Phi for All

Some conservatives argue that the oil and gas industry is the one we heavily invested in, and it's too risky to rely on unproven new technology where our country's energy policy is concerned ("Gotta dance with the one who brought you"). They argue that they're now finally able to make a decent profit after all the R&D costs they've incurred, and all the federal hurdles they've had to overcome in their steadfast struggle to employ God-fearing Americans and keep their families safe from soviets and socialists who would undermine our way of life. They argue that liberal thinking is the antithesis of working class ethics, and that updating technology leads to robots and the end of the American worker. Some think it's better to keep doing what we've been doing because we just can't know the consequences of changing it.

I see coal as yesterday's technology that needs to be phased out thoughtfully in favor of better, cheaper, cleaner alternatives. To me, it doesn't seem conservative to keep its market propped up with unfair subsidies, and tariffs against its competitors, does it? That seems like an obvious attempt to favor existing technology because of the money being made. The latest information tells me alternative energy technologies are finally viable costwise, so a liberal approach says we should choose the technology that gives us cleaner air and water, and has far fewer reclamation costs. We should be able to re-train people from one industry to the other if we listen to everyone involved and work to do what's best all around.

I'm unsure where keeping jobs in the coal industry fits on the conservative/liberal scale. "We've always used coal, and so many people make their living from it" seems to war with the risks of coal mining to health and environment, and the irrational public subsidization of fossil fuels, from a conservative standpoint. Perhaps this is where liberal vision can help transition to alternatives in a way that keeps people working, but towards better, less risky (conservative) jobs and more sustainable energy. We still need coal to make steel to make solar panels and wind turbines.

You supported the left-brain/right-brain argument, and Strange cited a paper suggesting it's a myth. I thought it was extremely clear, and gently pointed you to some more current information. I think he was hoping you'd actually read the link before commenting.

I think we need to recognize that single mindsets should never dominate. Modern societies work best when the liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers design ways together for society as a whole to progress in beneficial directions with a reasonable amount of risk. If you want to get where you're going safely, you need both the gas pedal and the brake pedal, you can't just keep your foot on one or the other.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion site. Feel free to discuss how you feel evolution has let us down, even quote excerpts from your article. But don't just tell the members to go somewhere else and read something on a commercial site. That's advertising, and it's against the rules. Thanks for understanding.

I forget the comedian who pointed out that balls being associated with toughness and pussies being associated with weakness was completely, utterly wrong.

! Moderator Note Discussions must take place here, and not require people go offsite. Can you give a summary on the topic you want to discuss?

Cursing is definitely more effective when it shocks, which means it either has to be used sparingly, or has to come at a time or place or from a person that will be shocking. Picture grandma, who hasn't cursed a word in the decades you've known her, having her upper denture fall into her soup at the wedding reception and proclaim into the stunned silence, "Ffffuck!" I dislike the body parts curses. We already have such negative associations with how our bodies look, and then we start assigning that negativity to our sexual parts and practices. With all the high-level sexual assault cases coming out now, I'm afraid the word "prick" is forever doomed.

I think a big difference in the conservative stance is the amount of risk one is willing to take. In a stock portfolio, conservative choices would yield modest returns but be more predictable and thus reliable. And science is very conservative when it comes to its methodology as it strives for predictable outcomes. In our society, we risk changing the stuff we love if we change any part of it. Allow something new and you could be killing off something "classic" (which is far better than "traditional" since it carries none of that "stuck in the mud" connotation). Sometimes things are too risky and we just need to stay the course. If you identify your entire self as "conservative", you would probably say you don't take unnecessary risks (another universal trait claimed as partisan). And the only real difference between this and the liberal stance is the definition of "unnecessary". It's really easy for either side to place much more value on either tradition or change based on the exact same amount of risk. Nothing inherently wrong with this mindset, but I think it's easy to exploit it. Make a conservative think something may be too risky and they'll help you suppress it. Even if it's something that may really end up helping them, like consumer protection or universal healthcare. This is a universal trait assigned to "the other side". Liberals and conservatives both will say they "tend" towards one or the other, but the other guys are always following "blindly". We should probably try to remove these slippery phrases from our arguments if we want to get any traction with them.

interested has been suspended for 2 weeks for blatant thread hijacks, and ignoring multiple moderator notes. Don't say we didn't say we didn't warn you.

I won't be posting a list like that, for the reasons I've already stated. Anything I could put down has a different perspective, don't you see? So ignore them. Because I was right? Or don't you think all those things about yourself? I know I do. It's just like cigarettes. If you stop reaching for the straw every time you get stressed, you can quit eventually.

