The giant cop out

[KelvinG]

It seems to be very popular to rail against the evil "left" on this board. (the evil "right" gets its fair share of abuse as well.)

Personally, I'm getting a little sick of this giant cop out.

It's so easy to counter an argument by resorting to the safe tactic of blaming a faceless group such as the "left" or the "right." (and I'm not saying I haven't done it as well. I certainly have)

Isn't such blame assignment just an easy way to feel superior in an argument.

If you believe that someone has said something that is wrong, or fallacious, or just plain stupid, then say so.
Don't dismiss it as "left" or "right" wing propoganda, and turn up your nose in an act of arrogant wisdom.

And who are these radical "lefties" or "righties" anyways? I'm willing to bet most people on this board have belief systems comprised of both left and right values. Some lean more to the right, some more to the left.
But is anyone here totally "left" wing or totally "right" wing?

Personally, I think such labelling is cowardly and really just an attempt to avoid a real debate.

[Attrayant]

That's exactly the kind of claptrap I'd expect to hear from a partisan wingnut like you ;)

Seriously, it's nothing more than namecalling and an attempt to stir up trouble. When people resort to namecalling and mudslinging, they've clearly run out of cogent arguments. Or perhaps never had any to begin with.

[no one in particular]

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about an 8 foot cop who came to terms with his sexuality.





Anyway, the “evil right” already had it’s thread. I would contend, however, that we have very few extreme righties in this board. Most (no, not JK) of our right wingish folks have many views that identify with the left, abortion, gay rights and such.

Do any of out left wingish folks share righty views? Maybe, anti gun control or whatever?

Good topic by the way, KevinG.

[c0rbin]

I don't think it's as simple as mudslinging, Attrayant.

I think KelvinG is onto the root of the labelling issue.

Labels make it easier for someone who might not want to think very critically about an issue or another person's ideas.

The faster someon can apply a label to another, the faster that person can be dismissed and the labeller's world view safe from impeachment.

You can see how quickly some are to label, even in this forum where critical thinking is supposed to be the norm.

A good example is the Hamas thread(s). At even the slightest attempt to understand Hamas, one is labelled a terrorist or an anti-semite.

It makes it easy to know who to drag out into the streets when the glass breaks.

I recommend that any here who wishes to engage in open-minded discussions, refrain from labelling (leftist, right-wing, sympathizer) and stick to the ideas of the discussions.

[JoxterTheMighty]

I agree totally! Labeling is a bad thing to do to anyone at anytime and does not help in a debate. More people just need to stick to the issues at hand and the data that is available. Lumping anything into a catagory is just a bad attempt at dismissal without evidence.

I could go off on a personal rant right about now but I will shut up instead of coming off as a radical :P

-Joxter-

[KelvinG]

[i]Anyway, the “evil right” already had it’s thread. I would contend, however, that we have very few extreme righties in this board. Most (no, not JK) of our right wingish folks have many views that identify with the left, abortion, gay rights and such.

Do any of out left wingish folks share righty views? Maybe, anti gun control or whatever?

Good topic by the way, KevinG. [/B]

Yes, good idea. Maybe we should challenge all of the so called "righties" and "lefties" to share some of their views that go against what is typically considered normal right or left wing thought.

One that comes to mind for me relates to a issue that is pertinent in my home province right now.
Privatization of health care. I'm still a big believer in accesible health care for all, but I have a big problem when the government says that you can't take advantage of private services in order to avoid waiting lists in the public health sector.
If I have the money to pay for private services be damned if the government is going to tell me I can't do so.

This is but one example on my part.

My intent here is not to turn this thread into a debate on health care, but to cite an example where I'm more "right" wing than "left."

[Attrayant]

Maybe a new thread is in order: What views do you have that go against your stereotypical party affilitaion? I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I'm not sure what that makes me.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about an 8 foot cop who came to terms with his sexuality.Didn't I just see that episode of Everybody Loves Raymond?


I think that the right-left labels don't work here very well because people who use a little critical thinking in their lives often aproach issues of personal liberty and economic freedom differently, and sometimes reach conclusions regarding specific issues that don't really lend themselves to being lumped into large, homogenous groups.

