Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any conservative gamers around? Yes... we do exist.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Any conservative gamers around? Yes... we do exist.

    Yes, any conservative gamers around? The Ron Paul / Gary Johnson crowd is also very welcome!

  • nofather
    replied
    Originally posted by Solana View Post
    This is a fairly reductive argument that uses one example of gun violence as evidence for why basing gun control on criminal records won't actually solve the problem. Obviously as long as there are guns in this country there will be gun related accidents, deaths, and so on.
    You're mistaking my point. The reduction is in a different angle. I think everyone should be able to have guns, but I think we need to build a more responsible and mature populace. As we can look across the ocean and see elsewhere, if people want to kill, they're going to kill. A gun or lack of one is not going to make a difference in a world where a truck can be used to kill dozens and the directions to make bombs are readily available online.

    I was pro death penalty for a long time, until my sister coaxed me into researching it thoroughly. Firstly, putting someone through the legal process of a death sentence takes years. It costs a lot of money going through the court cases, the appeal process, etc, etc. All of these things are done to help insure that innocent people are not put to death, removing them for the sake of cost, in other words putting someone on the express lane, just increases the chance you're going to kill an innocent person. In the end it's cheaper and arguably more humane to just keep them in prison, and if future evidence exonerates them, then you get to feel good about not murdering an innocent person.
    'We took away fifty years of his life, but at least we didn't kill him, isn't much to cheer about considering how our prison system treats people and how they are treated outside. I understand the point of expenses, which is why, again, I said it is conditional on a better judicial system. It is an idealistic belief, but many are.

    Since then, I wouldn't even want the Death Penalty 'in a perfect world', because I don't believe in justice as a form of punishment to make others feel better. I'd much rather our prison systems focus on rehabilitation, which they certainly don't, especially in areas where it has been privatized. Violence and negative behaviors don't come about because people are evil or past redemption, they happen because there is a huge population in this country who don't have hope of achieving the American Dream, whose virtues are diminished by poverty and the oppression that faces people trapped within it. They do bad things because those behaviors are learned in order to survive the situations they found themselves in. I would much rather spend the hundreds of millions of dollars spent sending people to an electric chair, on social programs to lift them out of poverty, and to show them how they can be a part of society rather than excluded from it.
    Certainly many commit crime because it's the only options available to them. But some people hurt and kill people because they want to. Ideally with a better judicial system and prison system that doesn't nearly guarantee a return after a stint in prison, we'll be able to differentiate the two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Solana
    replied
    Originally posted by nofather View Post
    I'm against gun control. Not because I think the president's going to come in and take away everyone's guns, but because I think no matter how many barriers you put in the way, as long as people think taking pictures of their toddlers with guns to support one thing or another or just show off is a brilliant idea, you're going to have problems. A criminal record doesn't tell you whether a person is a responsible person or not, or that their children or other people who have access to their house are responsible or not. That all ties into my beliefs regarding the need for education reform.
    This is a fairly reductive argument that uses one example of gun violence as evidence for why basing gun control on criminal records won't actually solve the problem. Obviously as long as there are guns in this country there will be gun related accidents, deaths, and so on. I personally use the same evidence for why I would prefer the kind of gun regulations that exist in more extreme countries, like Japan as just one example. I may be a bit more lenient on this, because I think if you want to buy and register a gun at say, a shooting range, or for hunting, that's fine. Have people rent out a deposit box-like locker or safe on the premise, you can go to the shooting range and fire your gun. You can take it out hunting - so long as you don't take it beyond the specified areas, and check it back in by an appointed time. Precedent like Australia has shown that regulation can be a very effective response to gun violence.

    However, I live in America, and the culture is such that I don't believe that kind of regulation will ever get approved. Still, it's been shown to work quite well in other parts of the world.

    I'm pro death penalty as well. But I believe with our current, clear problems with police corruption and judicial error, you're going to send wrongfully convicted people to prison and potentially allow the state to execute innocent men or women, which is a travesty. So just like above, I hold some conservative beliefs but they're conditional on changes in other aspects of society.
    I was pro death penalty for a long time, until my sister coaxed me into researching it thoroughly. Firstly, putting someone through the legal process of a death sentence takes years. It costs a lot of money going through the court cases, the appeal process, etc, etc. All of these things are done to help insure that innocent people are not put to death, removing them for the sake of cost, in other words putting someone on the express lane, just increases the chance you're going to kill an innocent person. In the end it's cheaper and arguably more humane to just keep them in prison, and if future evidence exonerates them, then you get to feel good about not murdering an innocent person.

