Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(24-12-2015 07:13 AM)Sobek Wrote:  Sorry, this being the Politics section of the forum I assumed more people would be familiar with POTUS on Sirius XM satellite radio. Sirius has a station for lefties, one for righties and then POTUS (Politics of the US) which is the independent/moderate channel. It's the home of the Michael Smerconish radio show, Julie Mason's Press Pool, Steele and Ungar, No labels Radio with John Huntsman, and a bunch of other programs for political junkies who want thoughtful discussion and debate of the issues rather than partisan hacks shouting talking points. Smerconish once ran a poll on his website in which he was surprised to discover how many of his listeners were atheist or agnostic, which is the main reason I brought it up.

Dafuq?!? They co-opted POTUS. In my neck of the woods it stands for "President of the United States". I do like Smerconish and Huntsman though. Cenk I have to be in the mood for.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 01:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Since you are unable to defend your position that violence is the solution to every problem and keep having to grasp at such desperate distractions, doesn't that mean maybe you should reconsider your political position? Wouldn't you like to be in the comfortable position that we libertarians are where you can throw any political challenge at us, and we can address your point head-on with facts and logic?

Facts like how his position is that 'violence is the solution to every problem'?

Your facts look pretty similar to lies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 02:14 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Facts like how his position is that 'violence is the solution to every problem'?
Your facts look pretty similar to lies.

I challenged both Chas and Cjlr and any other dem or rep to come up with just one position that we differ on that does not involve them wanting to use force or violence vs me preferring a peaceful solution. Nobody has ever come up with even one exception to the rule. Chas just deflected to some trivia about Swiss pension, and cjlr essentially conceded the point but said that force/violence must be used or else people will die.

So how is it a lie? Would you the same thing if this were a mathematical debate? When Pythagorean proposed that a2 + b2 = c2, and after all these years nobody has been ever able to identify an exception to that rule, would you call it a "lie"? Do you have even a hint of substance to your accusation, meaning can you identify one policy issue that dems/reps disagree with libertarians on that isn't the former wanting to use force and the latter not?

Monetary policy: dems/reps want legal tender laws that haul people off at gunpoint if they use an unapproved currency (read about what happened with the liberty dollar). libertarians want people to be able to choose, free from force or coercion, which currency they'll use.

welfare: both sides generally agree on a transfer of wealth from rich to poor and ensuring the disadvantaged are taken care of. dems/reps want to take the money through taxation and haul people off at gunpoint if they refuse. libertarians want to accomplish the same goal through charity and voluntarism.

foreign policy: dems/reps feel that if a country has something they want (like oil) or does something they don't like (like build a nuclear program) the correct response is to carpet bomb them and take their oil or force them to give in. libertarians want the military to play a purely defensive role and address such matters through diplomacy.

transportation: dems/reps want to force everyone to subsidize the automotive sector, making everyone pay for roads they may not use. libertarians believe the industries should compete to provide the most efficient, cost-effective solution and the people should be free to choose the transportation that works best.

medicine: dems/reps want the government to tell everyone what medicine is approved and haul people off at gunpoint if they use unapproved medicine. libertarians like the idea of independent groups providing safety recommendations, but want people to be able to make a choice. curious side point: Martin Shkreli became the most hated ceo for raising the price of Daraprim to $750/pill. Hillary chimed in that she'd fix this problem with regulation. But what created the problem in the first place? Daraprim is available from suppliers in the UK for 66 cents/pill. So why can't Americans buy it there? If medicine were a free market economy, you could never have that type of inbalance--the free market would auto-correct and Shkreli would have been out of business. Why must Americans choose between paying Shkreli $750/pill or dying? Because of the very regulation that Hillary supports--where Americans are hauled off at gunpoint for smuggling if they dared to try to import Daraprim from the UK to save their lives since the FDA only allows Daraprim to be bought from Shkreli's company, giving him a monopoly so he can charge $750/pill.