If this were a more partisan issues based forum, I would think that people who had devient views on specific issues might be inclined to try to mold their views closer to the norm, as peer pressure, for example, might make a good anti-abortion evangelical Christian think they should be all for a free market, even though the issues are unrelated. Here, you're free to think just about anything on any issue, and no one is likely to say that you're being intellectually inconsistant because you want free trade and free abortions.

[c0rbin]

Attrayant,

It makes you a critical thinker. There are some who join a political party like a cult and follow the beating drum across the board.

Politicians especially know they must compromise to get things done in a democracy.

[Tmy]

Who are the hardcore lefties? I cant think of any. Maybe I'm missing them cause I lean left on more issues.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by KelvinG
It seems to be very popular to rail against the evil "left" on this board. (the evil "right" gets its fair share of abuse as well.)

Personally, I'm getting a little sick of this giant cop out.

It's so easy to counter an argument by resorting to the safe tactic of blaming a faceless group such as the "left" or the "right." (and I'm not saying I haven't done it as well. I certainly have)

Isn't such blame assignment just an easy way to feel superior in an argument.

If you believe that someone has said something that is wrong, or fallacious, or just plain stupid, then say so.
Don't dismiss it as "left" or "right" wing propoganda, and turn up your nose in an act of arrogant wisdom.

And who are these radical "lefties" or "righties" anyways? I'm willing to bet most people on this board have belief systems comprised of both left and right values. Some lean more to the right, some more to the left.
But is anyone here totally "left" wing or totally "right" wing?

Personally, I think such labelling is cowardly and really just an attempt to avoid a real debate.

Of course it is, but people learn from our leaders. We have been watching politicans do this for at least 50 years in America.

There is a really a lot of history in all this, going back to the Red Scare of 1920.

"The left" has been something that has been attacked by people with opposing view who have self serving agenda in America since the 1920s, its become a part of the social fabric. Generartions have grown up now hearing about "the liberal media", "Commie pinko fags", etc. There is a real effort that has taken place for the past 80 years to defame a set of ideas that are pro-community and seen to at the expense of personal exploitation.

This all goes back to defending wealth and the ability for individuals to exploit others. The people who are wealthy and feel this way have an interest in maintaining status quo. They don't have real logical and factual arguments so over the years they have resorted to lying, name calling, attacking strawmen, stereotyping, etc.

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/curwick.htm

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/ALLEN/ch3.html

What happened was that there was a growing liberal movement in America in the early part of the 20th century. There were people in America opposed to it, but they had little to back up their views, adn were getting steam rolled by liberal rationalists and Marxsits.

Then the Bolshevik Revolution happened in Russia. At that time America had one of the highest numbers of Commusnits in the world actually, there were more Communists in America than Russia in 1918.

When the Bolshevik Revolution happened there were real people in America that wanted to overthrow the American government and basically have a Communist Revolution in America. This was only a handfull of people though. The conservatives though exploited this and labled everything liberal as a part of Communist conspiracy and htats when this all began.

During poltical campaigns in in newspaper conservatives would call anything liberal un-American, or part of a Russian plot to take over America. It didn't even matter if the ideas in question were realted to Communism or not, they simply played the card and fed on hysteria.

That has now been going on since that time. It came up again most strongly after WWII, and ever since then liberal ideas have been associated whit a foreign threat by conservatives who exploited the situation for their own benefit and to aviod from havin to anwser question about policies or ideas. Instead fo addressing an idea, they simply labled it Communist and stygmatized it, it was an easy way to win elections.

This has greatly hurt liberlaism in Ameirica over these past 80 years.

These attitudes are not a part of our culture and most people don't really knw where his all came from.

[Jedi Knight]

Should have named this thread "leftists anonymous".

lol

JK

[Tricky]

Okay, I'll out myself first.:eek:

I proudly call myself a liberal.
I believe in social programs, affirmative action, graduated taxes, gun control, pro-choice, non-aggression, racial harmony, feminism (some of it), and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. My left wing hero is Kurt Vonnegut. My left wing idiot is Al Sharpton.

On the other hand, I also believe in the death penalty (where judiciously applied), eliminating lawsuit abuse, cracking down on welfare abusers, a strong military, that PETA is a bunch of nutcases, and in many forms of capitalism. My right-wing hero is Colin Powell. My right wing idiot is Ann Coulter.