    Since then, I wouldn't even want the Death Penalty 'in a perfect world', because I don't believe in justice as a form of punishment to make others feel better. I'd much rather our prison systems focus on rehabilitation, which they certainly don't, especially in areas where it has been privatized. Violence and negative behaviors don't come about because people are evil or past redemption, they happen because there is a huge population in this country who don't have hope of achieving the American Dream, whose virtues are diminished by poverty and the oppression that faces people trapped within it. They do bad things because those behaviors are learned in order to survive the situations they found themselves in. I would much rather spend the hundreds of millions of dollars spent sending people to an electric chair, on social programs to lift them out of poverty, and to show them how they can be a part of society rather than excluded from it.

    Edit: Reading this back, it felt a bit pushy and fairly heated. I apologize for my tone and am not trying to demean you for holding the views that you do, just trying to explain my own.
    Last edited by Solana; 11-04-2016, 06:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nofather
    replied
    I'm against gun control. Not because I think the president's going to come in and take away everyone's guns, but because I think no matter how many barriers you put in the way, as long as people think taking pictures of their toddlers with guns to support one thing or another or just show off is a brilliant idea, you're going to have problems. A criminal record doesn't tell you whether a person is a responsible person or not, or that their children or other people who have access to their house are responsible or not. That all ties into my beliefs regarding the need for education reform.

    I'm pro death penalty as well. But I believe with our current, clear problems with police corruption and judicial error, you're going to send wrongfully convicted people to prison and potentially allow the state to execute innocent men or women, which is a travesty. So just like above, I hold some conservative beliefs but they're conditional on changes in other aspects of society.
    Last edited by nofather; 11-04-2016, 03:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBRocky
    replied
    Originally posted by Jachra View Post

    I'm sorry, but calling them a moderate borders on dishonesty. There's more than one form of conservatism - they're pretty definitively a social conservative.

    As Heavy Arms points out, you're making a case of "Well they're left on guns and fiscal policy. They're a moderate!"

    Mixing peas and carrots just means they aren't ideologically pure. The balance of their beliefs is conservative.
    I really don't appreciate you calling me dishonest just because I don't agree with you. I read his views on things and he has some Conservative views and some liberal ones, plus he says he is in the middle which what is normally called a moderate.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBRocky
    replied
    Was going to quote Heavy Arms and then Paradim but figured it's just easy to start typing and chat.

    Lets start with what the 3rd poster mentioned gun control he specifically brought up what he called Assault Rifles. Conservatives when they hear this will normally use the term Semi-Auto Rifles and possibly even explain the difference and why they don't believe they should be banned.

    Now to Universal background checks. Yes Conservatives do agree we need background checks but will also say we already have them and need to concentrate on enforcing the laws we already have in place. Simply put, we already have that in place and can't even enforce those properly why should we make more.

    Now to what Paradim said about the No-fly list. I totally agree with you there and it bothers me when people think it's a good idea to use the list as a way to determine guilt. This is not violation of the 2nd Amendment but the Due Process clause of the 5th the on where you are innocent until proven guilt, scary when both the ACLU and the NRA agree for the same reason. Now this doesn't mean I think terrorists should have guns but if you want to call some a terrorist take them to court and prove it. We have done this to groups before in our history such as blacks shortly after the civil war which is why there is a 14th amendment and to Japanese Americans when we put them in camps during WW2 and both are wrong.

    But more on the subject of finding the middle ground on gun control. One of the problems the right has with this is how many times will we have to compromise? Will it just be once, or will it be every time something bad happens with a gun so we have to go far beyond what we originally agreed to or were even asked to do? While people scoff at the idea it is a legitimate concern.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paradim
    replied
    Originally posted by Jachra View Post

    I'm sorry, but calling them a moderate borders on dishonesty. There's more than one form of conservatism - they're pretty definitively a social conservative.

    As Heavy Arms points out, you're making a case of "Well they're left on guns and fiscal policy. They're a moderate!"

    Mixing peas and carrots just means they aren't ideologically pure. The balance of their beliefs is conservative.

    Hrm, what do you think makes a "moderate"... moderate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jachra
    replied
    Originally posted by JBRocky View Post

    ‚ÄčLets see it's not Conservative for the pro gun control, and on fiscal matters they clearly stated they are to the far left. Those are the two big ones, which pretty much would get you dirty looks if you call yourself a conservative, which the poster called themselves a moderate.
    I'm sorry, but calling them a moderate borders on dishonesty. There's more than one form of conservatism - they're pretty definitively a social conservative.

    As Heavy Arms points out, you're making a case of "Well they're left on guns and fiscal policy. They're a moderate!"

    Mixing peas and carrots just means they aren't ideologically pure. The balance of their beliefs is conservative.
    Last edited by Jachra; 11-04-2016, 02:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • etherial
    replied
    Originally posted by Paradim View Post
    Example: I do not support using the No-Fly list as a basis for a gun control measure of denying purchasing a firearm to a person, because I see the No-Fly list as an unconstitutional policy which also causes more harm than good due to how it's implemented.
    It would not surprise me if some of the Congresscritters in support of using the No-Fly list to control guns are doing so specifically to challenge the Constitutionality of the No-Fly List itself. I know I am.

    FWIW, I consider myself a Small Government Socialist. The places I break with the Libertarian POV is where the math just doesn't bear them out and that liberty and prosperity can be increased through the use of Government Action due to economies of scale. Social Security, Public Education, The FDA, and the Interstate Highway System are a few examples of these.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paradim
    replied
    Originally posted by ElvesofZion View Post


    Oh yes, I agree. I was specifically referring to this threads call for 'Conservatives' though. My comments may not be enough in line for that. Given the previous 'hijacking' of the thread I wouldn't want to continue it rather than take it more on track. I do think that the origianl basis for the thread is fundementally flawed though and that is why it went off 'track' so badly.
    I kind of think that there's no real authority that can definitively say whether a particular person is "Conservative" and so I think the only reasonable determination for that is whether a person self-identifies as "Conservative" or not. So if you consider yourself "Conservative", I'm not really going to argue with you on that.

    Over all, I'm not sure what exactly the purpose of this thread was. But I don't think the OP is really participating in it much now and so the purpose of the thread is more of what we make of it, and I kind of like considering policies through a "conservative" view because a lot of places I generally hand out tend to focus more on the "liberal" view. It's refreshing and a good challenge to my initial premises regarding policies.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElvesofZion
    replied
    Originally posted by Paradim View Post

    If it helps, I don't really think that every liberal or "left" policy is the correct course of action either (Example: I do not support using the No-Fly list as a basis for a gun control measure of denying purchasing a firearm to a person, because I see the No-Fly list as an unconstitutional policy which also causes more harm than good due to how it's implemented). I think there is a solid middle ground between "conservative" ideals and "liberal" ideals that will be more effective in the long run. Working out places of common ground and areas of largest concern might allow a more nuanced approach to finding a path that works the best for the most people, with the consideration that we're all living here together.

    This really does require the people involved in the conversation to not think the worst of who they're talking to, though. And that's been... problematic of late.

    Oh yes, I agree. I was specifically referring to this threads call for 'Conservatives' though. My comments may not be enough in line for that. Given the previous 'hijacking' of the thread I wouldn't want to continue it rather than take it more on track. I do think that the origianl basis for the thread is fundementally flawed though and that is why it went off 'track' so badly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paradim
    replied
    Originally posted by ElvesofZion View Post

    I have actually been struggling with whether I should continue to post in this thread for this exact reason. Maybe I am not the 'conservative' that the OP wanted. I don't usually think of myself as one, even given that some of my ideals line up with the 'right'.
    If it helps, I don't really think that every liberal or "left" policy is the correct course of action either (Example: I do not support using the No-Fly list as a basis for a gun control measure of denying purchasing a firearm to a person, because I see the No-Fly list as an unconstitutional policy which also causes more harm than good due to how it's implemented). I think there is a solid middle ground between "conservative" ideals and "liberal" ideals that will be more effective in the long run. Working out places of common ground and areas of largest concern might allow a more nuanced approach to finding a path that works the best for the most people, with the consideration that we're all living here together.

    This really does require the people involved in the conversation to not think the worst of who they're talking to, though. And that's been... problematic of late.
    Last edited by Paradim; 11-04-2016, 12:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElvesofZion
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    And this goes back to a weird thing about all this. The idea of "purity" or needing to be completely one way or the other on the political spectrum. If the majority of an individuals policy positions are conservative, are they conservative, or are the not because they agree with liberals on some things?
    I have actually been struggling with whether I should continue to post in this thread for this exact reason. Maybe I am not the 'conservative' that the OP wanted. I don't usually think of myself as one, even given that some of my ideals line up with the 'right'.

    Edit: To address Paradim since there was an interstitial post.

    Oh yeah, every topic has much more nuance when you actually bother to discuss it rather than just using blanket terms.