narcotics: both sides agree drugs are bad and want to discourage them. dems/reps haul people off at gunpoint and lock them up and give them a criminal record that can ruin the rest of their life if they grow unapproved plants in their yard or put unapproved substances in their body. libertarians treat it as a public health issue, believing society should help those with addictions through charity to get the care they need and be re-integrated. case in point: Obama admits that like most youth he experimented with illegal drugs--a lot. But the only reason he got to be President is because the police failed to catch him. If he had been arrested, taken out of college to do time, when he got out, what would his chances have been as a young black ex-con who never finished school? His likely career path would be a pimp selling Michelle on the street corner. So what about youth who are following in his footsteps, experimenting, and, like him would eventually grow out of it and go on to be productive members of society? They're thrown in jail and denied the chance.

I can go on and on and on. So please, give me an example of one policy difference that does not boil down to dems/reps wanting to use violence to solve a problem. If you can't, and thus have to concede the point, then I feel justified in saying I understand the dem/rep position better than they themselves do because libertarians look at things from a completely different perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
25-12-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
Quote:Somehow the simpletons on the Left,

I worry far more about the ignorant psychos on the right.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2015 03:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 02:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  curious side point: Martin Shkreli became the most hated ceo for raising the price of Daraprim to $750/pill.

Compounding pharmacies which are not subject to the same regulations as drug manufacturers have already said they're gonna make it for $1 pill. Brilliant boy ain't so brilliant. Think he's on his way to genpop for Ponzying shit up.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 02:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I can go on and on and on. So please, give me an example of one policy difference that does not boil down to dems/reps wanting to use violence to solve a problem. If you can't, and thus have to concede the point, then I feel justified in saying I understand the dem/rep position better than they themselves do because libertarians look at things from a completely different perspective.

Different, and retarded as all hell and not even remotely feasible. Libertarianism is naivety, writ large.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-12-2015, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2015 05:17 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 03:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Different, and retarded as all hell and not even remotely feasible. Libertarianism is naivety, writ large.

First, lookup the significant inventions in human history, as well as other historic markers like longevity. After thousands of years of human history where it was tried your way, and the role of government was to initiate force, and enforce the will of the ruling class (be it the majority or the monarchy), there was relatively little progress. Then in the 17th century when in a few countries classic liberalism (today called libertarianism) was tried, and they turned this on its head and decided the role of government was to block force, not initiate it, and to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority, it instantly revolutionized the world and the rate of progress exploded. Within just a couple centuries mankind went from a life of struggling to feed a child to survive you once you died at age 40, to a long life with advanced technology. We see that in so many ways as the world abandons libertarian principles, technology is going backwards. For example, transportation. In the matter of 100 years, the US went from having nothing to having 250,000 miles of rail, with air conditioned trains running at over 100 mph, and 2,500 different local electric rail lines that meant every town with a population over 10,000 had an electric light rail system and 90% of all trips were on electric mass transit. And in the 1920's the rail industry was working on the hyperloop, building a train in a vacuum concept to allow faster than the speed of sound travel. This was until the government took over. Then in the 1920's, politicians argued it should be regulated, so they capped the fares, thus eliminating all invention in new technology and the hyper loop was abandoned. Then in 1935 they forced all the electric mass transit to be sold off, so it was all dismantled, and they eventually killed freight rail by passing regulation that they had to carry passengers, and eventually ended up nationalizing rail as Amtrack. And as part of the new deal, the government decided to force everyone to pay for roads and subsidize transportation by internal combustion cars. And now 100 years, technology is going backwards. The amount of time wasted in traffic is getting worse and worse. The US went from 250k miles of rail to 25k. And the trains are running at half the speed they were 100 years ago.