Also I love NASCAR, if that says anything about my personality.:D

[tedly]

Part of my difficulty with this issue is separating flames from the ad hominem fallacy. If you say 'tedly is a fool' that's a statement that is provably true, if rude. If you say 'tedly is spouting fascist propaganda, therefore what he says must be (false | true) ' your argument is fallacious.

'Leftist' and 'rightist ' labels as used in the US of A strike me as somewhat odd. A morning talk show host in Canada (Peter Gzowski, founder of the Gzowski golf tournament in support of Literacy) pointed out that in Canada there is not a party far enough to the right to oppose Medicare, and in the US there is not a party far enough to the left to support gun control.

Here is an interesting take on the point from 'The Doubter's Companion' by John Ralston Saul, the best bathroom book since Bierce's 'the Devil's Dictionary' and also arranged as 'A Dictionary of Aggresive Common Sense.'

Left versus Right
The result of an unfortunate seating arrangement.
In October 1789 the Paris mob, led by women, walked to Versailles, stormed the palace and dragged the king back to town with them. The Assembly had no choice but to follow. Louis was put in his gilded cage, the Tuileries Palace. The nearest building capable of seating several hundred elected representatives in the same room was the palace stables out in what are now the Tuileries gardens. The need to board and excercise a large number of horses had imposed a particular sort of structure. That shape in turn imposed a semi-circular seating plan on the carpenters brought in to do the emergency conversion.
It naturally followed that those who hated each other most sat as far away as possible from each other, to the extreme right and left of the podium. Thus the needs of horses helped to create our idea of irreconcilable political opposites. Had architecture permitted this semi-circle to complete itself, the reactionaries and the revolutionaries would have found themselves quite naturally sitting together. See NEO-CONSERVATIVE.
p.s.
In the Neo-conservative entry he starts 'The exact opposite of a conservative. Neo Conservatives are the Bolsheviks of the Right.' Then he gets inflammatory.
Edited to correct spelling of His Excellecy's name.

[Malachi151]

My right-wing hero is Colin Powell.

Is Powell even right wing? He served under Clinon too, and is pro-affirmative action and I think pro-choice also. I don't know about the rist of his views, except he lies like the rest to support war:p I'm under impressed with Powell, he just looks good in uniform and is a good speaker.

I have no "right wing" heros. I think most people on "the right" side are either confused, mislead, or malicious.

My problem with the left is that much of the left is also confused, and mislead, but not malicious.

To quote you but change it a little I would say:

I believe in social programs, affirmative action, graduated taxes, gun "control" (not removale of the right to bare arms), pro-choice, non-aggression, racial harmony, feminism (some of it), am against the free-market, want all recreational drugs legalized, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and I strongly support increased secularization and would like to see all references to God removed from government property and whatnot, like money, the pledge, etc.,

On the other hand, I also believe in the death penalty (I would like to see the death penalty used more often and with quicker turn around), eliminating lawsuit abuse, cracking down on welfare abusers (I think that this is a non issue in terms of poor welfare, of course we want a system that is not abused, to suggest that anyone is for abuse makes no sense. The most welfare abuse is corporate welfare), a strong military (but would still decrease military spending compared to now), and in regulated capitalism.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by KelvinG
And who are these radical "lefties" or "righties" anyways? Originally posted by Malachi151
I think most people on "the right" side are either confused, mislead, or malicious.
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Should have named this thread "leftists anonymous".

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by no one in particular


My question about who exactly are the radical "lefties" and "righties" on this board was asked because these terms are so frequently used that I wanted to see if anyone would step forward and say "I am one the righties or lefties of which are much maligned on this board."

I still find such labelling as silly and ultimately a cop out.
Is it really fair to classify anyone on this board as totally "left" or totally "right."
Again, it's just a convienient method to try and degrade someone's position by resorting to a form of name calling.

Personally, I'm not going to do it anymore. And if someone's argument consists of "Ah, just what the left (or right) would say" then they obviously aren't equipped for a serious debate.

[jj]

Originally posted by Attrayant
Seriously, it's nothing more than namecalling and an attempt to stir up trouble.

