If you're new to raw food and have just found this website or have been lurking for a while, please write in. You're welcome here.

The frequency and intensity of strands on this forum with heavy political leanings, gun promotion, etc., can make it appear that everyone around here is politically charged, contentious, or a know-it-all. When I first came here it was a much more laid back and gentle place and I hope the pendulum will swing back that way again, but I support diversity and tolerance. There's room for everyone, and there is space for you too.

So... lurkers to come out of the shadows!


My favorite raw vegan

Yes, this website has diversity - some of us are aware and are concerned about where we are headed and some of us are still asleep and have no idea what’s going on. Indeed, we are in The Matrix, which interestingly is based on The Allegory of Plato’s Cave and for those who are not familiar with The Allegory of Plato’s Cave, I’ve included it below along with another very interesting version called Our Ship - Socrates Dances in Heaven.

The Allegory of Plato's Cave (and Our Ship)
By Denise Breton and Christopher Largent

In his masterwork, The Republic, the classical philosopher Plato gives one of the most famous images in literature—the cave allegory. Not only do we want to share this with you, but we also want to add our own allegory from a novella we wrote called Socrates Dances in Heaven. Not that ours is in the same league with Plato’s—but it was inspired by Plato’s image, and this is our way of paying tribute to a great work.

First, here’s Plato (Book VII of The Republic, right at the beginning), putting an image about education in the mouth of his teacher, Socrates (the "I" in the dialogue), as Socrates discusses justice with Glaucon, one of Plato’s brothers:

"Let’s compare our own education and understanding of the world to people in a cave—to human beings in an underground, cave-like dwelling with a long and wide entrance open toward the light. From childhood on, the people who live in this cave have their legs and necks chained so that they can see only straight ahead in front of them. The chains keep them from turning their heads in any other direction.

"The only light in the cave is from a fire burning far above the people and behind them. Between the fire and the chained people there’s a road, built on a kind of stage structure such as you find in theaters—again above and behind the people—along which move other people and animals, some carrying things, some not, some speaking, some not."

"This is a bizarre image of of bizarre prisoners," Glaucon said.

"But they’re just like us," I replied. "Do you think they can see anything of themselves and one another? Or do they merely see the images or shadows that fall on the side of the cave facing them, cast by the fire above them?"

"How could they see one another," Glaucon said, "if they’re forced to keep their heads turned in one direction throughout their whole lives?"

"And what about the shadows on the wall [the men and animals that the shadows on the wall represent that can’t be seen either]? Isn’t it the same with them?"

"Certainly."

"And if the chained people happened to talk to each other, wouldn’t they think it right to give names and descriptions to the shadows they saw in front of them, projected on the cave wall?"

"Of course they would."

"And what if the cave had an echo, so that the side facing the chained people seemed to produce a sound? Whenever one of the men walking above and behind them spoke, would the chained people believe anything other than that the shadow on the wall was addressing them?"

"No, by Zeus," Glaucon said, "I don’t think they’d believe anything else."

"Then for sure," I said, "what the chained people held to be the truth would be nothing more than shadows."

"Certainly," Glaucon assented.

"Now let’s imagine," I said, "what freedom from their chains would be like. Suppose one of the chained people, a man, was released and immediately forced to stand up and look toward the light. He’d necessarily be doing this in pain, because the light would be dazzling. At first, he wouldn’t be able to make out the shapes of the men and animals walking up on the elevated road in front of him—which he’d seen before only as shadows.

"What do you suppose this man would say if someone told him that he’d only been looking at shadows and now he was seeing real things? And how would the man reply if he were asked to describe the nature of these real things [the shadows of which he’d been looking at all his life]? Wouldn’t he feel at a loss? And wouldn’t he be tempted to think that what he’d looked at all his life must be truer than what he’s seeing right now?"

"Yes," replied Glaucon.

"What if the man were forced to look right into the light of the fire? Wouldn’t it hurt his eyes? Wouldn’t he turn away from it? And further, wouldn’t he turn back to the shadows, thinking them more clear and therefore more true than the light itself?"

