being more than an idiot.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-06-2015, 01:44 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'll tell you what the difference is...

The far right accept and understand their ignorance.  Guns and religion....whatever.

The far left...they cling to junk science to justify themselves as having the scientific high ground.


So what it boils down to is you have one side ignoring science to advance their goals, and another ignoring science to advance their goals.  Don't get me wrong - they're all idiots.  But one side deludes itself into being more than an idiot.

gop has the same problem.   And the Evangelicals and Neocons are the same group that is the GOP version of Progressives .  Like a Teddy Roosevelt progressive.   These guys have nothing to do with a conservative or a republican.

And the reason science loses to religion isn't because of facts....  Science has as much mystery as religion ...  Religion has just been consistent through the years.  Where science has been up as down....(I do realize that's the definition of science)  people like stability.... That's why religion wins.

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2015, 12:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: The democrats are not "left". You have a right party and a center party. That's it. Believe me, I'm European.
"Communism" and "Democrats" on one side, that just looks absurd.

-- OK, Bernie Sanders might be a bit left.

This is true. This country has no experience with the far Left, and probably never will (thankfully). It is perhaps the most anti-communist nation in the world, having fought a cold war and two 'hot wars' to "prevent the spread of communism" and having had a good old fashioned 'witch hunt' to root out communists. But communism has never been a threat to win power here in the U.S. It has just been a convenient 'boogie man' to scare the population. In fact, the code word "communism" has been bantered about in threats and propaganda for political hash so much here that most of the people in this country cannot tell you the difference between Communism and Socialism. They believe it is the same thing, because that is what they have been told.

To be fair, this country also does not have experience with the opposite extreme of the political spectrum on the Right: fascism. While small groups have cropped over the decades, they have also never been a threat to win power. Some fear the rise of right-wing religious politicians might lead to the Christian version of Islamo-fascism. But we have generally avoided that trap in the past.

Our politics have tended to be centrist over the years with one party slightly left and another slightly right, but neither party going too far to the extreme. If one side over-steps its bounds, the other party immediately screams "communists" or fascists" (even though we don't really know what that would look like). In this regard, we have a communication problem with our European friends, many of whom have actually seen both extremes rise to some degree of power in their countries during the past century.

Bernie Sanders favors socialism to a degree. In many American minds, that makes him a communist and, therefore, unelectable. You are probably laughing at that (as am I). But it is the 'truth' here in American politics. I like Bernie and also feel our country could use a slight touch of socialism. But, then again, our bi-polar centerism may not be such a bad thing. Politics here, despite the rhetoric, are not as life-and-death as they are in some other countries. In fact, we generally tend to take them with as much seriousness as a football game.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-06-2015, 02:26 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And the reason science loses to religion isn't because of facts....  Science has as much mystery as religion ... 

That's pretty astute.  But the left is belligerent in taking a point in "science' as dogma - they deride the right's denial of evolution while ignoring their beliefs won't evolve.

I disagree that's why science loses to religion.  The entire concept of "buying votes" is a derivative of the poverty and ignorance that religion exploits.

[Beaker]

(07-06-2015, 02:26 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And the reason science loses to religion isn't because of facts....  Science has as much mystery as religion ...  Religion has just been consistent through the years.  Where science has been up as down....(I do realize that's the definition of science)  people like stability.... That's why religion wins.

Science seeks to uncover mysteries...religion seeks to perpetrate them. Religion is the discipline losing ground, not science.

[BmorePat87]

(07-06-2015, 02:26 AM)StLucieBenga Wrote: And the reason science loses to religion isn't because of facts....  Science has as much mystery as religion ...  Religion has just been consistent through the years.  Where science has been up as down....(I do realize that's the definition of science)  people like stability.... That's why religion wins.

I'm going to translate this:

"Science has as much mystery as religion"

Science tries to answer the same questions as religion

"  Religion has just been consistent through the years. "

Religion came up with an answer 3000 years ago and has refused to change despite everything we have since discovered.

"Where science has been up as down"

Science sometimes realizes that their answer was not entirely correct and goes and finds a new answer.

" people like stability"

People are generally dumb

[*bfine32*]

It speaks to folks' ignorance of religion if they assume a believer stops looking for answers.

[hollodero]

(07-06-2015, 04:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's pretty astute.  But the left is belligerent in taking a point in "science' as dogma - they deride the right's denial of evolution while ignoring their beliefs won't evolve.

No it isn't...
...religion just makes claims. No one can ever proof these claims, by no means ever. People pray their whole lifes without any miracle happening to them. They just suffer, experience calamities and die like the rest of us.
Science might not be 100% accurate in many cases. But the results of science are there for everyone to see and for everyone to question.
Now one might question both concepts. But if it's about an important issue, I'd rather trust the brainy guys and the results they publish for everyone to see and examine. How so many Americans deeply disagree on that is beyond me.

