[Professor Smarmiarty]

In ref to Sith I went through point by point of your post but I was saying the same things over and over again so I'll just do it this way:

The law is that of gravitation. Overwhelmingly in my experiences, the term "gravity" is used to explain the existence of this law whereas the invocation of the law is termed "gravitation". The dialogue of "gravity" is the dialogue of a theory because it is concerned with the interaction of a law on the universe. It has been conceptualised as this because it is deals with objects outside the mathematical realm.
I think that you are using "gravity" to describe both the laws and the theories behind it which is completely different to how I have been exposed to the term, where we seperate it. I should also point out I am not up with current discussions on this so my terms may be outdated but we use "gravity" pretty much solely to describe the nature of the force and "gravitation" to describe its existence which I thought I made clear.
You are using the terms differentely and while we do this we are going to have no common ground. If you are using "gravity" to cover everything then I fully agree with you it is not a theory or a law. That is not how I was using it, though, and that is not how I have been taught to use it.

I will accept your terms are probably more up to date and correct though as I'm totally not a physicist and my physics knowledge cames from about 1920.

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Ok...

1) Conservatives don't ignore the viability of charities. I was skipping that argument for the sake of brevity. Conservatives believe that private enterprise and charities are a viable way to fill the need given a sufficient lack of government intervention and increased donations from a populace that no longer has to pay high taxes to fund government charity programs. You can call that willful ignorance if you want, so long as you don't mind Conservatives calling the belief that the United States Government could ever successfully run a universal health care program similarly willfully ignorant.

While private charity has never been shown to be adaquate anywhere, universal health care has been shown to work. I'm calling it willfully ignorant because it is ignoring history. Though in the vast majority of the populace it is not their fault. I'm really smearing the conservative leaders, those who are well-educated and in high social strata.

And I'm not saying it is! So please, don't go into a debate on the merits of government run health care. That's not what this is about. And actually, I don't really think I'm a Conservative any more. I actually do want government health care, I do disagree with Conservative philosophies is a lot of ways. But my friends and family are Conservatives. I grew up among Conservatives. I identify with them. And they're smart, caring, hard working, savvy people. Not naive, ignorant, arrogant pricks. The naivete and ignorance about Conservatives displayed by all of all your comments is what I'm trying to get at here.

I don't intend to insult conservatives because it is a result of the world they live in. You can argue it is the only viable standpoint of the current world which is the sad truth of the modern world.

2) How exactly do Conservatives pay less proportionally in taxes? That seems like a wonky stat. And how are taxes paid relevant? If true, then ok, Liberals also give to charities, but more through the government, which is the institution they believe should be used to help the poor and the sick. Yay. Both sides are living their philosophies. My point wasn't the Liberals suck, but that Conservatives don't.

Well they pay less because as a group they are richer- and contain the vast majority of the super-rich. Under US tax systems the rich pay far less in taxes by proportion to their wealth than anybody else. But yeah my point about taxes was that liberals are generally already contributing a fair share of their income through the government and in the way they believe is right.
And I don't disagree that conservatives and liberals are both good people, I was just trying to show that they are about the same.
It's just that the conservative ideology is out and out evil. People follow it because of the society they are raised in, because of what they were taught and they can be good people but to be honest I don't care if I upset their feelings. It may not be their fault what they belief but the belief system is simply too harmful to this world that I will criticise it wherever I can because if I can get people to rethink their beliefs I will be happy. The reason it is entrenched as a valid political ideology is because people accept it, they don't speak out.

3) Bleeding Heart Liberal is an appropriate term, sure. But the idea that Conservatives, because they aren't Liberals, are cold, callus, and arrogant is a horribly naive misconception.

It pretty much a fundamental tenet of being left-wing that people are products of their society so you're really misconcieving how the lefties view conservatism. The individual people in it may not be cold, callus and arrogant but the philosophy as a whole is cold, callus and arrogant. Conservative thinkers may try to justify it other ways, and unfortunately many people are convinced by this, but at its heart it does exactly what it was designed to do- fuck the majority so those few in power can consolidate their wealtha nd power.