Sometimes it's mocking the other side's illucid debating techniques, too.

My take, though, is that presently, the right is way overboard with utterly unethical propaganda, and the left can't work its way out of whiny. Well, then there's JC, but he's a special case. :)

Speaking as one of those moderate rightists mentioned below, who is anti-gun-control and pro-human-rights (that includes the right to control one's own body, thank you), yes, I'm more than somewhat profoundly sick of both.

[Tmy]

There are no radical lefties. Can anyone point to a Bizzaro JK??? We can always count on a "Its the feminazi's causing all these overcast days." From Jedi and a couple others. But I cant recall comparable kookieness from the left.

Maybe I can start......... ITS RAINING TODAY, ITS ALL REAGANS FAULT.

[jj]

Originally posted by Attrayant
Maybe a new thread is in order: What views do you have that go against your stereotypical party affilitaion? I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I'm not sure what that makes me.

You're a Goldwater republican, then. But we need a lot more of you, and a politician to front for us, since Barry is dead.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are no radical lefties. Can anyone point to a Bizzaro JK??? We can always count on a "Its the feminazi's causing all these overcast days." From Jedi and a couple others. But I cant recall comparable kookieness from the left.

Maybe I can start......... ITS RAINING TODAY, ITS ALL REAGANS FAULT.

I have never bought JK's act. I think he is just on here to get a rise out of people, and he found the most effective way was to adopt a militant personality.
I'm not saying he doesn't believe some of what he says, but I'm almost positive he isn't really so radical in his viewpoints.

I rarely respond to his posts for this reason. The contrivance reeks through, and I can only shake my head and laugh.
Sometimes I'm actually impressed because he does have a very special talent for knowing which buttons to push to get a rise out of people.

[rustypouch]

From my view of the States, there is no mainstream left wing party. The Democrats are just slightly to the right, and the Rebuplicans are extreme right wing.

Here in Canada, at least at the Federal level, the parties are a bit more spread out. The New Democratic Party is pretty left wing, the Liberal Party is moderate, the Progressive Conservatives are slightly right wing, and the Alliance Party moreso, but not as far right as the American Repulicans.

I'm not sure what the point of this was, I just wanted to show that the American political system is for the most part conservative and doesn't give the voters much choice, compared to other countries.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Is it really fair to classify anyone on this board as totally "left" or totally "right." Actually I think that a board that promotes critical thinking will tend to weed out or not attract those who fall into those categories. However, we do have Mr. Case and Mr. Point. I would say, though, that they add to my enjoyment of this forum instead of detract.

Personally, I'm not going to do it anymore. I agree, I say we form a pact. No more starting…now.

And if someone's argument consists of "Ah, just what the left (or right) would say" then they obviously aren't equipped for a serious debate. I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out that someone is pulling their party line (although, extremism is rarely the party line). Although if someone thinks that just because another individual is from an opposing party that they are wrong intrinsically then the former person may not have a good case. Huh? I have to think about that sentence some more.

Who farted? He who smelt it…

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by rustypouch
From my view of the States, there is no mainstream left wing party. The Democrats are just slightly to the right, and the Rebuplicans are extreme right wing.

Here in Canada, at least at the Federal level, the parties are a bit more spread out. The New Democratic Party is pretty left wing, the Liberal Party is moderate, the Progressive Conservatives are slightly right wing, and the Alliance Party moreso, but not as far right as the American Repulicans.

I'm not sure what the point of this was, I just wanted to show that the American political system is for the most part conservative and doesn't give the voters much choice, compared to other countries.

I went to the NDP website the other day, just to refresh myself on their agenda, and found myself saying "Wow, a little to liberal for me."
I agreed with some issues, but a lot of them were a little to extreme for me.
I think that is why I prefer the Liberal party. Despite their name, they are not the most liberal party in the country. The are more moderate.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by no one in particular
He who smelt it…

That would never stand up in a court of law. You can't prove nothing.:D

But yes, you make good points. I'm seriously going to curb my tendencies to spout phrases like "You crazy right winger" or "That's something I would expect someone on the right to say."
Also starting...now.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Originally posted by Malachi151
I think most people on "the right" side are either confused, mislead, or malicious.

