Posts by ruggedscout98

ironpanther5 said:And honestly, your constant whining shows you're totally missing what's actually happening on the political stage because you're clinging to some textbook theory that crashes headfirst into reality at every single micro-level. Just stop trying to lecture everyone; you've already dragged this into a five-post argument all because of your own fixations, even though your opponent was actually much closer to the facts than you are.
The media-driven voter might be the one deciding things, but let's not pretend a media-driven voter is the same thing as being a Liberal.

Give me some actual arguments if you want me to take you seriously.

Jacob Lewis5 said:I actually brought up radical Liberals in the very first sentence of my opening post.
Don't worry about apologizing, I was just messing with you.
There aren't any wars fought for the reasons I listed—starting with the Crusader States, which were sparked by plagues, difficult trade routes through North Africa, or just the rich wanting to grab more land. Nothing exists that is inherently "bad." Religion, ideas, nations, smartphones, the internet, cars—none of it is good or bad on its own. We can make all of those things great or turn them into poison, but as far as I'm concerned, every single human invention is totally neutral.

I completely agree with the last part.

...but regarding the wars... I don't really feel like explaining the causes and pretexts of the Crusader States here right now, but essentially they started due to territorial expansion based on religious grounds... the Thirty Years' War was a typical religious conflict, the Hundred Years' War was about expanding territory... looking closer, the First North American War was essentially a religious war, Orthodox against Muslims, not to mention the American Civil War and so on.

...and yeah, liberalism emerged on an economic basis, strengthening the citizenry after the fall of feudalism and the need to protect private property. Later, this was expressed as reducing state influence on personal freedoms, and finally political tolerance and pluralism, while advocating for the protection of human rights from the very beginning.

Life, Liberty and Property... John Locke

Linda Fox45 said:Everything feels upside down here. Our right-wingers are basically socialists when it comes to economics—they criticize capitalism just as fiercely as any radical leftist would. They often praise Russia and similar nations, bash American foreign policy, obsess over various power centers, lean into conspiracy theories, and push for a massive government state... they're only "right-wing" because of their views on family, religion, and marriage...

Spot on... my take is exactly the same. The biggest communists in America are actually the clerical right-wingers... the biggest fascists are the radical leftists. Someone like Spiro Agnew, acting like a Christian nationalist, is actually a Liberal, while Joe Biden claiming to be a Liberal is really just an economic technocratic conservative...
...The American right mostly pushes anti-American policies and cheers for Palestine, Iran, and radical religious Islam, while the left tries everything they can to crush Israel and big corporations.

Susan Lopez2 said:When discussing liberalism, one must acknowledge that what we call "liberalism" today bears very little resemblance to how the term was used even a few centuries ago. This holds true for almost all political ideologies. For instance, back in the 18th century, liberals were often proponents of slavery, and leading up to the 20th century, many actively opposed women's suffrage. Concepts such as same-sex marriage weren't even part of their intellectual landscape at the time.

It’s still not on their radar today either... asking them about it is basically absurd because, to a Liberal, it's a given that everyone is free to express their opinions, views, or preferences. But since you wanted to get technical, fine—we'll state our views clearly. Of course, that tends to annoy both the religious Right and the radical Left, because those ideologies prefer a society built on blind obedience rather than actually speaking your mind.

Jacob Lewis5 said:And is "religious right" supposed to be an insult?
So what, are conservatives claiming everyone is equal now?
Just to be clear, I haven't changed my stance on radical liberals at all during this debate.

Am I offending someone by calling them a clerical right-winger?

You brought up radical Liberals on page three of this thread... but in your very first post, you lumped Liberals in with radical leftists... to me, that's just basic ignorance. Though, honestly, my apologies if I offended you.