And there's no solution because progress by it's definition requires risk--trying new things which ultimately may fail. But humans are risk:reward calculators and never take risk if there's no reward (nobody plays the lottery when there's no jackpot). So when self-proclaimed "progressives" fight to eliminate the reward associated with taking risk, they eliminate the risk and thus the progress. You can see it today in California when they're planning to spend $50 billion on a train that does 150 mph. Elon Musk says we should revisit the hyperloop idea from 100 years ago and for 1/5 the price we can have a train that runs 3x as fast. But it's new technology, and that means risk. And since it's being run by the government, bureaucrats will never task risk since there's no reward. Why risk trying some new, unproven technology because if it fails, they'll be vilified for squandering public funds and the public will call for severe punishment, and if it succeeds, they'll just be able to keep the job they already have. The same as if they take no risk.

If it's really naive, then why can't anybody name one example of a country that ever suffered from being too libertarian? When you rank countries by how closely they comply with the libertarian ideal, and then overlay that ranking with quality of life indexes, like life expectancy, income, etc., it's a straight line--the closer you get to the libertarian ideal the more people live long, happy, healthy, prosperous lives. And the further you get away from it, like the extremes in N. Korea where the government micro-manages every aspect of one's life, people die young, miserable and destitute. Yet when debating which direction a country should go, dems even more than reps argue we need to be more like N. Korea--concentrate and centralize the power even more, with fewer liberties, more government coercion.

To me it's naive for you to dismiss the facts and evidence and cling to the neanderthal notion that the use of force is essential to solve every problem and that anybody who proposes peaceful, non-violent solutions is automatically a lunatic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 05:22 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 05:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(25-12-2015 03:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Different, and retarded as all hell and not even remotely feasible. Libertarianism is naivety, writ large.

First, lookup the significant inventions in human history,

“Yes, the government will be somewhat inept,” he said brusquely, swatting aside one objection as a trivial statement of the obvious. “But the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them.” - Bill Gates

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 02:57 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Somehow the simpletons on the Left,

I worry far more about the ignorant psychos on the right.

They both worry me, but the older I get, the less patience I have for naive youthful idealism and the more I understand those cranky old conservatives. Not to say that everyone on the left is a simpleton or everyone on the right is a psycho. There are genuine debates to be had and valid points to be made by folks on either side.

@frankksj--My problem with Islam is at a much more fundamental level. For sake of discussion, let's imagine that all Muslim countries were stable and there were no violent jihadists. These societies would still be antithetical to Western Liberalism as I perceive it. Societies in which apostasy or blasphemy against the prophet are prosecutable crimes that can land you in jail or get you executed are not compatible with free inquiry and human progress.

Let's say, however, that these societies achieve true separation of mosque and state. Then you essentially have what we have in the West, a secular state and a group of conservative religious people attempting to retard progress and hold back the hands of time, on the basis of some interpretation of their scriptures. This is what baffles me most about the Left becoming such ardent apologists for Islam. In your typical Muslim society lefties suffer the most. Go to any Muslim country and come out as gay, or give a public talk criticizing Mohamed or debunking Islam. Trust me, even with no interference from the West you will discover that they have plenty of potential for violence all on their own and fully sanctioned by Islam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 05:53 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2015 06:12 PM by Sobek.)
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
All of the debates that have ensued in this thread are EXACTLY why I would like to find an organization that is very narrowly focused on the goal of promoting secularism and injecting a non-theist viewpoint into the public discussion without getting sidetracked into a million other issues.

One of the things that got me thinking was listening to a speech by one of the presidential candidates in which he said something along the lines of wanting to be a president for people of all faiths, Christians, Jews, Muslims...and EVEN Atheists! Wow, think of that...a president EVEN for those insignificant atheists that no one ever takes into account, or mentions, let alone actively courts in the political process. Muslims are what, less than 1% of the electorate? How many American voters are atheists? How many more are atheists and just don't know it? Smile

This is the value of organizations. Sane, middle of the road groups representing the views of a certain significant percentage of the population, groups that can be courted by political candidates, that can furnish spokesmen, issue PR statements, endorse candidates, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: