America's 2 main religions

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 76
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
America has 2 main religions.  They are called Democrats and Republicans.

Why do I call political parties religions?  Because most people take their most passionate issue (for example, someone who is prochoice on abortion) and they use their prochoice stance (which the democrats happen to back) to determine all their other stances on issues.  This is a problem as it leads to people not thinking for themselves and it leads to people being partisan hacks.

If someone does something because of their faith based religion (a Muslim praying to mecca, a Jewish person being kosher, etc) then this is totally fine.  We all have our guess as to who is the true God that will send us to heaven (except atheists and agnostics ) so it makes sense that for faith based religions to treat these faith based ideologies like religions, where you do and believe something because of your religious beliefs.

However, people unfortunately apply this same logic to policy based ideologies.  They may say, "I think abortion is wrong because it kills a child" or, "I think abortion is okay because a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body", but unless abortion is their voting issue, they are more often than not just parroting talking points from the party that they hooked up with based on a different issue.  They might as well say, "I think abortion is wrong because of my republican religion" or, "I think abortion is okay based on my democrat religion"

Political parties should not be treated as religions.  Every issue should be analyzed with a fresh lens not corrupted by any other issue.

For example, Abortion Trends by Party Identification (gallup.com) states that republicans have a 31% chance of wanting all abortions banned, a 54% chance of wanting abortions legal under certain conditions, and a 15% chance of wanting all abortions to be legal.  I could argue that the average republican has 112 prolife points (31x2+54) and 84 prochoice points (15x2+54).

The same site states that the typical democrat has 57 pro life points and 141 pro choice points.

If people really thought for themselves, then the number of pro choice points each party has would be about the same and the number of pro life points each party has would be about the same.  But the reason there is such an enormous difference in points for either abortion position is because most people from BOTH parties pick an issue they care a lot about (it's usually not abortion), and if the democrats agree with them, the person ends up agreeing with the democrats on the vast majority of issues (and vice versa for the republicans). 

If the next democrat presidential candidate said, "We should fight for equality, and that includes for the unborn, so I'm pro life", and the next republican presidential candidate said, "I oppose the welfare state, so I'm pro choice because it minimizes welfare use" then both parties would flip on abortion.  All of the members of either party would do one of the following things:

1)(If their voting issue was abortion) Switch parties, and switch all of their other stances along with it to fit into their new party.
2) (If their voting issue was a different issue) Change their stance on abortion (they would think they are thinking for themselves when in reality, they are just letting a party think for them)
3) (If they are truly thinking for themselves) Not changing their stance on an issue because some politician hundreds of kilometers away advocated for some position.

Hopefully, people pick #3, but most people are going to pick #1 or #2.

This is a problem.  Your stance on abortion should not correlate with your stance on guns, immigration, white privilege, stance on LGBT organizations, taxes on the wealthy, military spending/war, climate change, or any other issue.

Think for yourself!
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,596
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
What you say is true. Political parties came about in olden days before people could read. It was the only way of spreading information and raising money back then.
There is no need for political parties anymore and they should be banned. With the Internet, a person can give his views on running government. We need to eliminate campaign funding.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
There is no need for political parties anymore and they should be banned.
As of right now, your profile contains a political party I think.  I think, "Progressive" implies the democrat party.

But I'm glad we agree.  :)
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
What do you guys think of a one-party state?
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I disapprove of it.  A one party state can do anything they want and not risk losing an election.  A 2 party state is bad because people flip flop between the 2 parties and people vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.  A multi party state is bad because people still think in terms of their party rather than thinking for themselves.

America should prohibit it's politicians from having political parties and they should all run as independents.
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,596
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

I agree with TheUnderdog. America should prohibit it's politicians from having political parties and they should all run as independents.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's more like comparing Baptists with Mormons. One is loud, the other is crazy, but all of them throw their money away to Washington DC.
#8
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
I am in favor of an one-party state. It has proven to be much more effective
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hasn't worked for California.
#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Think for yourself!
How exactly do you tell when someone is not thinking for themself?


#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Sounds like anarchy.

Not sure how anarchy would pan out.

Though if your solution to government is internet based anarchy,

Aren't you actually, just transferring governmental responsibility to media corporations.

At the end of the day, it's just shadowy people assuming power and responsibility,

And the rest of the people being either happy or unhappy to go along with things.

A bit like what we currently do.

Though it could be argued that the current situation is somewhat more open to question, than the shadowy world of algorithms.
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
How exactly do you tell when someone is not thinking for themself?
There are roughly 20 political issues.  Think of this as 20 coin flips, with heads representing democrats and tails representing republicans.

