Why are we anything?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Since I believe the why are you a republican thread will get locked and I am vaguely interested in why people self-identify as anything, I thought I would start a thread on that. So lets get the obvious out of the way, I identify as a heterosexual male because I am a heterosexual male. I am more interested in why people identify with specific generations (ie X versus Y, baby boom versus WWII etc), religious ideologies (Jewish, Hindu, Tribal etc), political ideologies (liberal, conservative, fasciest etc), and any other self-identifying tags that have reasons.



I am technically the child of a baby boom couple and hence a member of the boomlet generation. However, while I was born when my parents were in their mid-thirties putting me into the generation Y I find myself identifying with the boomlets...

I am an atheist (with Jewish cultrual ties because of my parents) because it always seemed to be a superfluous (and somewhat scizophrenic) belief to my every day life.

I am consider myself liberal simply because I like to consider all reasons for an action and their outcomes placing more weight on social implications/causes than conventional "wisdom"....



Anything else?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    statistics
  • Reply 2 of 27
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    why are we anything :



    because i am something



    / sorry, could not resist.
  • Reply 3 of 27
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The human species is tribal in nature.
  • Reply 4 of 27
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Its actually a lot of questions folded into one. I once did a study in one tiny aspect of that question. What desides the level of eduaction we reach? The result was:



    50% primary socialisation

    40% secondary socialisation

    10% none-explained with the used variables.



    So even an answer to a fraction on your question can be as useful as "42"



  • Reply 5 of 27
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    alright... i give up...
  • Reply 6 of 27
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    I identify myself as a libertarian atheist geek.



    Because



    1) I disdain the FCC. I disdain the NEA. I disdain welfare. I disdain social security. I disdain preemptive warfare. etc. etc. I respect and agree with the consistent, educated, and principled platform of the Libertarian Party.



    2) I disdain religion. 'Nuff said on that topic.



    3) Comic books, video games, and wrestling are major components of my life.
  • Reply 7 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Cogito ergo sum.
  • Reply 8 of 27
    One of the great talents of the human brain is to classify and group absract objects and concepts into descrtete catagories. This helps us learn and figure the world out. We can make the very complex simple and defined. It also causes us to be predjudice. A guy with blue hair riped me off once, all guys with blue hair are crooks.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    I have always asserted that blue-haired people are not to be trusted.
  • Reply 10 of 27
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    I'm a libertarian because after I read several of Locke's works I was so impressed with the beautiful simplicity of them that I knew eventual human adoption of libertarian ideals was inevitable, and I may as well get on the boat early.



    I'm a protestant because I find that treatment of religion to be the most enlightened when taken fully, and since I do believe in a higher power it makes sense to go for what I consider to be the most enlightened treatment of divinity.



    I prefer cars with rotary engines because the rotary can offer a vastly higher power-to-weight ratio than conventional, piston driven engines without the impracticalities of turbines.



    I prefer macs because I find the total user experience to be much more fulfilling than it is with windows or any other OS.



    I like crisp, light-colored beers like pilsners because I like the strong taste of continental hops and because I don't enjoy sweetness in beer.



    Anyway, I'm going to comment on the atheist punks who have posted so far. A decent number of self-proclaimed libertarians these days are folks who are convinced that religion is evil and that any authority is bad, largely on naive rebelious clauses. They give a bad name for the rest of us. While Ayn Rand was an atheist, she by no means defines the position. Atheist egoists can find solace in Libertarian ideals, but in the end a huge requirement for the libertarian ideal to exist rests sqaurely on the nature of man, that it is good, and it leads to some pretty serious suppositions on the nature of the universe.