That's fine, but I can back up my points with facts.

When I say "right" I'm primarily talking about those who consider themselves "fiscal ceonservatives", and people who base their polical ideas on religion.

#1 I think that religon is a crock and by definition anyone basing political ideology on religion is mislead and confused.

#2 I think that this country has been filled with free-market capitalist propaganda for 30 years to the point that many people have such a poor grasp of economics today they support "right wing" economic policy out of being mislead and having misconceptions.

IMO anyone that supports the idea of a flat tax or thinks that the free-market is a good idea is simply not educated on economics.

The politicans that promote this stuff are likewise either mislead or malicious in their attempt to consolidate economic power in the country and support malicious corporatism and big business.

Anyone who is against environment regulation ideologically has got to either be a moron or malicious.

Many people who support "the right" do so out of not understanding the real effects of their policies, which I have written an entire paper about, which you can find in my sig.

Its things like "The Healthy Forest Initiative" and "The Clear Skies Act", etc, which do the exact opposite of what Bush claims that they do.

We have lots of people in this country that say things like: "All these countries need to be kissing our ass because we give everyone so much foreign aid, etc, etc, all they do is complain and all we do is give handouts."

Yet, you try to explain to them how foreign aid relaly works and they either dismiss it or just walk away. There is a whole legion of willfully ignorant people in America who support the "right -wing" agenda. If you want to contest that claim then fine, but I'll support it all day long. I don't consider pointing out facts to be either left wing or right wing. Facts are facts and should always be considered neutral IMO.

When I say stuff like:

Overall, what has taken place in America over the past 50 years is that American leadership, both public and private, has become increasingly secretive. A framework of lies has been created in which American society functions, which is separate from the modern views of reality in which American leadership functions. American leaders continue to support this framework of lies and use this framework of lies as an arena within which to present ideas to us, the American people. Within this framework of lies the world appears to be a simplistic place of good and evil. The feeling of Americans that we are the most successful people on earth and that America is the most successful country is used to support the idea that America's policies are inherently altruistic because our culture tells us that success is the measure of goodness. What is actually the case though is that America is successful precisely because American policy is not altruistic.

"We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction."

It's time for George Keenan's message to be understood by all Americans, and for us to face reality as a society with our eyes wide open, not as an uninformed mob that is puppeted by liars and thieves.

Yep, I'll be considered a radical lefty all day long by some people, but the facts still remain. Left and right is relative. Our country is so immersed in "right-wing" ideology that anything slightly left of center appears to be radical leftist to many Americans, yet in reality its actually quite tame.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151


That's fine, but I can back up my points with facts.

#1 I think...

#2 I think...Facts, huh?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Facts, huh?

Thanks for proving my point about deceptive discussion :D

Way to quote out of context, prove nothing and confuse the issues.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by rustypouch
From my view of the States, there is no mainstream left wing party. The Democrats are just slightly to the right, and the Rebuplicans are extreme right wing.


Yes, but you have to consider your own viewpoint as well. You say that Democrats are not that far left but Republicans are far right, correct? Well, as compared to Europe/Canada that is correct. It is definitely not correct as compared to the Middle East. Many of their conservative governments make the US’s Republicans look like pinkos.

So, I think that the US is not shifted to the right as compared to Europe/Canada, it nicely in the center as compared to the world.

[Tony]

Originally posted by no one in particular


So, I think that the US is not shifted to the right as compared to Europe/Canada, it nicely in the center as compared to the world.

Interesting point. I agree.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular


Yes, but you have to consider your own viewpoint as well. You say that Democrats are not that far left but Republicans are far right, correct? Well, as compared to Europe/Canada that is correct. It is definitely not correct as compared to the Middle East. Many of their conservative governments make the US’s Republicans look like pinkos.

So, I think that the US is not shifted to the right as compared to Europe/Canada, it nicely in the center as compared to the world.

It doesn't work that way. No suprize, though Tony agrees with you :p

You don't compare one country to another to determine where a country is in the politcal spectrum you compare a country against the political spectrum itself.

What you said is like saying that one block is red, the other is yellow, and so the one that is orange is in the middle of the spectrum. That's not true.