"Of course he would," Glaucon said.

"Now," I said, "what if someone were to drag that man up to the light, forcing him through a steep and rugged ascent into the light itself—where he couldn’t see anything and his eyes hurt? Wouldn’t the man be distressed, even angry? And wouldn’t he be unable to see anything, even what was being presented to him as the truth of things?

"At least at the begininng, he couldn’t see anything," Glaucon agreed.

"He’d need time and practice, perhaps learning to perceive the truth in stages—first seeing the dim images of things as he had with shadows before, maybe then seeing things reflected in water, and then finally being able to look at the real men and animals that had before just been shadows on his cave wall. As for the bright sky, he’d have to start by looking at it first at night, seeing only the light of the moon and stars, and that way gradually accustom his sight to the full light of day."

"Of course."

"Then as he was able to see the sun, he’d be able to contemplate its nature, to realize that it was the source of seasons and light and the shadows that he and his cave companions had been staring at all their lives."

"Yes, he’d no doubt arrive at this conclusion."

"And wouldn’t this man, being awake to the light, think that his original home lacked real knowledge? And wouldn’t he feel happy at his own transformation and pity those back in the cave?"

"Without a doubt."

"How do you think he’d feel as he thought back on the honors and awards given to those whose perception in the cave was sharpest? Do you think he’d want those honors and awards? Would he envy those cave-dwellers who received prizes because they could make out the shadows better than anyone else or see which shadow came first and which next? Or would he rather undergo anything, even menial labor, rather than think and live the way the cave-dwellers lived?"

"He’d probably rather suffer anything than go back to living the cave-dweller way," Glaucon said.

"Now, let’s imagine what would happen if that man returned to his place in the cave. Wouldn’t his eyes be blinded, as a man coming into darkness suddenly from sunlight?"

"Very much so."

"And what if the man—before his cave-sight returned—were to try to compete with other cave-dwellers about the shadows? Wouldn’t he seem ridiculous to the others? And during the time while his sight was adapting to the darkness, wouldn’t his former friends say that his sight had been ruined by going up to the light? And that he should never try to go back up to the light again, because it would destroy his sight again? Might not his friends even say that anyone who tried to lead him back to the light ought to be stopped, even killed if they could legally kill him?"

"There’s no question about it."

"All right, then. Let’s take this whole allegory and apply it to everything we’ve said so far. What we see with our eyes and experience through our senses is like the cave, while the sun, the center of the universe, is like the fire that illumines the cave. As you probably expect—and I agree with your expectations—the ascent from the cave is like the soul’s ascent to the Realm of Ideas. Of course, just because we agree on this doesn’t make it true; there may be some god or power somewhere who knows the truth about these things. But this is the way it appears to me: that of all the subjects of human knowledge, the last and most difficult to be seen is the Idea of the Good.

"But once seen, it is clear that the Idea of the Good is the source of everything. In the visible realm, it’s the source of physical light, and in the consciousness realm, it’s the source of truth and wisdom. And any person who wants to act with justice, either personally or publicly, must see it."

[The rendition we use here is our own, though we recommend translations by Allan Bloom and Robin Waterfield. It’s always useful to compare translations of Plato’s works. By the way, if the classical scholar R. E. Allen produces a translation, get it; he’s one of our favorite translators.]

Now here’s our "ship allegory" from our novella, Socrates Dances in Heaven. Socrates is talking with William Shakespeare, Benjamin Franklin, and the fourth-century Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia:

Socrates pauses to stare at her a moment. "That’s a wonderful image, Hypatia. And it makes me recall a fable I once used."

"You used fables, Socrates?" Shakespeare asks.

"Yes, of course. What you now possess as Plato’s work, The Republic, is one long fable. Plato and I, as well as others who worked with us, realized that if we were to tap the highest capacities of human thought, we needed to appeal not only to higher reason but also to what you would call higher intuition and higher emotions. So we used fables and stories and allegories. May I tell you one?"

