Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

American Society is permanently divided.

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2014 1:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think this society is permanently divided, and the two dominant views cannot be reconciled.

The division seems obvious. Conservatives: social and mostly economic, want small government and personal responsibility, no abortion, but death penalty for certain crimes, and certain sexual behavior should be taboo. Largely based on Jewish/Christian foundation that is seen as absolute.

Liberals: Social and mostly economic, want more government controls/regulation/assistance, less burden of personal responsibility. Abortion should be a legally protected choice, no death penalty, no taboo sexual behaviors. Largely based on...what we feel like we want at the time.

I don't see any reconciliation between these two generalizations. I think we ought to split the country. It would be better than fighting (physical), which is where we're heading. After all, what do you do when conversation breaks down but you have to live and work together, and our political system requires citizens to discuss governmental policies?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2014 6:17:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
you seem to be forgetting the multitude of people having a mix of both beliefs. Like I'm a centrist i think some parts of conservatism are good and some parts of liberalism are good too
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2014 10:54:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/12/2014 6:17:20 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you seem to be forgetting the multitude of people having a mix of both beliefs. Like I'm a centrist i think some parts of conservatism are good and some parts of liberalism are good too

True. But, do you feel strongly enough about any one issue to take sides if someone else started a conflict over it? Say there was a riot between Union and Right to Work, or Pro-life and Pro-Choice, or whatever issue is closest to you, and the government chose to support the other side and put down the protesters of your side. Would you consider fighting?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:17:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/12/2014 10:54:03 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/12/2014 6:17:20 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you seem to be forgetting the multitude of people having a mix of both beliefs. Like I'm a centrist i think some parts of conservatism are good and some parts of liberalism are good too

True. But, do you feel strongly enough about any one issue to take sides if someone else started a conflict over it? Say there was a riot between Union and Right to Work, or Pro-life and Pro-Choice, or whatever issue is closest to you, and the government chose to support the other side and put down the protesters of your side. Would you consider fighting?

absolutely not fighting is pointless. and technically you splitting the country down the middle SOLVES NOTHING, because there are conflicting beliefs within the party. Think about religion. Different religions fight with each other but also different sects of religion fight with each other. The Sunni and Shiite have fought brutally for a long period of time, and various denominations of christianity have fought with each other for a good time. So really politics could be the exact same and even is the exact same various versions of conservatism and liberalism have in-fighting
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:05:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:17:36 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/12/2014 10:54:03 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/12/2014 6:17:20 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you seem to be forgetting the multitude of people having a mix of both beliefs. Like I'm a centrist i think some parts of conservatism are good and some parts of liberalism are good too

True. But, do you feel strongly enough about any one issue to take sides if someone else started a conflict over it? Say there was a riot between Union and Right to Work, or Pro-life and Pro-Choice, or whatever issue is closest to you, and the government chose to support the other side and put down the protesters of your side. Would you consider fighting?

absolutely not fighting is pointless. and technically you splitting the country down the middle SOLVES NOTHING, because there are conflicting beliefs within the party. Think about religion. Different religions fight with each other but also different sects of religion fight with each other. The Sunni and Shiite have fought brutally for a long period of time, and various denominations of christianity have fought with each other for a good time. So really politics could be the exact same and even is the exact same various versions of conservatism and liberalism have in-fighting

If the fighting escalated to the point where your opponents were about to commit violence against you or your family, would you see a point to fighting? I'm not hopeful that this happens, but it does everyday in other countries, and even in the US, though less often.

Not every division leads to fighting on a civil war scale. Some people are able to avoid eachother. But if one group starts imposing law that another group finds morally unacceptable, it's not like a Red Sox fan avoiding a Yankee fan. The disagreement is upon the group not in power with the force of armed officers of the law.

I see no middle ground worth speaking of between conservatives and liberals in the US right now. What is seen as right and wrong is almost totally flipped from side to side. Without a common moral compass, the US as we know it is doomed to diminish.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 12:13:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You're making it seem too easy to divide people. What if someone is socially conservative and doesn't support homosexuality, but economically liberal and wants the government to actively work to reduce poverty?

How do you separate a country in two when there could be 3 liberals and 4 conservatives living on the same street? Do half of them have to move? Which ones? Who gets evicted and who gets to stay, and is it ever fair to the side that has to leave?
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 5:36:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/12/2014 1:20:56 AM, Skynet wrote:
I think this society is permanently divided, and the two dominant views cannot be reconciled.