Republicans are the only, the ONE AND ONLY major party in the whole wide world who (to a large part) believes that climate change is merely a hoax. And that God will take care of things. Say what you want - but even if you try to make both parties equally clever or dumb, there is only one party who has all the complete lunatics in it. Bachmann. Palin. Huckabee. Trump. We're not proud of our politicians, but none of them are that mad.
That I wanted to get off my chest for a long time now :) not to discredit all republicans. There are some smart people there, too. And some that leave the rest of the world very perplexed.

As for left and right. I don't really know any longer what these words really stand for. The US development, though - which Europe always sems to follow with 10 years delay, except for the wars -, seems to favour the rich and the powerful. They can buy politicians and elections - openly. They do not get touched, but honoured, are regarded as model US citizens, even when all their wealth results from taking jobs away from Americans and to the Chinese who poison their toys with lead while their money rests on the Caymans and so on. Doesn't matter. You're rich, you're wonderful. Your country suffers from the absence of a powerful left wing that has different answers than "everything will work out if we just help the wealthy staying wealthy". Who stand for equality. For all of our flaws - which are countless -, our alleged fascisms and whatnot, Europe has much more content citizens, less powerty, less desparation, less crime. More vacation, more free time - a kind of freedom - and opportunity due to some safety nets, healthier people, more balanced wages, no huge debts due to enormous student loans and so on. And all that is a merit of the left wing. Just a man's opinion, of course.

That having said, I hate declared left-wingers to their self-righteous, arrogant bones. But in absence they would be missed.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2015, 10:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It speaks to folks' ignorance of religion if they assume a believer stops looking for answers.

I've found that the "religious" version of "looking for answers" primarily involves trying to show how science has "proven" the religious answer rather than looking for a new answer.

[*bfine32*]

(07-06-2015, 03:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've found that the "religious" version of "looking for answers" primarily involves trying to show how science has "proven" the religious answer rather than looking for a new answer.

...and I've found that the "scientific" version of "looking for answers" primarily involves trying to show how science has "disproven" the religious answer rather that being open to the possibility that there might be truth to it. 

[Beaker]

(07-06-2015, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and I've found that the "scientific" version of "looking for answers" primarily involves trying to show how science has "disproven" the religious answer rather that being open to the possibility that there might be truth to it. 

Technically you cannot prove anything definitively as technologies/capabilities will change and new discoveries are always possible. But you can definitively disprove something.

[*Nately120*]

(07-06-2015, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and I've found that the "scientific" version of "looking for answers" primarily involves trying to show how science has "disproven" the religious answer rather that being open to the possibility that there might be truth to it. 

I'm totally open to the idea that my ol' man is up in the clouds playing catch with Roberto Clemente, but I can't help but feel like he's probably just a pile of dust in a jar on the shelf.  I think I'm just immune to religion, unfortunately.

At the same time though, people who are open to one religion tend to do so at the expense of being open to others don't they? I can't say that I agree with your notion that the primary aim of science is to disprove religion, either. I WILL admit that I know pretty much nothing about science, so I have "faith" some scientist will figure things out like another may have faith god/God/gods will show the way.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2015, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and I've found that the "scientific" version of "looking for answers" primarily involves trying to show how science has "disproven" the religious answer rather that being open to the possibility that there might be truth to it. 

(07-06-2015, 04:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: Technically you cannot prove anything definitively as technologies/capabilities will change and new discoveries are always possible. But you can definitively disprove something.

Exactly.  Its about actually searching for an answer and realizing you may be wrong and be willing to admit that vs trying to shoehorn your belief into the existing facts even as they change and disagree with you.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-06-2015, 03:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Science might not be 100% accurate in many cases. But the results of science are there for everyone to see and for everyone to question.

Republicans are the only, the ONE AND ONLY major party in the whole wide world who (to a large part) believes that climate change is merely a hoax. And that God will take care of things. Say what you want - but even if you try to make both parties equally clever or dumb, there is only one party who has all the complete lunatics in it. Bachmann. Palin. Huckabee. Trump.

The vast majority of scientists are not out to "disprove" religion, it's only the left that hijacks the science to attack religion.  And most Christians don't take the Bible literally, but the left ignores that (despite the fact a probably equal number of Dems are Christian, as well) really in an effort to discredit other positions (i.e. "well, you're Christian so you think the Earth is only 6,000 years old so nothing you say can be taken seriously").

And many on the right don't believe Climate Change is a "hoax" (another intentionally false attribution to dismiss criticism without actually addressing the arguments).  Pretty much everybody acknowledges the Earth is in a cyclical warming phase, what is rejected is that man is having a quantifiable impact, much less a significant one necessitating drastic and expensive changes - and science HAS NOT demonstrated otherwise.  I happen to find it very difficult to give the field much credibility when it has so dramatically reversed it's direction and theories in the span of just 5 decades.  What scientists believe is rather different than what they've shown with scientific rigor. Their models keep failing in embarrassingly short order, and they keep coming up with new factors or explanations for the failures - in every other field such models are properly labeled "junk".

LOL, you pretty much validate the exact point St.Lucie and I were making, even demonstrating that you've convinced yourself your refuting the argument put forward.

And the left has plenty of nutcases of their own, you just don't see it because you happen to agree with their agenda.  And the nuts on the right you mention are pretty fringe with rather illusory influence - Ted Cruz is a phony as a $3 bill, but he's the only one with any real influence.  Contrast that to Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman-Shultz, Feinstein that RUN the Democratic party...and I'll see your Sarah Palin and raise you Al Sharpton.

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2015, 05:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:   I happen to find it very difficult to give the field much credibility when it has so dramatically reversed it's direction and theories in the span of just 5 decades.

You mean like when doctors changed their mind about bloodletting being a good cure for many ailments?

Yeah, how can you possible trust anyone who doesn't believe the same thing forever?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-06-2015, 04:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's pretty astute.  But the left is belligerent in taking a point in "science' as dogma - they deride the right's denial of evolution while ignoring their beliefs won't evolve.

I disagree that's why science loses to religion.  The entire concept of "buying votes" is a derivative of the poverty and ignorance that religion exploits.

They feel they have to hate God to win so they choose their side. What a classic liberal would do was acknowledge God but not acknowledge the faction who wants to limit individuals rights using religion.

Belief in God and "belief" in science have nothing to do with one another. They work together unless your only goal is to force people to not believe in God. People who believe in God use science to help fellow man all the time. That's why I don't think its right to make them adversarial. And men of science use religion to comfort when there is nothing else they can do...

At least this is how I see things.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2015, 10:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They feel they have to hate God to win so they choose their side.   What a classic liberal would do was acknowledge God but not acknowledge the faction who wants to limit individuals rights using religion.  

Belief in God and "belief" in science have nothing to do with one another.   They work together unless your only goal is to force people to not believe in God.    People who believe in God use science to help fellow man all the time.    That's why I don't think its right to make them adversarial.    And men of science use religion to comfort when there is nothing else they can do...  

At least this is how I see things.

So liberals running for office have said they "hate god"?

Where do you get these things?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I know I'm pretty liberal, but some of this is kinda ridiculous. 

First there is not a single Dem or Rep that I'm aware of that is not religious, or does not believe in God.  2nd it's all political.  Meaning no politician would be elected saying they aren't religious or don't believe in god.  Both parties have to pander to the religious.  Here's the rub, most in this country aren't deeply religious, most even if they are religious find it to more of a personal thing, something that the government has no control of. 

Here is how I think most view the Reps and Dems.

Reps:  I'm uber Christian and plan to legislate that way.

Dems:  Yea I'm Christian (or Jewish), but it's no big deal.  That's my thing not yours, but we're going to make sure everyone is treated the same.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2015, 03:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: No it isn't...
...religion just makes claims. No one can ever proof these claims, by no means ever. People pray their whole lifes without any miracle happening to them. They just suffer, experience calamities and die like the rest of us.
Science might not be 100% accurate in many cases. But the results of science are there for everyone to see and for everyone to question.
Now one might question both concepts. But if it's about an important issue, I'd rather trust the brainy guys and the results they publish for everyone to see and examine. How so many Americans deeply disagree on that is beyond me.

Republicans are the only, the ONE AND ONLY major party in the whole wide world who (to a large part) believes that climate change is merely a hoax. And that God will take care of things. Say what you want - but even if you try to make both parties equally clever or dumb, there is only one party who has all the complete lunatics in it. Bachmann. Palin. Huckabee. Trump. We're not proud of our politicians, but none of them are that mad.
That I wanted to get off my chest for a long time now :) not to discredit all republicans. There are some smart people there, too. And some that leave the rest of the world very perplexed.

As for left and right. I don't really know any longer what these words really stand for. The US development, though - which Europe always sems to follow with 10 years delay, except for the wars -, seems to favour the rich and the powerful. They can buy politicians and elections - openly. They do not get touched, but honoured, are regarded as model US citizens, even when all their wealth results from taking jobs away from Americans and to the Chinese who poison their toys with lead while their money rests on the Caymans and so on. Doesn't matter. You're rich, you're wonderful. Your country suffers from the absence of a powerful left wing that has different answers than "everything will work out if we just help the wealthy staying wealthy". Who stand for equality. For all of our flaws - which are countless -, our alleged fascisms and whatnot, Europe has much more content citizens, less powerty, less desparation, less crime. More vacation, more free time - a kind of freedom - and opportunity due to some safety nets, healthier people, more balanced wages, no huge debts due to enormous student loans and so on. And all that is a merit of the left wing. Just a man's opinion, of course.

That having said, I hate declared left-wingers to their self-righteous, arrogant bones. But in absence they would be missed.

We've done pretty well for ourselves and produced a hell of a lot for the rest of the world, and I don't mean that arrogantly.  Just that not everyone has to do things the same.  We are the descendents of immigrants, and those immigrants didn't come here for more vacation time or free college.  We just think differently, and there's nothing wrong with that.  

[*Nately120*]

(07-07-2015, 10:12 AM)michaelsean Wrote: We are the descendents of immigrants, and those immigrants didn't come here for more vacation time or free college.

No, they came here to escape from crazy Christians.