They all agree that he should.

"Well," Socrates begins, "there is a bark, a great ship, I think you would say, afloat on a great ocean. The ship speeds ahead on a great voyage with a grand purpose, though some of its passengers are not aware of the purpose or they have forgotten it over time, especially those sitting inside.

"The inside-sitters, or insiders I’ll call them, enjoy the comfort of the inside, so they seldom if ever leave it. They don’t go out into the sea air, so at times they even forget they’re afloat. Some who have been inside for many years even deny that they are afloat. Or they allow that they may be afloat but that they are simply drifting on the sea, with no purpose at all.

"Outside are those who stand in the wind and sometimes the cold. They stare ahead and try to see as much of the ship’s grand purpose as their individual vision will allow. They expand their perspective as much as possible, seeing as much of the ship as they can, studying the insiders and the outsiders. They study the sea, and they stare into the space before them, sometimes seeing a beautiful morning, sometimes a dark night, sometimes calm, sometimes a storm.

"They sense that, for some reason or other that they can only dimly recall, this is their job. They are to be at this post. In my day, we called such persons philosophers. For my fable, I shall call them Watchers.

"Now a problem arises; let’s say a storm is coming or perhaps the ship is about to hit some huge obstacle, a rock or—

"An iceberg?" Hypatia ventures.

"I’m not certain what an iceberg is," Socrates replies, "But an iceberg will do. So the outsiders notice that something is strange in the sea before them, and they try to determine the source of the strangeness. They may disagree as to the source, but they agree that something is amiss and that they should get someone to turn the ship.

"So some of the outsiders go inside and try to warn the insiders. But feeling nothing, the insiders are skeptical. They want the Watchers to go away, so they ignore them, even grumbling that the Watchers are implying that the ship is going in some direction it shouldn’t be, while the insiders claim that the ship is going in no direction at all, so it either can’t be in trouble or the trouble is simply that it is directionless, and there’s nothing anyone can do about that.

"The Watchers, of course, realize that if they remain with these insiders, the ship will go down, and all will perish, including the insiders. So they try to find those who can change the direction of the ship, those who, though living inside, are not mere insiders but have committed themselves to running the ship.

"Now those who run the ship are of three types. First and foremost are those who are good, expert guides and know navigation, and these have selflessly stood at their posts to guide the ship through difficult or calm waters.

"The second type is represented by those who, though committed to running the ship, lack either the training or the experience. They have the dedication, but they lack the knowledge or they are untried.

"The last type is represented by those who—either with knowledge or without knowledege of running the ship—want to run it for their own imagined gain. They focus only on themselves, and so almost perversely, they try to deceive the insiders about what’s really happening. Worse, they try to thwart the Watchers by blocking their watching or by keeping the Watchers away from the insiders.

"So the immediate task for the Watchers is to contact the selfless ones while avoiding the selfish ones, though the latter sometimes disguise themselves as the former, making the task more difficult. Further, the Watchers must try to find those who have both the knowledge and experience to turn the ship.

"To make matters more difficult, the Watchers must try to inform the insiders about what’s really happening, so that as the ship turns, the insiders can go with it, rather than joining the selfish ones in trying to turn the ship to some lesser aim. Since the selfish ones try to deceive the insiders, some insiders will take the selfish ones to be their saviors, following the selfish ones in great movements, blocking the work of the Watchers.

"But the Watchers never quit. They know their work is difficult, but they also know what it is, and they know the types of people who inhabit the ship. Even more, they know their own character, and they’ve learned through hard trials how to be consistent with that character."

As Socrates pauses, apparently finished, Franklin says, "This is a fine image, my friend. Is this where we find ourselves in our work on this planet?"

"I think so," replies Socrates. "We find ourselves struggling with the deceivers and the insiders, but we must never, even in a crisis, lose sight of the ship’s great destiny and our role in that destiny."

