Its to do with an article about san francisco lately and the gays were complaining(again)that their liberties were being stripped.
There were two men who lived in two different towns,
One man lived in a very conservative town,there was a norm that was pretty much adhered to and people who were very different and made to feel paranoid about it,
Having said that people felt safe and secure in their homes and life was pretty much foreseeable.
The otherman lived in a very liberal town where anything could and would go on,people werent bad natured on the whole but you could say boo without being called a bigot,there was people doing drugs and the public toilets were a meeting place for all types of sexual miscreants,but in spirit with the towns ethos it was always left go,you do your thing and i'll do mine,
As a result people in their homes werent always comfortable..
which man is better off?
this is a purely philosphical question, i tried to balance the 2 off,fill in if i didnt.
2007-01-21 03:56:20 · 6 answers · asked by ? 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Hold your horses,I'm not having a dig,
i'm not even american,My city is twinned with SF if you think i've anything against your town.SF.
It was a hypothetical question inspired by an article i read.
Its a purely philosophical question.100%
2007-01-21 05:37:41 · update #1
Homogeneity is always more comfortable . When people are comfortable they are happier.
2007-01-21 04:10:02 · answer #1 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like your very right wing and are highlighting the republican town with pro-republican stereotypes and making the liberal town look bad with anti-democrat stereotypes. So really it isn't a fair or truthful question. If you wanted to make it more fair and truthful, I can't speak for the Republican town but I can show an example of a very liberal town.
The other man lived in a very liberal city. It was the smartest city in the world according to Forbes Magazine. It had a low crime rate. It was a college town. The biggest Whole Foods and the biggest Wild Outs in the world. On March Twentieth hundreds of people smoked pot on the football Field.
Which Man Was Better Off?
By the way that is a real city.
2007-01-21 04:12:44 · answer #2 · answered by narbdance 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Uhh, this 'question' is hardly worth addressing.
I've lived or worked in some of the most liberal towns in the US and also some of the most conservative.
*NONE* fit your silly steriotype.
Now, that said, give me a 'liberal' town to live or work in any day of the week.
Also, the huge flight of people from the South and Midwest to the 'liberal' coasts show many people agree with me.
Lastly, it would do you some good to turn off the hate media and get out more.
2007-01-21 05:18:22 · answer #3 · answered by Bad Buddhist 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with narbdance - in fact, I think the city he refers to might be my hometown.
There are smart conservatives, smart liberals, stupid conservatives and stupid liberals.
I think its not a question of is a conservative town better or is a liberal town better, but is rather a question of is a stupid town better or is a smart town better.
I think the smart town is clearly better - regardless of politics. Using your own examples - the bigots in the conservative town are stupid. The paranoia felt in the liberal town is due to stupidity.
2007-01-21 04:31:54 · answer #4 · answered by Justin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the second man is better off,,,, as in the first situation, long term damage can be done if you are outside of the norm and treated in a negative way,,,,,,,, so the person , while might feeling comfortable in their home, would not feel comfortable in their community and in their personal self, which is the core of civil liberties,,,,
2007-01-21 04:07:06 · answer #5 · answered by dlin333 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the middle path, with any leanings going leftward? but not the extremes.
2007-01-21 05:04:46 · answer #6 · answered by drakke1 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