    Just FYI, I call you punks because there seems to be a rather baseless anti-establishment thing here. There are reasons for an entity like the FCC to exist. While it could be semi-privatized like the web consortium, certain agreements do need to exist for public spaces and I think all Libertarians understand this.
  • Reply 11 of 27
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    libertarian principles are good to a point. with your FCC example, i know of many libertarians who would say that any regulation by the government was bad, but to place such regulation in the hands of the corporations is putting too much faith in the good nature of those groups of people. while most people may be inherently good (defined in my mind in a very biological sense), groups of good people are not generally good. mobs may be composed of good people but they rarely ever do good...

    then again there do exist sociopaths...
  • Reply 12 of 27
    messiahtoshmessiahtosh Posts: 1,754member
    I am an 18 year old male, Orthodox Christian (struggling with faith to an extent), and have 100% Italian heritage. I am also a Mac user. I consider myself to be a republican, as well.



    The reason I am a registered Republican is because of my father. I tend to listen to what he says on the subject of politics, since he has worked directly with the political system for over 30 years. He is a lobbyist and deals with D's, R's, and I's, on a daily basis. He has a Ph.D. in political science and he knows his stuff inside and out. Since he has such a unique, hands on perspective of politics, I feel as If he must honestly know better than the average person. And when he talks politics he makes so much sense, in a very articulate and factual manner. My dad should have been either a CNN political analyst or a football coach, but that's another story...
  • Reply 13 of 27
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    Quote:



    Anyway, I'm going to comment on the atheist punks who have posted so far. A decent number of self-proclaimed libertarians these days are folks who are convinced that religion is evil and that any authority is bad, largely on naive rebelious clauses. They give a bad name for the rest of us. While Ayn Rand was an atheist, she by no means defines the position. Atheist egoists can find solace in Libertarian ideals, but in the end a huge requirement for the libertarian ideal to exist rests sqaurely on the nature of man, that it is good, and it leads to some pretty serious suppositions on the nature of the universe.



    Just FYI, I call you punks because there seems to be a rather baseless anti-establishment thing here. There are reasons for an entity like the FCC to exist. While it could be semi-privatized like the web consortium, certain agreements do need to exist for public spaces and I think all Libertarians understand this




    Libertarianism does not make the assertion that the nature of man is good, in fact, it makes the very opposite. As for the FCC, no, the vast majority of Libertarians oppose the FCC and censorship in all shapes and forms. You seem to me to demonstrate a lack of understanding of Libertarianism.



    You support capitalism. You support the FCC. Hey, man, you're a Republican. Congratulations.
  • Reply 14 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ganondorf

    I identify myself as a libertarian atheist geek.



    Because



    1) I disdain the FCC. I disdain the NEA. I disdain welfare. I disdain social security. I disdain preemptive warfare. etc. etc. I respect and agree with the consistent, educated, and principled platform of the Libertarian Party.



    2) I disdain religion. 'Nuff said on that topic.



    3) Comic books, video games, and wrestling are major components of my life.






    Remove wrestling. Add movies, rock, porn (& real women in general). That's me.



    By the way, women from AlaBAMA (& the south in general) rock.



  • Reply 15 of 27
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ganondorf

    1) I disdain the FCC. I disdain the NEA. I disdain welfare. I disdain social security. I disdain preemptive warfare. etc. etc. I respect and agree with the consistent, educated, and principled platform of the Libertarian Party.





    Do you disdain the NIH? the NCI?



    I feel that consistency for consistency's sake is the bain any intellect, I value libertarian principles but the good of the group sometimes is more important than the good of the individual (often they are the same, but sometimes they aren't)...
  • Reply 16 of 27
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    Do you disdain the NIH? the NCI?



    I don't disdain the NIH, but I would prefer it not exist. I'm not sure what the NCI is.



    Quote:

    I feel that consistency for consistency's sake is the bain any intellect, I value libertarian principles but the good of the group sometimes is more important than the good of the individual (often they are the same, but sometimes they aren't)...



    I feel that any well thought-out system is consistent, and that the quality of life for society as a whole is better achieved through the collaboration of free individuals in the market.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ganondorf

    Libertarianism does not make the assertion that the nature of man is good, in fact, it makes the very opposite. As for the FCC, no, the vast majority of Libertarians oppose the FCC and censorship in all shapes and forms. You seem to me to demonstrate a lack of understanding of Libertarianism.



    You support capitalism. You support the FCC. Hey, man, you're a Republican. Congratulations.