Hypatia puts her hand on her friend’s shoulder. "This is an allegory of which Plato himself would be proud, I think."

"I hope so," replies Socrates.

Peace and Love..........John

PS Here’s a Video for Plato’s Cave…
[www.youtube.com]
Plato - The Allegory of the Cave - (The Matrix) Animated
8:19 Minute Video





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2013 12:10PM by John Rose.

LOL. This forum has never been "gentle."

John Rose, I disagree with the tone and content of many of your comments. I am not asleep and resent your insinuation that people who do not share your views are ignorant. I get my information from many sources, but have decided that yours should not be one of them, so although you may leave another of your lengthy comments, I won't be reading it.

HH, some of the "gentler" people that used to be here have gone. It's sad.


My favorite raw vegan

Nothing is lost. Only if you choose to see it that way.

Trive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Rose, I disagree with the tone and content of
> many of your comments. I am not asleep and resent
> your insinuation that people who do not share your
> views are ignorant. I get my information from many
> sources, but have decided that yours should not be
> one of them, so although you may leave another of
> your lengthy comments, I won't be reading it.
>
> HH, some of the "gentler" people that used to be
> here have gone. It's sad.

Supporting tolerance and complaining to the moderator are contradictory behaviors. I have never complained to Prana about any poster.

Robin, obviously, you are an INSIDER and you have no appreciation for the WATCHERS.

"To make matters more difficult, the Watchers must try to inform the insiders about what’s really happening, so that as the ship turns, the insiders can go with it, rather than joining the selfish ones in trying to turn the ship to some lesser aim. Since the selfish ones try to deceive the insiders, some insiders will take the selfish ones to be their saviors, following the selfish ones in great movements, blocking the work of the Watchers.

"But the Watchers never quit. They know their work is difficult, but they also know what it is, and they know the types of people who inhabit the ship. Even more, they know their own character, and they’ve learned through hard trials how to be consistent with that character."

As Socrates pauses, apparently finished, Franklin says, "This is a fine image, my friend. Is this where we find ourselves in our work on this planet?"

"I think so," replies Socrates. "We find ourselves struggling with the deceivers and the insiders, but we must never, even in a crisis, lose sight of the ship’s great destiny and our role in that destiny."

Tell me Robin, what would you say to Shelton if he were alive and posted this?

“The greatest obstacle to living reform in the earth today, the greatest foe of dietary reform is not ignorance, of which there is much, but the desire of those who profit from the present evil practices and the means of carrying them on, to continue to reap rich financial harvests from pandering to the many harmful practices of the present conventional way of life. We are in serious need of economic and agricultural revolutions. Basic changes are required before we can hope to give every one the materials for a better and healthier life and before we can hope to reach them with the information that they need in order to make use of those materials. So long as our channels of public information and our educational system are in the hands of the, at present, economic royalists, so long as they conceive it to be their duty to serve the special interests of these private owners of the earth, rather than to serve the interests of the people as a whole, the truth about health, disease and healing will make slow progress in reaching the people.” -Herbert Shelton, "Superior Nutrition" p. 9

Peace and Love..........John

From my observation after being on the board for years, it seems that when interesting 'controversial' subjects are posted, there's a lot of activity and Views here on the Other Topics Board. But when spoil-sports complain and the board is censored, the free-thinkers leave and this place crawls with only a couple inane threads because there are only about four people left posting.

As was discussed on the Main Forum, there aren't really any active RFD message boards these days and this one is pretty slow and boring, too. Getting rid of the interesting spicy posts and posters here will only accelerate it's demise.

It seems the whole purpose of the OP is to blame a certain faction for a perceived slowdown of the board. I think that is a shame. This is only one forum--there are many others to choose from!

I suspect that the real reason that some of these people left is that they didn't get their own way. Of course, they come back on a semi-regular basis, but they assumed that when they stopped posting daily, the whole thing would fall apart and it hasn't. So this is just a @#$%&-stirring OP at the end of the day.

Good luck with that...

