Am I the only conservative here?

[Steeler]

First off I apologize if this is in the wrong section.
I've read multiple times that there are several conservative minded peeps here, but I don't think I've really seem one yet, that hasn't bailed within a very short time anyway.

Just curious.

[Magdalena]

I'm not one of the conservative minded people here, but last time we, you and I had a conversation it went real nice...I think. You're a conservative we can speak with. 
imaginaryfriendless, well, that's another story.  He's a different type of conservative. 

He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! 

[Recusant]

First off I apologize if this is in the wrong section.
I've read multiple times that there are several conservative minded peeps here, but I don't think I've really seem one yet, that hasn't bailed within a very short time anyway.

Just curious.

This thread is fine in the Laid Back Lounge until it turns into a political discussion. 

I was thinking of you when I welcomed imaginaryfriendless. I'm disappointed that he left, but honestly I don't think he would have stuck around on any atheist site--he was just passing time while he healed from his operation.

[Tom62]

First off I apologize if this is in the wrong section.
I've read multiple times that there are several conservative minded peeps here, but I don't think I've really seem one yet, that hasn't bailed within a very short time anyway.

Just curious.

Hi Steeler,
I'm a Dutch right wing, progressive, green conservative. I guess that makes me a mixture between a Democrat and a Republican, a bit on the right scale of the political scale.

[Steeler]

Hi Tom! Ok, you're 1. Glad to hear from ya!
Mags, you have been respectful in our discussions even though we disagree pretty deeply on some things. But that's ok!
Recusant, I saw that and thought you might have been referring to me. I was a bit behind so the first postings I read of his were in the politics and religion topic. Seemed like a guy I could get behind. Then I read some of his other stuff. Wtf. He had something going there but then imploded.

This is a hard place to be of a differing mindset. Some here see things as I do. We may not agree, but that doesn't make my views any less valid than yours.
But then there are a couple here that just want to slam someone who sees things differently than they do. I don't have much energy to waste on those kind.

[Magdalena]

Mags, you have been respectful in our discussions even though we disagree pretty deeply on some things. But that's ok!

Yes, that's ok!
Let us work/focus on one thing at a time. 

This is a hard place to be of a differing mindset. Some here see things as I do. We may not agree, but that doesn't make my views any less valid than yours.
But then there are a couple here that just want to slam someone who sees things differently than they do. I don't have much energy to waste on those kind.

We all have a "unique" style when we communicate.

[xSilverPhinx]

I know of a couple, but I don't think there are "several". Could be a left leaning bias on my part though to think that a vast majority of atheists are more on the liberal side...

[xSilverPhinx]

He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! 

Yeah! Don't we need to sign a consent form first?

[Asmodean]

I don't fit on the US political scale, but I am pretty damned near to being a right-wing populist by my local standards. That puts me firmly into the conservative territory, but it may not mean the same here as it does elsewhere.

[Dave]

I'm a cherry picker.

Hate politics-for-power of any kind and mixed up ideologucally.

Pragmatic.

Closet anarchist.

OK with anyone will to act respectfully and with sound motives.

[Asmodean]

Anarchy. Now there's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, the masses are neither intelligent nor wise enough for it to work in any but unpleasantly Darwinian way.

[Dave]

Anarchy. Now there's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, the masses are neither intelligent nor wise enough for it to work in any but unpleasantly Darwinian way.

Exactly, Asmo, true anarchy requires a sort of specialised socialism that relies on the full integrity of all members. Not the social Darwinism it could so easily become.

Just another Utopia . . .

[Asmodean]

You know, if I had a more prominent sadistic streak, I'd probably be a social Darwinist. However, even though I'm heavily on the "Fuck you. Earn it!" side of socialism, I do not enjoy walking over metaphorical corpses or seeing otherwise productive people in shitty situations, often due to little fault of their own.

I think that is the least appealing consequence of real-world anarchy. How can you avoid it turning into a world of and for psycho- and sociopaths?

[Pasta Chick]

Since in the US, the current Conservative party is heavily, heavily influenced by religion, I don't think it's a stretch or bias to say more US atheists are liberal. Between that and the other horrible sexist, racist policy the party is currently spewing I distance myself from anything approaching affiliation. But if you took out the religion and bigotry I'd probably be pretty middle of the road...

I find it deeply concerning that the party is eating itself alive with this rethoric. Most people I know who were avowed Republicans up until McCain are struggling to come to terms with it all and tending to vote Democrat because of it.

[Dave]

You know, if I had a more prominent sadistic streak, I'd probably be a social Darwinist. However, even though I'm heavily on the "Fuck you. Earn it!" side of socialism, I do not enjoy walking over metaphorical corpses or seeing otherwise productive people in shitty situations, often due to little fault of their own.

I think that is the least appealing consequence of real-world anarchy. How can you avoid it turning into a world of and for psycho- and sociopaths?

The question is, "How do you define anarchy".

My definition is nothing like a survivalist free-for-all. In terms of it being "without management/leadership" it requires that members do what is reqired to maintain civilisation - without anyone having the authority to order them to do so.

Trouble is that requires someone being willing to shovel shit when shit needs shovelling. Also, every person must have the same "reward", shovelling shit earns you the same quality of life as discovering a life saving drug. Later: if the shit ain't shovelled you might need that life saving drug!

The ultimate, but impossible, equality system. And, ultimately, it is inequality that breeds "evil".