Specialty Item

ruggedscout98 said:So liberals

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.

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

ruggedscout98 said: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?

Fair enough. My point is simply that anything man-made rather than nature-made is artificial and unnatural, especially when people start trying to rewrite the rules of biology. Things humans invent can be changed, abolished, or replaced with something entirely new. Personally, I wouldn't call nations "evolution"; I’d call them a step backward. Why? Because borders, different languages, and varying mindsets act as friction against the progress of humanity and our planet. They are limitations, obstacles, and complications—an artificial fragmentation of a single human race. This division causes different parts of humanity to develop at different rates, leading to one group exploiting another, fueling wars, and endless psychological and political games. Humanity acting as one people, and the planet functioning as one global state, is the only truly natural and correct path. Ultimately, it’s what’s best for us all. The longer these artificial divisions persist, the harder it will be for humanity to break free from them. But hey, we can save that for next time.

Amanda Allen4 said:A nation is a cultural category—it's the inevitable result of social evolution moving from the individual to the primitive community, then to tribes, then peoples, and finally to the modern nation. Therefore, a nation isn't "invented"—it is a necessary byproduct of human development.

To me, calling a nation a "primitive" or "animalistic" category feels a bit off. We've already covered this ground elsewhere.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, that would be a total disaster for anyone with any sense of nationalism or tribal identity. But your argument that viewing things through a tribal lens is "natural"? Come on! Look at history—that kind of thinking is basically a horror movie waiting to happen. It’s essentially animalistic logic. It’s like marking out territory and then attacking the first outsider who wanders onto your turf. Look, I realize some people have been brainwashed or just lack foresight, but we’ve evolved past basic animal instincts. What are you actually describing? An animal kingdom. Thanks, but I'll pass; that's repulsive to me. It’s no wonder historical atrocities like the Holocaust happened if people view the world this way. If I view everyone as equal, I'm certainly not building a concentration camp, but if I start looking at things through a tribal lens... well, you see the pattern. It’s incredibly primitive. Sure, a nation is a social construct—Mother Nature didn't just tap the earth and say, "Okay, now there's the United States and then there's Mexico"—but still, let's be reasonable here.

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.

The classic response from those living in fear. It’s what happens when people let anxiety about nature and common sense take over. This is the inevitable result when basic logic and physical reality get pushed aside in favor of manufactured cults, whether they be nationalistic fervor, religious dogma, or other social constructs.

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?

Sean Sanders said:To me, calling a nation a "primitive" or "animalistic" category feels a bit off. We've already covered this ground elsewhere.

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?

At what precise moment did people decide to swap out common sense for religions and nationalism?

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 🤣

It isn't a matter of speciesism, but rather anti-speciesism. That specific ideology is known as anti-speciesism; speciesism itself refers to everything else—essentially, the act of prioritizing humans.

ruggedscout98 said: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 🤣

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...

Sean Sanders said:Well, that would be a total disaster for anyone with any sense of nationalism or tribal identity. But your argument that viewing things through a tribal lens is "natural"? Come on! Look at history—that kind of thinking is basically a horror movie waiting to happen. It’s essentially animalistic logic. It’s like marking out territory and then attacking the first outsider who wanders onto your turf. Look, I realize some people have been brainwashed or just lack foresight, but we’ve evolved past basic animal instincts. What are you actually describing? An animal kingdom. Thanks, but I'll pass; that's repulsive to me. It’s no wonder historical atrocities like the Holocaust happened if people view the world this way. If I view everyone as equal, I'm certainly not building a concentration camp, but if I start looking at things through a tribal lens... well, you see the pattern. It’s incredibly primitive. Sure, a nation is a social construct—Mother Nature didn't just tap the earth and say, "Okay, now there's the United States and then there's Mexico"—but still, let's be reasonable here.

I’m a conservative and a skeptic—not a fascist or a nationalist by any means. The idea of an all-powerful State stepping in to control everything and erasing our individual cultures and differences... it's honestly terrifying. It’s just a fact that people have different levels of ability—and trying to force equality where it doesn't exist naturally? That usually ends in disaster. Just look at what happened under communism. Everyone deserves equal rights, sure—but not everyone is equally capable.

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.

ruggedscout98 said: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.

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.

In this country, the only true economic right exists within the Democratic Party.

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.