So much for tolerance of me. Not much. I'm apparently a minority. Here I'm labelled an "insider" - HA! I'm not complaining to Prana, though. I'm just saying that I'd like it to be more welcoming for more diverse views here and was encouraging others to write in. But for me to say that I disagree with some of what one person has written is apparently not welcome.


My favorite raw vegan

Trive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The frequency and intensity of strands on this
> forum with heavy political leanings, gun
> promotion


So I guess we can put you firmly on the side of gun control

LOL. I don't think I've seen anyone promote guns. It's like many women have said to me, "Just because I believe that I should be able to legally have an abortion doesn't mean that I want to have one." I feel the same way about guns. I don't want to own one, but I'm going to be pretty frightened if I live in a country where the only people who are allowed to have them are cops. @#$%& that.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trive Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The frequency and intensity of strands on this
> > forum with heavy political leanings, gun
> > promotion
>
>
> So I guess we can put you firmly on the side of
> gun control

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

--Gandhi

That's the sort of common sense "gun promotion" that I see on here. It shows an understanding that the only thing that stands between us and brutal domination by the government and its corporate johns is the fact that there are 350 million guns in the hands of American civilians. As a peaceful, non-gun owning person, I'm quite grateful to those who do own guns.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2013 11:55PM by HH.

Thank you, HH. I sincerely appreciate your comment above because you are welcoming dialog and opinions that might be different from your own. I think that is good for encouraging people who have different views to feel comfortable expressing them. I often don't comment here for fear of being overwhelmed with harsh or picky criticism and argumentativeness.

The very first line on this forum says no politics and no economics. It's hard to know definitively when those lines are crossed. When people express opinions on some topics, there are broad gray areas when it comes to labelling something as political or economic. Those judgements are often subjective and I may err on the side of seeing more of the topics here to be political than others do. And I'd prefer less controversy on political topics here. So, it's probably best for me to back off of this forum somewhat.

I hope our comments help lurkers feel welcome. I hope we can have more of a sense of community united about raw food. I hope that others will also do as you have done and encourage people to feel safe and comfortable expressing different opinions.


My favorite raw vegan

Whoops. HH, you have posted two more times before I responded to the one above them.

P. S.: My husband owns two guns. I believe my views about guns are moderate and think it is strange how people think others can only be far left or far right on that issue. But no, I don't care to debate gun control with you or others on this forum.


My favorite raw vegan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 12:43AM by Trive.

What would you like to see discussed here? Maybe you should start a thread. I agree that the forum needs more diversity of opinion. It does seem to be weighted toward conspiracy nerds (something that I'm often guilty of being) these days.

How can you stand living in a house with guns? It would freak me out.

Trive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoops. HH, you have posted two more times before
> I responded to the one above them.
>
> P. S.: My husband owns two guns. I believe my
> views about guns are moderate and think it is
> strange how people think others can only be far
> left or far right on that issue. But no, I don't
> care to debate gun control with you or others on
> this forum.

I report every single spam post I see, does that count? LOL.
I don't like to see this forum veer too far from the "rules" of no politics and religion etc. I've personally seen this place explode in vitriolic mangling and never wish to have it degrade to that level again. Really, I'd rather not have it on the table than experience that sort of sh!t show again. It was awful. Guess you had to have been here .

Good point, HH. I am quite busy with work and just scan some of my favorite sites when I get home, but if I want different topics here, I should put forth some effort. I'll think about it. If I have time for it I will.


My favorite raw vegan

Wow, banana who, I didn't say you were argumentative. I felt that HH and I were getting into shaky ground and wanted to express appreciation for the comments that welcomed alternative views. That was the purpose of my post to begin with - - to welcome people with different views and to promote a safe place for them to participate. As you mentioned, this forum has been tilting more heavily in one direction and I personally feel less comfortable here. I'm not criticising anyone - just saying how I feel.