The political spectrum stands on its own and is comprized of all politcal ideology. Everycountry in the world can be right wing, or left wing and that would not mean that the countries between Nazi fascist at one extreme and American Republican at the other were centrict countries, it would mean that everyone is shifted to the right.

In American the acceptable politcal spectrume ranges from far right like David Duke, Pat Buchannan, Jerry Falwell (all of these people get airtime and lots of press) to mild left such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

Far Left would be Marxists and Communsits. When was the last time you saw Communsits giving speeches on TV and being given serious air time equal to Falwell types? Marxism and Communism are still dirty words in America.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Malachi151]

And here are my results BTW:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.95

[Jedi Knight]

Come on, this entire thread is a logic fallacy.

What KelvinG is proposing is that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to openly support political issues virtually trademarked by the right or left political wings and then claim "political neutrality".

That is laughable.

If you support leftist policies, you are a leftist. If you support rightist policies you are a rightist. There is no grey area in any political ideology.

If you advocate a political position, you get the baggage that goes with it (all of that political wing's positions).

That is the nature of politics and won't change. Politics is simply the struggle over limited resources. If you are really 'neutral', you would have no political position over those limited resources and therefore confirms the fallacy of believing you can be neutral.

Neutral people don't function in politics. Competing political groups that tangle over limited resources (all politics) won't allow it.

JK

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151
And here are my results BTW:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.95


Mine:

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 0.41

Jean Cretin and Gerhard Schroder are the two people closest to me on the "International Chart".

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151


#2 I think that this country has been filled with free-market capitalist propaganda for 30 years to the point that many people have such a poor grasp of economics today they support "right wing" economic policy out of being mislead and having misconceptions.

IMO anyone that supports the idea of a flat tax or thinks that the free-market is a good idea is simply not educated on economics.


And praytell child, where did you get your economics degree from? Find it inside a crackerjack box?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Come on, this entire thread is a logic fallacy.

What KelvinG is proposing is that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to openly support political issues virtually trademarked by the right or left political wings and then claim "political neutrality".

Interesting, Jedi. You misrepresented what KevinG was saying and then you went about attacking the misrepresentation. There should be a name for that…let me think…

[c0rbin]

If you support leftist policies, you are a leftist. If you support rightist policies you are a rightist. There is no grey area in any political ideology.


It comes down to issues. As has been demonstrated in this very thread, one can have "leftist" leanings for one issue and "rightist" leanings for another. Keep your baggage.

Again, it is not as black and white as you want to make it to suit your world view. A racist lumps people into a label so he can close his mind to their humanity.


Neutral people don't function in politics. Competing political groups that tangle over limited resources (all politics) won't allow it.

People compromise to attept to get resources all the time. That is politics. In order to compromise, you have to meet someone half-way, more or less.

[Malachi151]

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/enParties.gif

Yep, I fit squarely with the Greens, and as this shows the Democrats are not leftists in America.

This is also interesing, though a bit trivial:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.html

[jj]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Interesting, Jedi. You misrepresented what KevinG was saying and then you went about attacking the misrepresentation. There should be a name for that…let me think…

It's called "New Republican Logic". JK is hardly the only one responsible for that.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151

BTW, I have my own "quote quiz" if you're interested, its somewhat related:

http://malachi151.tripod.com/quotequiz.htm

You need a "just show me the answers" button. I know too much about politicians to even try to predict the answers, dude.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tricky
Also I love NASCAR, if that says anything about my personality.:D

Frankly, I'm not surprised, leftist. Only a true leftist could get joy out of watching people turn left for 500 miles. :p

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj


You need a "just show me the answers" button. I know too much about politicians to even try to predict the answers, dude.

Strange it appears to be broken at the moment anyway. Oh well, I'll just edit it out since its not working.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/enParties.gif

Yep, I fit squarely with the Greens, and as this shows the Democrats are not leftists in America.

This is also interesing, though a bit trivial:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.html


That is the funniest political spectrum chart that I have ever seen. Did Stalin make that for you, or did you make it on your mommy's computer?

JK

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/enParties.gif

Yep, I fit squarely with the Greens, and as this shows the Democrats are not leftists in America.

