Got To Be Kidding wrote:Deuce Dropper wrote:Got To Be Kidding wrote:Deuce Dropper wrote:
Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).
So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.
No, it's all about getting 'granular' - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.
What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It's a whole lot easier to bash people when you've turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it's easy to destroy them.
People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.
If you're not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you're upset, I understand. It's cathartic. Whack away.
But, let's not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.
Where is the conflict? I am simply asking why 'Ideals' and 'Platforms' (as in the title) are portrayed in such contrasting ways. Not looking for a few self-satisfying whacks, and if anything you came into this thread with a bit of beef and perhaps a bone to pick, so it might be wise to take a bit of your own advice (unless this was a crafty sarcastic example of further hypocrisy and if that is the case, I applaud you for guile).
What 'beef' or 'bone' would I have to pick with you?
Would you believe that I really wasn't being sarcastic?
And yes, there is conflict. It's inherent in the subject that you chose, and in some of what you said.
You ask the question about hypocrisy. You can't call it hypocrisy until you've thoroughly examined the motives of either side, and when you do that, the issue gets a lot more complicated.
The only way to understand the issue is to get down to the level of the individual. Of course, when you get down to the level of the individual, you find out that 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are false dichotomies.
There it is, the ultimate truth.