What HH wrote was addressed to me directly:
"What would you like to see discussed here? Maybe you should start a thread. I agree that the forum needs more diversity of opinion. It does seem to be weighted toward conspiracy nerds (something that I'm often guilty of being) these days."
and I appreciated that honesty and entreaty to comment and wanted to say so. I want lots of different people to feel welcome to comment and that includes me in there too.

On the post just above you wrote to me directly too, (although in your previous post you reffered to me as "the OP so I didn't feel like you were wanting a dialog with me)." Just above you wrote,
"If you could just let things be how they are, you would be showing true tolerance."
Gee, that sounds like you think I have been intolerant. If that the case, I am sorry. I pride myself on being a very tolerant and accepting person, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you? Anyway, I hope I haven't given that impression. Sometimes things don't come across as well in writing as they do in person. I also hope you don't think that I shouldn't comment. Commenting is what these forums are for, right? And that you choose to not comment at times is fine too, of course.

My support of the policy against political and religious posts may appear to some as being intolerant or controlling. I don't see it that way at all. I appreciate the policy because it helps to assure a safe environment for diverse dialog while keeping things from getting out of hand. If we allow far right, far left, or whatever kind of politics to invade this forum - - it has proven to be divisive and destructive to this site in the past. I did acknowledge that it can be subjective, though, as to what is political.

Kid Raw guessed I was "firmly on the side of gun control" so I wrote that my husband has two guns to show that I am not anti-gun. However, I am not pro-NRA either. I'm middle of the road... and don't like it when people are forced to take "sides". That makes it hard to have a dialog. People get pigeon-holed as being on one extreme of the issue or the other when in fact, there can be middle ground and reasonable discussions on this issue.


My favorite raw vegan

Trive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My support of the policy against political and
> religious posts

(AND)

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> the "rules" of no politics and religion etc.




There is no rule on here that we can't discuss/debate Religion.

In fact, I feel a Religious thread coming on

Whoops. You're right, KidRaw, it says Politics or Economics. I guess it was subconscious wishful thinking for me to write "religious posts" there. I knew it didn't say that, but wasn't careful with thinking about what I had written before sending it.


My favorite raw vegan

Trive, I am encouraging you to state your views. I discourage anyone from trying to ban topics or steer them away from "extremes." This creates an artificial environment for discussion.

For whatever the reason, this forum is attracting a lot of people whom I describe as conservative on a number of issues. It surprises me because I associate raw foods and veganism with the Left. However, I find it a good thing that people from all political viewpoints are able to come together on the issue of diet.

I wasn't here when the economic and political issues were "allowed." I still maintain that anyone who gets upset at someone else's viewpoint to the extent that they are insulting to that person should be dealt with by the moderator. To ban certain topics because certain people lost their cool and couldn't handle differences is not the answer, IMO. We are adults and if we really value diversity, I would think we'd prefer discussions with those who are diametrically opposed to our viewpoints. I know I do.

A timely message from John Kerry:

[news.msn.com]

I totally agree with banana who about the 'extremes' opinion. It seems like Trive believes that 'extremes' are 'bad' and middle-of-the-road/moderate is the optimum. If that were the case in life, we raw foodists, who are 'extreme' would be untolerated.

Also, on this forum no one is 'forced to take sides'.

What is 'moderate' or middle-of-the-road anyway? Does it mean that you see both sides of the issue and you don't have an opinion or belief one way or the other? But if you have an opinion or belief on an issue, you're 'extreme'?

I think most of us here are not 'conservative' or 'liberal', but more Libertarian or a mixture of liberal and conservative.
We are either a mixture of the two 'extremes' or we're all moderate/middle-of-the-road. It depends on the issue. There are only a certain number of issues.

This is where I stand --

Abortion - on the 'extreme' right - (anti-abortion)

Illegal Immigration - on the right - (no amnesty)

Fiscal policy - Libertarian (no borrowing and printing money)

Taxes - Libertarian (less taxes)

Spending - Libertarian - (less spending)

Size of Government - Libertarian (small government)

Foreign Policy - Libertarian (non-intervention)

Social services/welfare - Libertarian (reign it in)

Second Amendment - Libertarian (don't take my guns)

Healthcare - Libertarian (free-market, not government run)

Education - Libertarian (choice/competition/free-market, not government run)

Drugs - I'm not sure here, so am I Moderate/middle-of-the-road

Where do you stand and did I forget any issue?