This is also interesing, though a bit trivial:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.html



Isnt this scale in the context of British political parties?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



Isnt this scale in the context of British political parties?

Yeah, taking a second look I think it is. I was thinking that it was a mix of both the Brithish and American. Still, I think the translates pretty well.

The Green Party, Democrats, and Conservatives (Republicans) are all in about those same places in America.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
It doesn't work that way. No suprize, though Tony agrees with you If this is your attempt to classify me as “right wing” then I suggest that you failed miserably. Right wing I am not, sir.

You don't compare one country to another to determine where a country is in the politcal spectrum you compare a country against the political spectrum itself. You may not, but I just did.

What you said is like saying that one block is red, the other is yellow, and so the one that is orange is in the middle of the spectrum. Except that what I said is not like that at all.

The political spectrum stands on its own and is comprized of all politcal ideology. Everycountry in the world can be right wing, or left wing and that would not mean that the countries between Nazi fascist at one extreme and American Republican at the other were centrict countries, it would mean that everyone is shifted to the right. Oh, you must mean except for when they ARE compared to those other countries. What you do not get is that these concepts are not truisms. Political parties are imagined concepts that are not factually based and you or I may redefine or slot these concepts as we see fit. The actual parties in this spectrum redefine and reclassify themselves regularly.

In American the acceptable politcal spectrume ranges from far right like David Duke, Pat Buchannan, Jerry Falwell (all of these people get airtime and lots of press)… It is called “demand”, look it up.

…to mild left such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Ahem, Nader?

Far Left would be Marxists and Communsits. When was the last time you saw Communsits giving speeches on TV and being given serious air time equal to Falwell types? Marxism and Communism are still dirty words in America. Yay!

This test kind fo sucks, and I dont think its accurate, btu nonetheless: No thanks…it did not work anyway.

[Malachi151]

If this is your attempt to classify me as “right wing” then I suggest that you failed miserably. Right wing I am not, sir.

No, I was saying that your statement was illogical, and its no suprize that Tony agrees with an illogical statement.

Except that what I said is not like that at all.

Actually it was.

Oh, you must mean except for when they ARE compared to those other countries. What you do not get is that these concepts are not truisms. Political parties are imagined concepts that are not factually based and you or I may redefine or slot these concepts as we see fit. The actual parties in this spectrum redefine and reclassify themselves regularly.

I'm not talking about politcal parties, I'm talking about established ideology. I fail to see the need to go on with this as why I'm saying is a proven fact when anyone who knows anything about political ideology would agree with. The site I directed you to is such an example.

It is called “demand”, look it up.

First of is assume that it is all demand that only proves my point. I said that America is shifted to the right, so if there is more demand for right wingers, then that proves what I said true does it not? Second of all, its not all demand, though much of it is, its also political marketing and the airing of acceptable views. Those views are more acceptable in America then views of the extreme left.

Ahem, Nader?

Okay, I'll give you Nader, but Nader has virtually no establishment support, those other guys did. Stil, I'll give you Nader and move it farther to the left.

Yay!

All I was proving is that the far left is not represented in America. Everyone in America can agree that that is good, and we can say that it is good, but the fact still remians that the far left is not represented. Its just a fact that has to be observed if you are discussing the poltical spectrum of America.

No thanks…it did not work anyway.

Actually when I liked it I was thinking it was a different and shorter test. The one I linked is actually decent.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Thanz