    Read up. Perhaps the most significant Libertarian manifesto ever written is the US Declaration of Independence. There's a pretty strong understanding that man has to be inherently good for a system with no central control to work properly. I don't mean to sound like an asshole here, but I have a bit more education on the topic. A libertarian with a basic distrust in humanity is a xenophobe, which is not the point.



    I don't support the FCC either. I just don't disdain it. Of all the government bureaus out there, it may have the most merit. But perhaps there is some miscommunication: I consider the FCC's most vital role to be it's "regulation" of the spectrum. I don't agree with state-sanctioned censorship.
  • Reply 18 of 27
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ganondorf

    I don't disdain the NIH, but I would prefer it not exist. I'm not sure what the NCI is.



    This is what I don't understand about libertarianism. It is clearly beneficial to have governmentally funded research (best examples are probably from NASA), and yet they would prefer it wouldn't exist. The rational is miserable behind that thought. The market drives research towards profit. It may not be profitable to cure childhood leukemia, but this is something that most people would agree is a good cause...





    Quote:

    I feel that any well thought-out system is consistent, and that the quality of life for society as a whole is better achieved through the collaboration of free individuals in the market.



    The market is inconsistent because people are irrational. People will spend hundreds of dollars a month on cigarettes and allow their children to go malnourished. If you honestly feel the market will improve the quality of life for the society as a whole, then that is something I will simply have to disagree with...
  • Reply 19 of 27
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    Quote:

    Perhaps the most significant Libertarian manifesto ever written is the US Declaration of Independence. There's a pretty strong understanding that man has to be inherently good for a system with no central control to work properly.



    I think that's pretty naive of you to describe the Declaration of Independence as a "Libertarian manifesto", when it is in actuality and historically nothing of the sort. It is virtually devoid of political ideology.



    As for the subject at hand, I quote: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."



    The inherent nature of man is not good, which is why governments/bureaucracies invariably go down the road described above.



    Quote:

    I don't mean to sound like an asshole here, but I have a bit more education on the topic.



    Really. Care to share your educational credentials?



    Quote:

    A libertarian with a basic distrust in humanity is a xenophobe, which is not the point.



    A xenophobe is "a person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples." This is a gross mischaracterization, especially in this day and age when truly xenophobic groups such as France's right-wing extremist National Front are gaining steam.



    Quote:

    I don't support the FCC either. I just don't disdain it. Of all the government bureaus out there, it may have the most merit. But perhaps there is some miscommunication: I consider the FCC's most vital role to be it's "regulation" of the spectrum. I don't agree with state-sanctioned censorship.



    I think you are completely wrong, but that's obviously no secret.
  • Reply 20 of 27
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    This is what I don't understand about libertarianism. It is clearly beneficial to have governmentally funded research (best examples are probably from NASA), and yet they would prefer it wouldn't exist. The rational is miserable behind that thought. The market drives research towards profit. It may not be profitable to cure childhood leukemia, but this is something that most people would agree is a good cause...



    Allow me to illustrate something for you. If people truly consider something to be a good cause, it's another way of saying there's demand for it. Demand is what drives the market. NASA is a huge waste of money, and if it's not profitable to cure childhood leukemia, then oh well for children with leukemia. If there were enough people with childhood leukemia, and a private firm manufactured a cure for it, I guarantee you it would be profitable. And the more kids with childhood leukemia, the greater the demand for someone to manufacture that product. But how are the demand-fueled research facilities going to come up with this stuff, when it's funding is being sucked by NASA who is spending gazillions of dollars to go to the planet Mars and say "Well, now we are definitely for sure there used to be water here." Taxpayers have less money to fund research ventures themselves, because the government has taken that responsibility away from us in the name of "the greater good". You must be very proud of your "good causes".



    Quote:



    The market is inconsistent because people are irrational. People will spend hundreds of dollars a month on cigarettes and allow their children to go malnourished. If you honestly feel the market will improve the quality of life for the society as a whole, then that is something I will simply have to disagree with...




    Alright.
Sign In or Register to comment.