So, I've been thinking about the values of the parties I'm considering voting for.
Conservatives/Capitalists believe in paying people for their work.
Socialism believes in being charitable to all. (as I'll define the gist of what I'm saying).
Both of these systems have different values, but both values are legitimate. They are kind of like opposite values, yet they are both good values and are both legitimate.
Socialism is about surviving.
Capitalism is about thriving.
Again, two slightly different ways of living your life. Both are perfectly valid.
But then there's the last comparison I thought about. And though this seems like a no-brainer it might not be and might take some time to think about.
Greens care about life.
Conservatives care about dead dinosaurs.
That is the best and easiest way I can sum that up.
Both sides of the argument have valid points ------- but the whole "environmental" debate really comes down to a battle between pro-life and pro-dead-dinosaurs.
yeah, it's silly, but that's how I'm seeing it.
I was feeling so tempted to vote for the UCP ------ but my realization about pro-life vs dead dinosaurs has got me thinking twice.
It's like this:::::
My friend and I recently sat down to play a game of multiplayer SimCity with each other.
For some strange reason, both of us opted for wind power in our cities over non-renewable?
Why could that be do you think?
It IS a no-brainer.
But apparently, the temptation is hard for some members of the human race. The love of money. The love of dead dinosaurs. Scary. What would Jesus do? (interesting point, no?)
I'm sorry if my self-dialogue seems a bit slanted in one direction, but this IS how I am looking at it.
Both philosophies have valid points. It's just that on the third point, technically speaking, one side is "more valid" than the other. In that sense, at least.
I realize that view may be unpopular where I live, but regardless of how unpopular it is, it is based on reality and is therefore at very least truthy if not true.