    Small Government is another one of these for sure. You can see from my other posts that I do agree that there is a role for government in society. And that is an area that I am constantly adjusting my stance. The two sub descriptors of Libertarianism that I think are of import here are Minarchism and Anarchocapitalism.

    For Reference:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert...cho-capitalism

    Anarchocapatlism has an appeal to me from an ideological stand point. It is resonant that no authority should be able to force me to do a thing (preventing me from harming is different than forcing me to help). But at the same time there is a lot of things that I am not sure could be accomplished without some oversight in the form of a government, and government needs funding and authority to function. The most pragmatic approach I think for now is to try to maintain as small a government as possible and to constantly re-evaluate the needs for and methods of, all governmental institutions. As well, in the United States at least this means reviewing what is delegated to the federal government versus regional.

    I also believe that the Constitutional Amendment system has been sadly neglected in recent years. If there is actually a national desire to see something change that is fundamental to the Constitution, such as granting the federal government new powers, then an Amendment is the correct way to do that.

    Side Note: I realize it was repealed, but I was avoiding the statement of supporting ALL of them specifically not just because of the 18th but also because I would need to double check a few to be sure that I want to say that I support them all.
    Last edited by ElvesofZion; 11-04-2016, 12:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paradim
    replied
    Originally posted by ElvesofZion View Post
    I think that's enough of a baseline. I am happy to talk any specific point that anyone wants to bring up.
    I can agree with several of these positions. I think that when you actually discuss narrow topics, the conversation can become a lot more nuanced than simple tribal identifiers of "conservative" and "liberal" or whatever labels are preferred to be used.

    A spot that I find myself coming into conflict a bit on is the concept of "Small Government". In general, I do prefer for government to be as small and non-intrusive as possible. However, I do think the government provides a vital role in maintaining stability, order and regulation that benefits society. An example that I can provide here is the Food and Drug Administration. While there can be a strong argument that poor food products in a market won't survive by customers preferring products that are considered poor value or substandard, there are examples in history of people taking actions for motive of profit that is drastically hazardous to the health of the populace. A prime example here is during the 18th century, Bakers would add adulterants to the breads they baked in order to reduce the amount of flour they use. Examples of adulterants included chalk (not strictly poisonous, but in the amounts used, not good for your health), alum, lead oxide and even copper sulfate. The FDA provides an important role by making sure that products are actually safe for consumption and it's a role that was determined to be necessary strictly due to the many bad examples throughout history of bad actors (BN: This doesn't mean the FDA doesn't have problems that can use fixing, but strictly that there is a vital service being provided that only the government can perform due to having the authority and expectation of society).

    And so the concept of "Small Government" is, I think, rather flexible from how I view it. I expect certain services from my government, and while I prefer government kept as small as possible, if there is a recognition of a service that should be provided, I do expect government to expand to provide that service. It's for that reason that I support a public health care option, as I think there needs to be a standard of affordable health care for society and because I think private health care options should have an expectation of minimum services at a particular rate so that private health care can actually rise or fall based on an expected standard.

    So, I'm curious as to what you think of that more nuanced look at "Small Government". Do you think that the role of government can be expanded while still holding to a philosophy of "Small Government"?

    Side Note: I don't think you need to worry about defending the 18th Amendment because the 21st Amendment repealed it. So the 18th Amendment is pretty much only on there as a historical record. It has no effect or impact on the current day. ^.^

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by JBRocky View Post
    ‚ÄčLets see it's not Conservative for the pro gun control, and on fiscal matters they clearly stated they are to the far left. Those are the two big ones, which pretty much would get you dirty looks if you call yourself a conservative, which the poster called themselves a moderate.
    As has already been noted, pro-gun control is not an inherently non-conservative stance. It's not the stance of the Republic party, which considers itself to be the conservative party, but actual control policies are not inherently binary in this regard. A functional universal background check system is, for example, something the majority of conservatives consider a good idea. It's something the NRA used to support, and the NRA's move to being more radical over such topics as the organization came under the sway of corporate lobbyists over regular gun owners famously caused Bush Sr. to publicly rip up his NRA membership card in disgust when they opposed his conservative minded gun control package.

    What is now called, "common sense" gun legislation used to be incredibly non-partisan and centrist policy, with the debates only on the outer edges of the issue. The shift to convince the American right that any gun control is bad and a partisan issue is something that happened in my life time.

    And this goes back to a weird thing about all this. The idea of "purity" or needing to be completely one way or the other on the political spectrum. If the majority of an individuals policy positions are conservative, are they conservative, or are the not because they agree with liberals on some things?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X