If someone was thinking for themselves, then they would get roughly the same number of heads and tails (or democrat and republican beliefs).

Instead, most people don't think for themselves.  If they happen to pick tails/republican on the abortion issue as their main issue, they end up getting tails on almost every other issue (and they are under the illusion that they think for themselves when they don't).

If someone has a significantly more number of left wing beliefs than right wing beliefs (or vice versa), then they probably aren't thinking for themselves.
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It's more like comparing Baptists with Mormons. One is loud, the other is crazy, but all of them throw their money away to Washington DC.
I don't get what your saying.
#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
If someone was thinking for themselves, then they would get roughly the same number of heads and tails (or democrat and republican beliefs).
And what are you basing this on? Cause it sounds like you’re pulling it out of your @$$

First of all, the fact that these two belief sets are so predominant in our society suggests a much deeper cause. My assessment is that the two sides think completely differently, left wingers being more practical and logical, right wingers being more emotionally driven. I’m sure many would disagree with that assessment, but however you would characterize it the point is that our beliefs do not live in a vacuum so the way we approach one issue will be the same for nearly all issues. This is why when someone for example buys into one conspiracy they’re more likely to believe others.

There is nothing about common belief sets that on its own suggests people are not thinking for themselves.

Second, the idea that they should be about even does nothing to make your point. If everyone was split 50/50 you would be calling that evidence of people not thinking for themselves. Anyone who takes contrary positions to be contrary is doing the same thing by letting others dictate where they land on any given issue.

This whole charge of not thinking for oneself is pointless without specific and valid evidence. Beyond being insulting, dismissive, and smug, it’s an unfalsifiable charge and accomplishes nothing except to deflect from the issue. If someone is defending a position they have no argument for them we should just focus on that.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's worshipping the same savior with 2 different approaches.
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
I’m sure many would disagree with that assessment, but however you would characterize it the point is that our beliefs do not live in a vacuum so the way we approach one issue will be the same for nearly all issues. This is why when someone for example buys into one conspiracy they’re more likely to believe others.
People who are conspiracy theorists are consistently skeptical of the government and institutions.  They could be either republicans (who are also skeptic of the government) or democrats (skeptical of institutions like big business).  Whether or not one is a conspiracy theorist should have NO impact on their stance on abortion or their stance on the death penalty.

If everyone was split 50/50 you would be calling that evidence of people not thinking for themselves.
If someone happened to agree with the left half the time and the right half of the time, I might not agree with all their conclusions, but I would relize that they are thinking for themselves.

This whole charge of not thinking for oneself is pointless without specific and valid evidence.
It's because most people either agree with the left over 90% of the time or the right over 90% of the time.

On the following issues:

  1. Additional gun control
  2. Abortion ban/Additional abortion restrictions
  3. Mask mandate
  4. Qualified immunity support
  5. Mandatory vaccine
  6. Climate change denial
  7. Anti religious freedom
  8. Gay marriage discouraging
  9. More Environmental regulations
  10. Death penalty for murder
  11. Tough on vape
  12. Relocating peaceful (undocumented/illegal) immigrants(to either their home country or to blue counties).
  13. Tough on Nicotine
  14. Tough on weed
  15. Affirmitive action
  16. Tariffs
  17. Medicare for all or public option
  18. Increase Military spending
  19. Subsidize renewable energy
  20. Corporate welfare
  21. Foreign aid (not war related)
  22. Foreign aid (war related)
How can somebody think for themselves and consistently side with the left or the right on all of these issues?  For instance, I agree with the left on issues 4, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22.  I also agree with the right on #1,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,19, and 21.  I agree with the left on 7 issues and the right on 14 issues, but I have enough of both viewpoints to convince myself that I think for myself.
#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
A combination of demographic changes, progressive rule, and being the center for cultural liberalism will do that.
#18
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
People who are conspiracy theorists are consistently skeptical of the government and institutions.  They could be either republicans (who are also skeptic of the government) or democrats (skeptical of institutions like big business).
If you include more than just 'conspiracy theorists' into this split, I think you got it quite accurate with who each side is more skeptical of and most willing to give power to the other (government or corporation) in order to tame the other.
#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Whether or not one is a conspiracy theorist should have NO impact on their stance on abortion or their stance on the death penalty.
Please go back to my post and read it again, because you clearly did not absorb a word of it. The conspiracy theorist thing was an example, it had nothing to do with the larger point.

Your entire thesis seems to be “I think for myself and I’m split on the issues, therefore anyone who thinks for themself must be split in these issues”. This is nonsense, and you have shown nothing to back it up.

