from what and where has your own personal political philosophy arisen?

Against 1 and 7, for all the rest.
I'm the kid of Immigrants, Canadian, Liberal and a lapsed Irish Catholic. I grew up in a poor to middle class immigrant neighbourhooda in a rich conservative province .
I read everything I could and still do. I believe in justice, equility and freedom of expression and deed, if they don't hurt or impede another persons rights and or dignity.

yes to all i have connected the dots perfunctorily

Your questions are very manipulating and have very little to do with political philosophies as they are purely yes and no questions.
Depending on how I answer you can put me in a group either as a republican or a democrat.
Democratic principles every democratic country has - even a social democratic country. Take the Scandinavian countries the social democratcy is based on christian values, something which most of you would not accept at all not even a democrat.
Marriage between homosexual adults. I certainly would be agains marriage between homosexual children - adults you did not have to mention.
What categories would you put a person who says yes to a legal partnership but no to a marriage? What group do you put a person who says yes to a civil marriage between homosexuals but no to a church wedding?
National health programs. If I say I am against them you put me in the drawer of republicans. If I say yes you think I am a democrat.
I have lived my whole life with national health programs. They differ from country to country in Europe and the result of this can be discussed endlessly and is discuss too.
It has become very expensive we have to pay more and more ourselves and from being a very good thing it might slowly develope into something where people with money and connections will have it better than the poor.

Of course I am against capital punishment.
But take school massacre or a robbery at a bank.
Lots of people are in danger and maybe already killed.
The police has a chance to shoot the person/s.
It is not in self defence - the police is not in danger.
Should they or shouldn´t they shoot the person/s?
Isn´t that also a form of capital punishment without a legal trial?
How do you see a scenario like that - especially if one you love is in danger?
So far I think everybody is relieved when the person/s are dead and young people are saved.

Take abortions.
Of course a woman should have the right to abortions. She is even seen as an emacipated woman.
A woman who for whatever reason prefers to adopt her child away is seen as a "bad mother"
How about abortions in India or China where abortions often are made for only one reason - the healthy child is aborted because it has the wrong gender? Do you agree on that?
How about children that are handicapped ? Doctors suggest it is best for you and the child it is aborted.
Will it in the future be that people with handicapped children will be looked down on - handicapped children do cost a lot for the national health insurance.
The birth itself can cause a handicap. Does this child not have the right to live?

Most of my political views I formed when I was child growing up in a democratic house with democrats on both sides in the family heavily into unions because of their professions. (coal miners and iron works and the like)

On the death penalty I don't really approve, even though I know there is nothing inherently wrong with it from the Bible and religion in which I grew up.

Abortion, disapprove except maybe in life and death situations formed same place as above.

The same would apply to 3 and 4.

Never really talked about the environment until these last few years, formed the opinion just reading about environmental issues and I think we should practice good environmental activities as much as reasonable possible.

Despite my church's view and family views, I firmly believe homosexuals should have the right to marry if they want to the same as anyone else of adult age. Formed this view just from reading about the issue.

Torture, I don't approve for any reason. Formed this belief just by reading about the issue.
(maybe too much information

from nature.

survival of the fittest. aka anarchy.

saab said


how so since my remark simply asked......



"informing one's opinion" on a topic does not ask one to chose yes or no, but to illustrate a consistancy of thought on the topic from first principle to specific instance.

eg., how can one be against the death penalty while accepting abortion as a legal procedure? is it either all life is sacred or not? this is what drives roman catholics to be against both issues. yet one finds that for most modern american conservatives abortion is unacceptable while they support the death penalty, or vica versa, liberals find the death penalty unacceptable while supporting the legal right for a woman to have an abortion.

i was asking for people to describe an intellectual nuance on 7 topics of current importance.

i hate to make a nuance of myself but did i get the right answers

I dunno, kuv - I often though not always agree with you on this and that, but I am quite disinclined to just shoot out some zillion word thing - or worse, some very edited words - on my derived ideas and the precedents of them. A, none of your business, and B, too damn much trouble, C, I'd be looking for a book contract.

As a child, I thought a great deal of Roosevelt. Not that I remember the man; just the response to him by my mother. During the Eisenhower/Stevenson elections, I preferred Stevenson. Just did not care for Eisenhower the man, plus was swayed by admirers of the Stevenson intellect. By 1960, I wanted Nixon. I had seen his contrived appearances on TV and felt reassured and felt he had the experience. Did not care for Kennedy and somehow dreaded Johnson. Went to Goldwater rallies. My first vote went to the senator from Arizona. The Vietnam War had me protesting. I wrote Bob Kennedy a letter of support and still own his response. Nixon had proved to be an ogre. I supported Humphry and McGovern. I voted for Carter and still love the man, although I then voted for Reagan four years later. Reagan soured me on Republicans and I waffled between voting for Nader and the Democrats.

Although it is my core belief that liberal/conservative can be combined to incorporate the dynamics of both philosophies, the Republicans have forsaken my notion of conservatism and become of the mentality of fire ants. So, I am pushed to be almost totally a liberal, since there are apparently no conservatives left.

1. As a young man I supported the death penalty most enthusiastically. After my brother was murdered, I wanted to kill the murderer, personally. These days, I realize that the system that invokes the death penalty is far from adequate and that a large percentage of prisoners have been railroaded. So, I have no sympathy for Charles Manson and his ilk, but am 100% anti death penalty.

2. abortion
I don't consider the early fetus a human being and think it should be up to the parents whether to abort.

3. democratic principles
I firmly believe the state should do its best to protect the individual right while preserving the public right.

4. national health programs
A program similar to that in Canada, please.

5. the environment
Clean up this shithouse for Jeebus' sake.

6. marriage between homosexual adults
They are adults. Let them do what they want.

7. torture
Subject the torturerers to it first. If they enjoy it, then it is alright to inflict it on others, so long as the pain is equally shared.

Of course we are formed from our family and friends to a certain extent. We either go along with it or we prefer the opposite.
Even more we are influenced by TV and its pictures. Something which did not exists not so long ago. People had to read newspapers and discuss much more intensive than we do.
Do you think a very competent politician who is obeese and a bit introverted and had no family will win an election over a good looking, charmy, extraverted politician with a nice family but who is not very competent?
No we will be manipulated with the pictures of the good looking person and we are often too lazy to really read the papers.

Now a days we have to be tolerant to everything. We must accept everything without thinking about the consequences.
Abortion - of course a woman must have the right to make her own decision.
Get rid of it if is the wrong gender. We accept it. There is hardly a discussion about it. Either people are fanatic anti abortions or they don´t care.

Homosexuals should marry - yes of course. There is nothing to discuss.
Yes there is - should they also be able to marry in a church? For many Christians it is wrong. Do they dare to protest? No then they are seen as intolerant and oldfashioned.
There is lack of nuances today and because of that also lack of ethics in accepting the other side. In Europe this tolerance and lack of nuances show some very strange developments.