...as for wars, do I really need to list every single conflict fought over territorial expansion, religious differences, or ideological divides? That's why wars happen. For cheese? Sure, wars are fought over cheese too, but even then, it boils down to ideology—one side thinks the cheese stinks, the other thinks it smells great.

ironpanther5 said:Alright, sure, the Liberal Democrats or the Libertarian Party might flip-flop on who ends up in power, but looking at the landscape here in America—where the leader of the biggest leftist party claims he's a liberal, and most people who call themselves liberals actually vote for that same massive leftist party—I don't think it's a stretch to label them as the left. I suppose that's just how things work in developing democracies.
Honestly, trying to parse the whole left-vs-right divide in today's climate is a headache because the lines are constantly shifting.
In my book, economic liberalism belongs to the right, while social liberalism sits firmly on the left.
Since we don't really have a true economic right wing over here, "liberalism" basically just turns into whatever the leftist platform happens to be.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and social movements... Joe Biden can claim to be a liberal all he wants, but his actual actions completely contradict him... if we're talking about true liberals, even Rod Blagojevich fit the bill better... it's just a matter of the centrist voters deciding the outcome (I mentioned this in another thread), which is why both Rod Blagojevich and Joe Biden tried to carve out space in that center. Joe Biden failed, Rod Blagojevich was slightly more successful, whereas someone like Bill Clinton actually pulled it off relatively well... in America, the Election Commission usually hands the win to whichever party manages to swallow the liberals more effectively.

Jacob Lewis5 said:So you think radical liberals are just the next step in the long history of liberalization?
No war fought over those things has ever happened like this before...

Right, so we went from "liberals" straight to "radical liberals"... what does that even mean? Left? Right? What's the actual foundation of this "radical liberalism"? Who even coined the term?... Let me give you a quick answer to those questions: "radical liberals" don't actually exist. It's just an insulting, manufactured label mostly used by the religious right.

Amanda Allen4 said:Call it whatever you want—call it a nation, call it a state—but you cannot simply wish away the past or alter the established course of human history. All you can do is speculate about what lies ahead. Will this nation vanish entirely, morphing into something else altogether? Or perhaps not?

Fine. It seems like everyone is obsessed with nations, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with speciesism. I disagree with Blackadder’s take that nations represent an animalistic mindset. Actually, it's the opposite. Animals don't understand "nations"—they only recognize races and breeds. You don't find different languages or cultures among various animal breeds. Animals rely on non-verbal communication; a kangaroo from Australia will understand a reindeer from Lapland just fine. So, nationality isn't an animal principle, and neither are language or culture. Racial principles are animalistic, and racial principles are fascist. To reiterate: speciesism aligns much more closely with the religious right than with liberalism.

Jacob Lewis5 said:No war has ever been fought over a nation, a religion, or some lofty ideology... honestly, even basic arguments aren't caused by those things, not even a simple misunderstanding... never once in history. So, those factors aren't the actual issue here, and they aren't what we're talking about.

The real question is whether we're actually equal to other species. Why are certain liberals so obsessed with forcing this kind of equality? They’ve already gone as far as trying to grant civil rights to monkeys.
Some people want to scrap the titles "mother" and "father" entirely and just redefine traditional institutions. Is anti-speciesism just another chapter in this same ridiculous story?

There you go again with the liberals... speciation isn't about liberals, it's about radicals...

...and saying not a single war was fought over nation, religion, or ideas is 🤣

Linda Fox45 said:That sounds like a nightmare. Who would ever want that? To have every distinction wiped out and humanity turned into some sort of bland, featureless mass? To make that work, you'd need some massive totalitarian state led by some "Great Leader." You couldn't achieve that through simple agreement. Besides, it's just human nature to favor those from your own tribe or background while remaining cautious toward outsiders—isn't that just evolutionary conditioning? It's not some made-up concept. People form various groups and communities to work toward common goals, and those groups—whatever you want to call them—build their own traditions, which are essential to any society.

That’s basically the dream for both the hardline communists and the religious right.

ironpanther5 said:Sure, they exist, but where do they actually sit on the political spectrum?
On a global scale, they usually end up forming coalitions with social democratic or even socialist parties, so if you’re looking at things through an American lens, you'd pretty much always find them leaning toward the left.

That’s just flat-out wrong... liberals ALWAYS partner up with center-right parties—look at Germany, France, or the UK...

...liberals are a centrist option. Just because they lean left or right sometimes doesn't mean they belong to one specific side of the aisle.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Man, you barely skim the surface of what I write. Zapatero was a leftist PM who got way too caught up in bioethics and completely lost sight of actual social issues.

Check this out—the local anti-speciesism crowd laid out their principles here, and honestly, they don't have anything to do with any right-wing platform. http://stop-specizmu.org/index.php/o-nama

Look, I think you only ever write half of what you actually mean...