But if we all list our positions, like I said, I think we're all mostly Libertarian and we all agree on most issues - with only a couple differences.

Actually, I just ran across this article, which reiterates the Libertarian position, and I agree with all their positions, except I'm anti-abortion, not a free-trader.

[selectsmart.com]

If we stated our positions, we would realize we have a lot in common.

Here's a test to see how Libertarian you are - Robin, you might be a Centrist.

[www.theadvocates.org]

I got Libertarian --

[www.theadvocates.org]

Kid Raw, great post! Being in the middle seems mealy-mouthed to me...although I admit that I am not sure about every issue. Still, I know from online posting that some people are offended if one voices an actual point of view/opinion.

Hope you don't mind KR, but I am going to use your template :

This is where I stand --

Abortion - against it but I don't stay up at night worrying about lost souls (either that of the mother or baby)

Illegal Immigration - on the right - (no amnesty)

Fiscal policy - Socialist. No printing of money, though. But if you make over $75K a year, you're doing well enough to get taxed.

Taxes - $75K and above.

Spending - Lots of it! Free higher education!

Size of Government - Large and in charge.

Foreign Policy - Protectionist (non-intervention)

Social services/welfare - Generous but a limit on family size if a woman has her first child on welfare. Also provide training and job opportunities.

Second Amendment - I hate guns and don't want to live with them but am suspicious of the government and think they're up to something.

Healthcare - Single-payer

Education - Free for all.

Drugs - Decriminalized but not available at Walgreen's. Maybe in the middle of the desert they could have a cocaine and heroin area.

Edit: I just LOLd at my last sentence. But I really think that's a great compromise. Wanna shoot up and snort up? Go to Death Valley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 09:57PM by banana who.

Cool - we agree on Abortion, Immigration, Foreign Policy, Second Amendment and Drugs.

I took the test for you - here are your results -

[www.theadvocates.org]

You're my favorite Liberal on the board

LOL! What does it mean by 30% for economic issues? Doesn't sound too good...

I'm gonna have to say that "against abortion" would be a hard one for me to admit to unless it was in the context of my own body, then I feel qualified to be for or against it. When it comes to another person's choice, well, that just isn't any of my business. Where do people get off thinking that it is? Seems the very opposite of less govt, less regulation and monitoring of personal choice to me. I mean, I couldn't support parents doing whatever they feel like to their children without some sort of community moderating, I'd certainly interfere if a neighbour was being abused, etc. But a woman's right to choose in that regard is just not up for debate in my opinion.

Here's a little image that illustrates my feeling on this point.
[24.media.tumblr.com]

"I'm gonna have to say that "against abortion" would be a hard one for me to admit to unless it was in the context of my own body, then I feel qualified to be for or against it. When it comes to another person's choice, well, that just isn't any of my business. Where do people get off thinking that it is?"

For me, abortion is the murder of an unborn child. Granted, still in the developing phase, but I consider a potential life more than just a "mass of cells", as some individuals refer to a fetus.

I personally do not want to support abortion. It becomes my business when I am being forced to support it, as in my tax dollars are going to fund this hideous practice.

I know people will debate - when it is no longer a mass of cells and at which point it turns into a baby, then you can't kill it. Not interested in debating that.

In that case how about IUDs or the pill or morning after pill? They don't prevent conception, just cause expelling of the "mass of cells". It's technically the same thing from a medical standpoint (I have had this explained ad nauseum by a medical practioner neighbour) just earlier on.
We could argue the finer points of this forever, I just don't think it's my business what another woman chooses. There are a LOT of unwanted children on this planet, I'd rather be concerned with what happens to them.