The division seems obvious. Conservatives: social and mostly economic, want small government and personal responsibility, no abortion, but death penalty for certain crimes, and certain sexual behavior should be taboo. Largely based on Jewish/Christian foundation that is seen as absolute.

Liberals: Social and mostly economic, want more government controls/regulation/assistance, less burden of personal responsibility. Abortion should be a legally protected choice, no death penalty, no taboo sexual behaviors. Largely based on...what we feel like we want at the time.

I don't see any reconciliation between these two generalizations. I think we ought to split the country. It would be better than fighting (physical), which is where we're heading. After all, what do you do when conversation breaks down but you have to live and work together, and our political system requires citizens to discuss governmental policies?

My Stance on Your Premise

I disagree with the overall point that society is permanently divided at all. Conservatives and liberals work together both in the government and within society as much as they work against each other, whether in terms of policy or actually achieving goals. In fact, the higher the social class in which these ideological camps fall, the less impassioned their members appear about their sociopolitical beliefs, as it seems that they direct almost all of their attention to their personal initiatives instead, such as running their businesses, improving their careers, or maintaining their families. If anything, their perspectives are something of a low, barely noticeable hum in the background of the composition of their lives.

My Stance on Your Definitions

In all honesty, I can barely approach your argument at all, because how little I agree with the definition of each ideological camp. Conservatives don't necessarily want a small government -- they prefer minimal government intervention in the economy. Clearly, they prefer a lot of government intervention in other matters, such as sexuality. In my opinion, the government has no business intervening in the personal sexual lives of the people, with the exception of sex crimes, which should be defined as actions that are sexual only by the merit of involving genitals or gender considerations, but are actually forms of predation.

Furthermore, both conservatives and liberals seem to appreciate personal responsibility. If you're referring to social programs that assist those that need assistance, the vast majority of those funds (sometimes upwards of 70%) apply to social security and medicare. In other words, those that have worked their entire lives to maintain this country, and those too sick to make the money to try and get better or live decent lives with a terminal disease.

In 2013, that percentage was only 46%. The rest of our tax dollars went to:

National defense -- 19%.
Safety net programs (including welfare, but also government-subsidized grants or loans for victims of fires, natural disasters, etc.) -- 12%.
Interest on the national debt -- 6%.

http://www.cbpp.org...

The point of breaking that down for you is that, although it's true that conservatives tend to disagree with the allocation of tax dollars to social programs that help people, they're generally hypocritical about it, because those same conservatives that own businesses that would be happy to receive safety net money prevent the bankruptcy of those businesses, and those same conservatives appreciate the social security that helps keep the older members of their family alive, and even for themselves when they come of age, if they're not rich.

However, both conservatives and liberals expect personal responsibility from the citizens of this country. Accordingly, we still have an IRS, several credit bureaus, and various other devices meant to incentivize personal responsibility, and I've never heard or neither conservatives nor liberals disagreeing with such incentives.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 10:14:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 12:13:24 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
You're making it seem too easy to divide people. What if someone is socially conservative and doesn't support homosexuality, but economically liberal and wants the government to actively work to reduce poverty?

How do you separate a country in two when there could be 3 liberals and 4 conservatives living on the same street? Do half of them have to move? Which ones? Who gets evicted and who gets to stay, and is it ever fair to the side that has to leave?

I agree that the logistics are staggering. I don't know how eviction or property swaps or government incentives to move could possibly work. I don't know where the borders should be.

I do know the two sides have irreconcilable differences, and you only need about 5% of the population who are willing to fight to have a big problem. Right now that's 1.5 million, which is slightly less than the entire military, active and reserved.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Keep in mind many people who join the military are already willing to fight for what they believe their country stands for, and officers have the freedom and duty to uphold the Constitution, however they interpret it.
So it wouldn't be 6% military against 2.5% angry conservatives against 2.5% angry liberals.

Tell me, where is the common ground between those who believe abortion is murder, and those who believe abortion access is a fundamental human right? One side must be convinced or silenced. There's no conceivable compromise. Peaceful separation is preferable to the inevitable civil conflict.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 10:52:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

nonprophet wants to sign up for one of those 2.5% groups.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.