Obama isn't in office... so I don't know what you mean by "recently"... The Democrats lost power in the US back in 2011... recently? Sure...

...to me, the views on that link you posted are just as leftist as they are right-wing... it's radical green-left activism that shares its extreme principles and tactics with the religious right... nothing to do with liberals

ironpanther5 said:Oh, really?!
I mean, what else would they be if we're talking about the social side of things rather than just the economics?!

So liberals

Sean Sanders said:Fair enough, but I think you're off base regarding how nations actually function. At its core, a nation is a social construct—a human invention. It's essentially an organizational tool developed by our species. We grouped up because of friction with other groups, shared interests, or often just financial rivalries. We built group cultures because, back in the day, we didn't have global travel allowing everyone to stay in constant contact. Think of it like this: it's similar to how a punk subculture might invent its own flag, a unique slang, and specific customs; give that a few centuries, and you've effectively birthed a new nation. A nation is a culture, a sect, or a community, but it isn't biological. It doesn't have anything to do with bloodlines. After all, if a German shares your blood type, they can donate blood to you perfectly fine. Nature didn't design nations; humans did. They are artificial structures. Take English, for example—we could all communicate across the entire planet using it. If we decided to unify the continents, turn the world into a single state, and dissolve existing borders, we could speak one language and become one global nation. It's entirely a matter of collective will and agreement, not impossibility. If the majority of people on Earth wanted that, it could happen. It would take time for people to mingle and for mindsets to blend, eventually resulting in a new, shared way of life. Anything is possible; the question is simply whether anyone actually wants it to happen.

Different languages, cultural traits, and history... that's what makes a people (a nation), and it's pretty far from speciesism. Sure, there are varying degrees of intensity regarding the points we're discussing, but personally, I don't think a nation is "artificial." A nation is a product of evolution—the moment someone lives through a period and decides where they belong. In other words, national identity is a matter of personal will, a choice. Anyway, getting into a deep debate over whether something based on choice is "artificial" isn't really the point here, so I'll leave that for another time... okay?

Sean Sanders said:Everything you’re saying feels a bit forced, rather than organic. Think about it: religion is an artificial construct, much like the concept of nations themselves. These are human inventions, not products of Mother Nature. Living in harmony with the laws of nature isn't the same thing as regressing to a primal, animalistic state. In my view, nationalism or fascism is what truly represents that lower level—it's just a primitive instinct to mark out territory, much like how animals claim space, applied through the lens of religion.

Exactly...that's my point. My only caveat is that nationalism isn't the same thing as fascism. Nations aren't just made up; if they were, we'd all be speaking the same language, wearing the same clothes, and eating the same food. A nation is part of human evolution. Animals don't have nations, but they do have races...which falls under that "territory marking" category. That's fascism, not nationalism. Specism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology that has nothing to do with liberalism.

Susan Lopez2 said:Look, I am telling you that neither the traditional left nor the right—not even the liberals—have anything to do with anti-speciesism. This is entirely a new, radical ideology driven by extreme animal rights activists.

I agree... just try explaining that to the religious right.

Susan Lopez2 said:Specism spans the entire political spectrum; it includes both the left and the right, essentially encompassing anyone who prioritizes human beings over other species. I honestly doubt there is a single person alive who isn't a specist. Perhaps vegetarians come the closest to avoiding it.

I am not entirely sure how liberals—especially the classical variety—fit into this equation. This whole concept of "specism" was essentially cooked up by radical animal rights activists, much like that Singer fellow.

That’s exactly what I’m getting at here... and I still don't see how vegetarians relate to liberals. That's my constant question. Why are you linking liberals to specists? Or anti-specists? What does liberalism have to do with specism? That was literally the first sentence of this thread.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂
There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.

As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.

The leftist Prime Minister of Spain? Who are you talking about? Do you even know who's currently running things in Spain?

Susan Lopez2 said:Specism is essentially the act of prioritizing humans over all other species. Therefore, specists are those who grant preferential treatment to people, while those fighting for the rights of monkeys are actively opposing specism.

So, does that make speciesists left-wing or right-wing? And what’s the connection between them and liberals?

William Turner45 said:Man, this is just pointless nonsense. Liberalism is a leftist option; it always has been.

Where are the actual arguments? Or are you just sharing your personal feelings? "Always"? Was Ante Starčević a leftist?