RE: Doubting my affiliation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Arpig -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:06:27 PM)

Yes Tazzy...that's it absolutely...about time somebody caught on!!




TheHeretic -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:08:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
through reasoned discussion we can all come to the conclusion that Arpig and his socialists are on the right trackĀ [:D]



Nope. But perhaps through reasoned discussion it can be established that the conservative track is the better method of moving towards the destination [;)]




Arpig -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:09:54 PM)

quote:

Nope. But perhaps through reasoned discussion it can be established that the conservative track is the better method of moving towards the destination
You heretic!!!....oh wait....never mind




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:18:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Well I hope the apparent ability to get along in this thread spreads to some of the other ones, because we can't ever solve the problems if we just yell at eachother...through reasoned discussion we can all come to the conclusion that Arpig and his socialists are on the right track [:D]


I think the reason everyone is getting along is because there are a few regular posters who've been absent from the board for the last several hours. As soon as one of them wakes up and stumbles into this thread, this conversation will go straight to hell in about 6 seconds flat just the way every other thread does when they show up to piss all over it. Which is precisely why this board is a completely useless forum for serious political discussion, and always will be as long as it remains unmoderated.




MrRodgers -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:20:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

This comes from a C-mail exchasnge: I think that the burden of reasonableness lies on the left, not because they have been more outrageous, but simply because it is the natural requirement of their position...by definition conservatives wish to keep things as they are...and thus have only to make the argument that things are OK as they are, while the liberal, again almost by definition is required to show how the changes he proposes will benefit the whole. The burden of proof is on the liberal or change-maker, and thus the burden of civility in a debate is also there. This doesn't excuse conservatives from being polite as well, just that as the "defending" force they have a teeny bit more leeway, not in the politeness factor, but in the vehemence factor. You are, after all defending what is...it is up to us to attack that status quo in a decent manner, it is us on the far left who want to radically alter your lifestyle, and thus the burden is on us to show how and why it would be better, and to do so in a manner that is both polite and logical....I mean we all know the lefties are right [;)]


You see Arpig you begin to enter into perspective again. Just one brief example of your perspective conservative needs, in that almost to a person the left i.e., liberals in 2000 could have just as easily wanted, taxes, foreign policy, Glass-Steagall and the federal budget to mention just a few...all remain the same.

'Conservatives' weren't happy with leaving things as they were and did ALL of the changing 2000-2008 and backed it up with obviously suspect rationales...if not outright lies.

Also, it is in fact the so-called social conservatives firmly planted on the right that wish to control and ensure your virtuous behavior and basically will tell you just about exactly how you are supposed to live in order to accomplish their social goals.

This is reflected most recently with the religious radical, repub state pol in Geo. who submits a bill to make mothers criminally responsible for her own miscarriage. So let's talk, let's have that conversation because just what is really conservative and what is liberal has become so malleable, it renders debate in need of a very wide discretion.

You see the problem is you would be much more correct describing say...Eisenhower conservatism but the right of today is way off track and therein lies our future political problems.




Arpig -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:21:49 PM)

I disagree Panda...I am in favour of minimal moderation...well to be honest no moderation....let the assholes spew their assholery...all good to me





Marini -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:30:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Well I hope the apparent ability to get along in this thread spreads to some of the other ones, because we can't ever solve the problems if we just yell at eachother...through reasoned discussion we can all come to the conclusion that Arpig and his socialists are on the right trackĀ [:D]


I think the reason everyone is getting along is because there are a few regular posters who've been absent from the board for the last several hours. As soon as one of them wakes up and stumbles into this thread, this conversation will go straight to hell in about 6 seconds flat just the way every other thread does when they show up to piss all over it. Which is precisely why this board is a completely useless forum for serious political discussion, and always will be as long as it remains unmoderated.



As I stated before Panda, it works for me around here.
But than, I practice selective reading and there are certain people I enjoy conversations with, and
if I can't talk or type to them, I don't bother.

Feel free to read my posts over the past 6 years, and see who I type and chat with.
I can stand by what I am saying here.
It is great to be me.

At most, any conversation with said individuals is limited and brief, because almost invariably they will cross
the line in the conversation, because most can't help themselves.

Every now and then, if they appear to be behaving I might exchange a bit of banter, but that is about it.




MrRodgers -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:40:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
through reasoned discussion we can all come to the conclusion that Arpig and his socialists are on the right track [:D]

Nope. But perhaps through reasoned discussion it can be established that the conservative track is the better method of moving towards the destination [;)]

Just for arguments sake, I don' know how that can happen. The conservative track does not include govt. owning the means of production. One contributor tonight has mentioned that we must deal with the words. Socialism is being practiced nowhere and could exist under just about any form of govt.

Chinese govt. 'ownership' is much more similar to partnerships and to the benefit of the party not the people or the country at large.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:47:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

I disagree Panda...I am in favour of minimal moderation...well to be honest no moderation....let the assholes spew their assholery...all good to me




quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
As I stated before Panda, it works for me around here.
But than, I practice selective reading and I rarely type to more than 3 or 4 people.
I just don't chat it up with those, I either don't respect or like.