Frankly, I'm not surprised, leftist. Only a true leftist could get joy out of watching people turn left for 500 miles. :p
Damn, I knew there was some reason I liked stock car racin'. But if you call my cousin Billy Earl a leftist, you better expeck to get yore head stove in.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
No, I was saying that your statement was illogical… Really? Are you certain about that? I would appreciate an analysis of what, specifically, you find illogical about that statement. If you are unable to show the illogic of the statement I would appreciate a retraction. I will place it here, just so you do not have to go looking for it:So, I think that the US is not shifted to the right as compared to Europe/Canada, it nicely in the center as compared to the world.
Just to be clear, I am perfectly willing to accept that you may demonstrate that my statement is wrong, perhaps by demonstrating that the political spectrum is a set reality instead of a subjective model. But illogical? Please, be specific.
Actually it was. Okay then, show which country/political idea correlates to which block. After you have done so, describe how this relates to my statement.
I'm not talking about politcal parties, I'm talking about established ideology. I fail to see the need to go on with this as why I'm saying is a proven fact Fascinating, please explain how ideology can be established as a fixed fact. You seem to be placing a lot of weight on the political scale you posted. The political scale (and the many like it) has four political extremes. You may place anywhere you would like on this scale on any extreme. Also, it is possible to share nuances of neighboring ideologies. This is where the problem with the scale emerges. The problem is that Libertarians and Communist both have stated economic philosophies. They are in actuality opposing concepts. How would it be possible for an extreme position to be taken in both ideologies placing the red dot at the bottom left of the scale? It is shown on the scale as a possible position, how can this be? Well, you may say that the Authoritarian and the Libertarian are only taking social, not economic, positions on the scale, but then it would not be a very encompassing scale then, would it?
…when anyone who knows anything about political ideology would agree with. Argumentum ad numerum? I suggest you refrain from using the term “logic” in a debate. It points out just how ridiculous you are, especially when you make basic errors like this.
First of is assume that it is all demand that only proves my point. I said that America is shifted to the right, so if there is more demand for right wingers, then that proves what I said true does it not? Of course the US is shifted to right just now (house, senate and executive). I would expect it to shift back at some point. I enjoy the nice balance that we have here in the US. The extreme positions that some folks take is what keeps us centered.
Second of all, its not all demand, though much of it is, its also political marketing and the airing of acceptable views. Those views are more acceptable in America then views of the extreme left. What extreme left? The mythical extreme? The unachievable extreme? I suggest that the true extreme left is the actual practiced system of parties like the Greens. If this is true, then Hillary (a well supported candidate) is not far off that mark.
Okay, I'll give you Nader… No thanks, you can keep him.
…but Nader has virtually no establishment support… Okay, maybe it is my location, but if I see one more of those “Bush and Gore’s environmental policy make me wanna Ralf” bumper stickers I am going to hurt someone.

…those other guys did. Stil, I'll give you Nader and move it farther to the left. Of course centrist have more support than extremist in the US, that is my point. You don’t see an awful lot of support for The Constitution Party either, do you?

All I was proving is that the far left is not represented in America. Everyone in America can agree that that is good, and we can say that it is good, but the fact still remians that the far left is not represented. Its just a fact that has to be observed if you are discussing the poltical spectrum of America. I would be willing to concede that the extreme left ideology is underrepresented in the US. In order for me to do that however, I would like you to address how these parties , although not popularly supported, constitutes under representation: Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Labor Party, Socialist Equality Party, Workers World Party, Socialist Action Party, The Green Party, Socialist Party USA, New Union Party, New Party, The Greens USA Party, Freedom Socialist Party, and the bluntly named Communist Party USA. It would appear that the modern day Marxist/left in the US is not under represented, but under supported.

The scale you are using places communism on the far left as a reference point. The problem is that communism exists only in (a perhaps unachievable) ideology, whereas radical Muslim conservatism (which I’ll concede is also toward the authoritarian direction of most quadridirectional political scales) is practiced in the real world. Therefore my statement that the US is in the middle of the world’s (actual and practiced, not just advanced as ideology) political spectrum is, I think, reasonable.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Come on, this entire thread is a logic fallacy.
JK

Jk thats the first good laugh I've had in a while. If thats how you excuse your labeling go ahead, dude.


This thread is much needed and a great thing. I may have a tendancy to identify with the left but I sometimes lean to the right. It is never all or nothing depite what the kook meister may want to tell you.

I used to never vote straight party, it became a habit only after the republican party ticked me off during the Regan era. But then I frequently go and cross vote for Republican candidates.

Why? beacuse I vote for the person I feel will do the best job. Maybe we should have a compare and contrast thread.

Peace

[KelvinG]

In general, I don't expect certain posters to stop the cowardly labelling that goes on here. Obviously persons on this board have the right to express themselves as they see fit.
But, I know for myself, I'm going to give much less value to any poster who cops out and resort to such desperate tactics.

And if anyone spots me doing, feel free to give me a kick in the ass.