I don’t control what anyone else thinks and what anyone else is labeling “left” or “right”. The fact that my beliefs align overwhelmingly with what society has labeled “left” has no bearing on my opinions. Again, people who think similarly are going to agree on most issues, so this is much more easily explained as having two different mind types that are predominant in society rather than the world being populated by a mass of mindless bots awaiting instructions. Only a narcissist would look at the latter and think that makes more sense.

Topic's author
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Again, people who think similarly are going to agree on most issues, so this is much more easily explained as having two different mind types that are predominant in society rather than the world being populated by a mass of mindless bots awaiting instructions. Only a narcissist would look at the latter and think that makes more sense.
Most people (especially on DART) are mindless bots awaiting instructions from Biden, Trump, Sanders, or some figure on the left or right.  If Trump in early 2021 backed vaccines and even vaccine mandates, the right would be saying, "Get vaccinated; it's your patriotic duty.  We should force you to get vaccinated you pussy." and the left would say, "My body my choice; this applies to abortions and vaccines".  When Trump was in office, even people on the left were saying they wouldn't take the vaccine ('I'm not taking it' - Harris says she won't take vaccine if 'Trump tells us we should' - YouTube) and their only reason is that they don't like Trump (and the right was wanting the vaccine so life could resume as normal).  Similarly, many people on the right don't want to take the vaccine now that someone with a D next to their name is in power (and the democrats are pushing the vaccine because someone with a D next to their name is in power).  If you think your are thinking for yourself, I think it is merely an illusion. 


I'm not a narcissist for thinking that.  I just realize that most people take their marching orders from left wing or right-wing YouTubers and websites.  Everyone should be a free thinking independent.
#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
All you do is make bold pronouncements with nothing to back it up. Again, the charge that someone is not thinking for themself is unfalsifiable, so if you understand anything about how logic and reason works you would know that this means it’s also logically unsupportable, aka a definitionaly irrational claim.

The vaccine thing is a good example of where there are probably plenty of mindless bots within our society. On the right you have people who’ve never had a problem with vaccines before, which are vaccinated for polio, measles, and like 10 other diseases, suddenly anti vax apparently because Trump said so. But your portrayal of what happened on the left goes to show that you don’t pay attention and you don’t care about what actually did happen.

The left wing flirt with anti vax views was fueled by fears that Trump was going to insert himself into the approval process and thereby politicize it so we could have a vaccine before the election. But he didn’t, so once we could all see that the system worked as it was supposed to our concerns went away. To say that “we” would have been anti vax if Trump was for it goes to show how little you understand any of the BS you are talking about with regards to what others are thinking. At least I’m open minded to someone explaining to me why they’re anti-vax now when they never were before, you just proclaim people don’t think for themselves which beyond being an objectively irrational generalization, is also completely and utterly pointless and counterproductive to the idea of having intelligent conversation.

I just realize that most people take their marching orders from left wing or right-wing YouTubers and websites.
No, you have causation backwards. Most people watch YouTube and frequent their websites because these sites tell them what they want to hear and/or already believe.
#23
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
If Trump in early 2021 backed vaccines and even vaccine mandates, the right would be saying, "Get vaccinated; it's your patriotic duty.  We should force you to get vaccinated you pussy."
It doesn’t seem so:


People seem to like Trump because he advocates for what they already believe to be true and sensible. The above demonstrates what happens when he does not do this…


Topic's author
#24
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@cristo71
Trump only backed the vaccines months after the left was pushing them.

If Trump a year ago said what he said about a month ago, the left and the right would have different positions on the vacciene (because the right is the party of Trump and the left is the party of anti Trump).
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
To say that “we” would have been anti vax if Trump was for it goes to show how little you understand any of the BS you are talking about with regards to what others are thinking.
('I'm not taking it' - Harris says she won't take vaccine if 'Trump tells us we should' - YouTube)  shows Kamala Harris not wanting the vaccinee if Trump was the one giving it to her.  If Trump won the 2020 election (he didn't, but if he did), both parties would have very different opinions on the vacciene.
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
I already went through this. Are you going to respond to anything I say, or just keep pretending I never said it?
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
To be fair, I wouldn't trust any government official mandating a vaccine. I would ask my doctor.
#28
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Progressivism is a religion. The religion of conservatism is Christianity
Topic's author
#29
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The religion of conservatism is Christianity
This is inaccurate.  Conservatives aren't christain theocrats.
#30
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is inaccurate.  Conservatives aren't christain theocrats.
Neoconservatives, No.

Right-wingers in general, I would say a little. It is pretty obvious that Christianity is intertwined with right-wing politics