No, you haven’t. This post seems like a liberal cartoon version of liberals and conservatives.
I know next to nothing about politics, so could you specify in what way this post portrays a “cartoonish” image of liberals and conservatives?
But it would be more honest to admit that we actually want to let everyone live the way they want to, as long as they don’t things we consider “really wrong”, such as discriminating against gays. And that in this regard we’re no different from the conservatives, who would likewise let everyone live the way they wanted to, as long as they don’t do things the conservatives consider “really wrong”.
We could throw away all distinctions and say that everyone wants what they want, so they’re all “the same”. Yes, “the same” by a stupid equivalence class unrelated to any human purpose. By most human standards, my desire to blow your head off with a shotgun is not “the same” as your desire not to have your head blown off.
To me it seems like a useful equivalence class… A “conservative person’s” internal experience of wanting people to live the way they want but follow certain rules about things that are “really wrong’ probably feels around the same as a “liberal person’s” experience of wanting people to follow different rules. These kind of beliefs run on the same bits of brain hardware, and so a liberal saying that something is “really wrong” is not a universal argument against that thing. That was how I interpreted Kaj_Sotala’s point… I don’t know if you interpreted him as making a stronger point that you disagree with, or if you disagree with what I said too.
Cartoonish? Social conservatives really aren’t trying trying to get murdering homosexuals legalized. It’s a cartoon that liberals think such a thing, and although we have someone pretending to be such a cartoon in our midst, I believe that’s liberal “macho flash”.
The solipsistic first person experience of wanting may be relevant for lots of things, but politics is about the interaction of people, so the second and third person perspectives are what’s relevant—the political problem is about what to do about what others want and do.
the political problem is about what to do about what others want and do.
Again, isn’t the problem of liberals wondering what to do about what conservatives want to do (sorry for the long sentence!) equivalent to conservatives wondering what to do about what liberals want to do?
I know next to nothing about politics, so could you specify in what way this post portrays a “cartoonish” image of liberals and conservatives?
To me it seems like a useful equivalence class… A “conservative person’s” internal experience of wanting people to live the way they want but follow certain rules about things that are “really wrong’ probably feels around the same as a “liberal person’s” experience of wanting people to follow different rules. These kind of beliefs run on the same bits of brain hardware, and so a liberal saying that something is “really wrong” is not a universal argument against that thing. That was how I interpreted Kaj_Sotala’s point… I don’t know if you interpreted him as making a stronger point that you disagree with, or if you disagree with what I said too.
Cartoonish? Social conservatives really aren’t trying trying to get murdering homosexuals legalized. It’s a cartoon that liberals think such a thing, and although we have someone pretending to be such a cartoon in our midst, I believe that’s liberal “macho flash”.
The solipsistic first person experience of wanting may be relevant for lots of things, but politics is about the interaction of people, so the second and third person perspectives are what’s relevant—the political problem is about what to do about what others want and do.
Again, isn’t the problem of liberals wondering what to do about what conservatives want to do (sorry for the long sentence!) equivalent to conservatives wondering what to do about what liberals want to do?