1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest! Are you any good at cooking? Got a favourite recipe that you love to cook or bring out to impress that special someone? Why not share it! A new forum called The Burrow has opened and it's all about homemaking!

In what ways are you socially conservative/liberal?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Taure, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Apr 12, 2008
    High Score:
    Not to mention that a fair bit of the world hunger problem isn't about lacking absolute supply of food, it's about distributing that food to the people who need it. It's not exactly a coincidence that deaths from starvation are far more of a problem in nations with with corrupt regimes, refugee problems, wrecked infrastructure due to wars or natural disasters, and so on.

    Starvation caused by corrupt regimes is especially problematic, since sending them any form of aid tends to prop up the very regime that's causing the problems. Not to mention that governments which are willing to let their people starve to line their own pockets will inevitably try to find some way steal any of aid money we send them, sell the food on the black market, or some other dirty trick.

    Turns out, you can't solve world hunger just by caring enough.
  2. dhulli

    dhulli The Reborn

    Nov 10, 2013
    I feel like people are unable to relate because they cannot imagine themselves in that position.

    Imagine if it were a man killing 3 million kids a year. Would we still blame logistics if we could not stop him?

    Imagine if there was a natural disaster killing 3 million kids a year. Would we still feel the same indifference? A huge earthquake kills thousands overnight and the whole world comes forth with their outpouring of support. Countries lend their militaries to help each other out. It's a big feel good moment.
    Innomine: it doesn't have to be circular. Here we are talking about terraforming mars, I'm sure given enough effort, we could set up a sustainable food production infrastructure in these poor places.

    I don't want to just send them aid, although that helps. I want militaries invading countries where a million children die a year. I want scientists working out how to grow crops in Africa and not fucking Mars. I want a coalition of countries that come together to bring real life human beings some semblance of humanity.
  3. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Dec 20, 2007
    Hbg., Germany
    There is a monopoly on the right way of thinking, and we should ban anyone who is very far off that consensus.

    Let's do away with the nonsense that every opinion is equal. It's not, and never was. Democracy and liberal culture does not mean you can do anything you want, that's anarchy. Like all principles, freedom of speech needs caveats and limits in real world applications, and this is one of them.

    There needs to be a minimal consensus in the way of thinking -- agreeing that, despite all different opinions, we support democracy, for one thing -- or it's just not going to work. In other words, we can debate about everything except about whether to debate. And once someone's opinion is to get rid of latter's foundation, it's simply an illegitimate opinion (and a party with that platform an illegitimate party), and he needs to feel this. My idea of a liberal democracy does not provide for not wanting a liberal democracy. The line is clear, big, and red.
  4. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Mar 16, 2006
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:

    Starvation is a major problem in the world, but climate change has the potential to make every bit of life on this planet extinct. We're not saying that world hunger should be ignored entirely in favour of humanitarian aid, but that there is no point in solving world hunger, only to have our planet turn into a hellscape like Venus.

    As well as that, climate change is probably going to cause mass starvation on a scale that hasn't been seen in human history. It will be the single largest disaster since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

    If you can't see that climate change is a huge problem and requires a large portion of our resources to fight (necessarily meaning that we need to take resources from other problems) then I see no point in continuing this discussion.