Why religious people should be leftists

[frosty]

mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.

I don't think so. But if it really happens, there certainly is something flawed in the society.
The reason is that big corporations are having talks in public TV debates against politicians. Why are the big corporation CEO's allowed to have a say if people on welfare are not allowed to
have a say in the debate?

Wow can you just calm down? Self interest, mediumaevum. Self interest!!! Both ends of the issue are self serving, and if it was up to me both would have to be disqualified for their self interests in the topic. Anyways, I've been a keyboard warrior long enough tonight, and it's time for me to go to bed now. May Zeus bless you mediumaevum!!

[mediumaevum]

mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.

I don't think so. But if it really happens, there certainly is something flawed in the society.
The reason is that big corporations are having talks in public TV debates against politicians. Why are the big corporation CEO's allowed to have a say if people on welfare are not allowed to
have a say in the debate?

Wow can you just calm down? Self interest, mediumaevum. Self interest!!! Both ends of the issue are self serving, and if it was up to me both would have to be disqualified for their self interests in the topic. Anyways, I've been a keyboard warrior long enough tonight, and it's time for me to go to bed now. May Zeus bless you mediumaevum!!

You can't really find anyone who you could not say is self-serving.

Everyone are biased. It's just a matter of honesty.
I believe it is better for society that people are honest about their self-interests than to hide their self-interests from the public, in a public debate.

If you were the one to pick and choose, you would immediatly disqualify the one who was honest about his self-interest, and allow the one who wasn't honest or didn't tell about his self-interest. That's not better AT ALL! That makes it even worse!

I believe in the private life. But I also believe that when people are discussing a topic, all interests/self-interests that has relevance for that particular discussion, should be public, or at least those watching or listening to the discussion, should know all about the relevant stuff about the members participating in the discussion.

That's way better than hiding the self-interests.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You can't really find anyone who you could not say is self-serving.

All people are self-serving, but some people apply that self-interest more altruistically than others.

[mykcob4]

I like that explanation. I try to avoid partisan discussions, but you have said before you are from a different generation than people my age so maybe it would be easier for someone like you to understand my post. With current events boiling over it seems most people are getting edgy, and not following a set of ethical personal values (their own ones, not religion!) and it makes matters worse. But perhaps that was my mistake, as Liberalism as you explained it is the very embodiment of values and morals. That is a Liberalism I can agree with!

As for the traditional systems, I am in favor of severely reforming or abolishing them. I am a reformist, I believe in change. I like to shake things up. But I do think that people being awful to other people and having no direction in life and then saying they are acting as "Liberals" does give the word negative connotations to observers.

That is where the term "progressive" comes in. Liberalism is an ideal and sometimes enacting it makes no sense unless you follow a basic humanity tenet of freedom and fairness. Institutions by their very definition are their to maintain a status quo. Slavery was and is an instituion. Progressive Liberalism is a tool for reform. To take on and modify every institution, tradition, legacy. The idea is to create a fair anf free system where by everyone has the same oppertunity to be successful, AND if and when they fail, provide a safety net so they can get back up and try again and again and again. It isn't a redistribution of wealth like the conservative propagandist would have you to believe. It's fair and free oppertunity. The reason "Liberal" has a negative conotation is because of a few bad actors, but mainly the onslaught of relentless false information/misinformation and propaganda produced and distributed by conservatives.
Economics. It's a fact that the economy does the best and EVERYONE makes money when the "middle class' is large and in charge. When all the wealth is funnelled to the top 1% the world economy goes into a tailspin and the vast majority of people suffer emensely! It is the conservative idea to keep most of the wealth in the hands of the top 1%. They call it the trickle down theory. Well it is a disaster and has failed every single time it has been tried.
Take a look at history. Every time the top 1% exceed wealth assets above the 50% level the world goes into an economic meltdown. Everytime. It happened in Rome, in ancient Greece, In England, and in the US atleast 3 times! And everytime either to society completely failed or a Liberal Progressive leader to the world out of the abyss.