But is there anything in your stance that could tell you when change is bad, and when it's good? Is it blasphemy to change Grammy Viola's sweet potato recipe at Thanksgiving? Is it progress when mom breaks with tradition and starts cooking the turkey in an oven bag so it's not so dried out? Is it conservative to deny an increase in minimum wage because it will cost business owners more, or is it conservative to raise wages to keep people active in the economy and off welfare? Is it conservative to go to the doctor as little as possible to save resources, or to go often as a preventative measure to stay healthy?

I get it. You want to be thought of as conservative, but not Republican, because you imagine that means you're practical, thoughtful, not prone to kneejerk responses, willing to examine things closely to avoid mistakes, and responsible with money. All the good things about being conservative, right? Except all those things are on my liberal list too. They just aren't on your liberal list, and that's the real problem.

Can we just stop calling them that altogether? Because it's not true, nobody I know personally, nobody I talk with here is conservative/liberal about everything. But that's the implication when you call yourself one or the other. In fact, none of the attributes I've seen listed for either "side" is accurate. It's all just a neat way for the spin machines to keep it simple for the stupid. And we're all being just a bit too stupid atm.

There's always a resistance to any change in tradition. We all have certains things we imagine should stay traditional, like a holiday recipe passed down through generations. But I also think we can recognize when something needs to change, if we're given the full information about it. I think we often get partial information purposely, that appeals to our sense of tradition, so we vote not to change. What if the the people who wanted you to only have part of the story make a lot more money if things stay the same? Is that right for the country? Is that the right way to inform the public?

I hope it's becoming clearer that this idiotic black and white, on and off, for or against, left or right, Dem or Rep dilution of complex issues and stances only helps perpetuate itself by remaining vague and easily malleable by anyone who embraces them. We can't fix the problem because we can't tell what it is. Raider5678 claims being pragmatic makes him a conservative. Have you ever known a single person who describes themselves as flighty, irrational, and unrealistic? Pretty much everybody claims to be pragmatic. It's a bipartisan stance when it comes to politics. I think the real area where I part with most people who identify as conservative is the need to judge worthiness. Inevitably, it comes down to public support of the poorest among us, how much to give, how much will help, how much will corrupt. Conservatives usually want to be really conservative with welfare. We've never given enough, imo, but we've experimented with many ways to give as little support as possible. To me, this is where I feel liberal enough to want to try to do better than we've done before, to be the compassionate, communicative, cooperative, intelligent species that takes care of its own, because you never know who is going to do the next great thing, or have the next great idea, or be the next great human.

Maybe in the other thread, but it's off-topic here.

You absolutely MUST start this thread, MigL.

waitforufo has never shown good listening skills, and long ago resorted to fallacies to prop up weak, uninformed partisan rants. It's all been sermons lobbed over the barbed-wire-covered back fence for several years now. If you bring this up though, you're a left-wing demonizer who eats the babies the Clintons personally sacrifice to Satan.

It's not the fault of the bean counters if the government allows them to make more by hoarding than by investing. That's the main reason this new tax bill is bogus. It doesn't encourage any of these wealthy folks to get off those huge piles of cash they've been sitting on since before Obama and invest them in the US economy. I know plenty of wealthy folks, really wealthy, and they all tell me the tax structure dictates a lot of what's done with their money. If the taxes are too high, they shift savings to where it's more profitable, and that's traditionally into more business ventures. This tax cut wasn't about a break for the wealthy. It seems to be more about purposely investing less in the US, by freeing up tax dollars to either invest overseas, or transfer someplace where you can sit on that cash and brag about it.

! Moderator Note And we're out of here. No science being discussed.

This implies it's not the job of public funding to make the rich richer. This goes against mainstream American economics, where the middle and working classes are just supposed to be thankful someone wealthy allows them to work. Only job creators matter in the US, because Republican.

Historically, when Americans realize the bar needs to be raised, they raise it a LOT. Bar-raising is not the time to be conservative.

If you're anti-evolution, you're denying something that happens right in front of us, all the time. I'd rather you stick to some sort of private school to teach your Iron Age superstitions, and leave public schools for people who want to learn science. And I think this is all on topic, since it speaks to critical thinking with regard to our government, and its institutions. If Christian Republicans demand their ignorance be protected, they should have NOTHING to do with public funding whatsoever. We have a separation of church and state, and it's generally considered a good thing.