I think the problem there is that different people have different communication styles. I can't do that - I can't tune anyone out. I'm just not able to selectively listen. Anytime you-know-who pops into a thread and starts insulting all the "libtards," I hear that just as loudly and just as clearly as I do the balanced, reasoned arguments of Rich or Creative Dominant. I can't not hear it just as loudly and clearly, and I'm not able to tune it out or minimize it at all.

The result of that, for me, is that the guy who's only interested in throwing monkey shit and derailing the thread because he doesn't like the subject throws the whole discussion out of whack for me, because the part of me that's constantly trying to blend the different themes of the discussion and find consensus or commonality among the various participants just can't fit the deliberately disruptive catcalls together with the reasoned arguments, and the whole discussion just falls apart for me. I can't sort out the signal from the background noise,  so when a forum is so polluted with constant noise, it becomes useless to me as a serious discussion forum. I envy those of you who are able to separate the noise out, but I just can't do it.




Marini -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:50:28 PM)

lol

We all have different communication styles and even time constraints.
If I pop on here for 20 minutes, I am going to seek out those posts by those I tend to admire and respect.
I am not going to spend my 20 minutes reading a bunch of crap.

I might even stay logged on here all day, and be watching t.v., on the phone, cleaning my house, doing school work, and/or
just enjoying my wonderful life.

I can read about 1 line from any poster, and decide if I need to read the rest of that post.
I have not read half the replies on the thread I started!!!

I am good at skim reading, selective reading, selective posting, and even selective looking and selective hearing.
I almost always sleep with the telly on, I can tune just about anything or anyone out.
[;)]




Arpig -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/26/2011 11:51:04 PM)

MrR - they did not do it with suspect rationale or outright lies, they did it based on what they thought was correct - of course you and I and all right-thinking people know they were wrong, but the fact is they thought they were right...and that is sort of the whole point of this thread...the righties are often correct, however unpalatable that may be to a leftie...it is. Just as we on  our side are correct at times, so are they (less ofen but still occasionally)  Look the whole point is that as an avowed far left (far lefter than most American leftists would dare go) I find myself agreeing with the right-wingers on here...is that because I am a SINO or because they do have some sense in what they say?
I go for the later. They may be wrong but it isn't because they are stupid....just wrong




WyldHrt -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 12:28:32 AM)

quote:

he's less a leftist and more of an anti-rightist...if you get the difference.

This is more profound than many will credit, but spot on.




Arpig -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 12:56:43 AM)

Sadly you are correct




luckydawg -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 1:22:28 AM)

Arpig, thank you very much.





Arpig -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 1:28:17 AM)

hey, no prob...the truth is...regardless of political affiliation




pyroaquatic -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 1:41:16 AM)

Care to take a guess as to what my affiliation is? Ha ha....

I pay no mind to those who espouse left or right arguments. There is a possibility I am blind to such things but when it turns to banter, name-calling, 'you are stupid because you watch X', and other anti-right/left/left/right/right poses. Makes me want to pull my hair out.

Many times when a good topic pops its head out of the works I desire to contribute my perspective and then I read the same individuals turning the thread into a personal war-zone. I back out and shake my head knowing that my voice is drowned out by this and buried within pages of

"FUCK YOU"
"NO U!!!!!!"

There are individuals on both sides (and the middle) that I respect and agree with. Then there are those with malice and hatred for a side as if some person tore up the radishes and salted the earth.





rulemylife -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 2:43:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Lucy I still like, but RML is ify...he's less a leftist and more of an anti-rightist...if you get the difference.


I don't think I've ever denied that.

But more to the point is why you felt you needed to start a thread to piss and moan like a schoolgirl.

If you wanted to say something to me then it would have been far easier to say it to my face.







pyroaquatic -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 3:00:33 AM)

You're so vain......I bet you think this thread is about you, don't you, don't you, dooooon't yoooou?

Not sure Arpig ever said you had ever denied it and if you are not denying it then why are you getting so testy?

Free speech is cool too and the comfort to speak about the things that bring us discomfort.




rulemylife -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 3:15:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

You're so vain......I bet you think this thread is about you, don't you, don't you, dooooon't yoooou?

Not sure Arpig ever said you had ever denied it and if you are not denying it then why are you getting so testy?

Free speech is cool too and the comfort to speak about the things that bring us discomfort.



That was really a bad old song.

No I don't think so, but I seem to have inspired it, so it would be nice if he would speak to me directly.




NorthernGent -> RE: Doubting my affiliation (2/27/2011 4:41:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

I think many of even the most hardcore liberals* around (ie, me) accept that pragmatism is the best option in foreign policy....



Not at all.

Assuming there are two types of people in this world i.e. those who act based upon a favourable outcome, and those who stand by a principle regardless of whether or not the outcome is favourable, then the latter can certainly be liberal, not particularly pragmatic in foreign policy and put a decent case forward for their non-interventionism with the best of 'em.

The problem is that Bentham's Utilitarianism (the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people) reigns supreme in England and the United States, which is why many in both countries will point to dethroning Saddam as a justification for the invasion of Iraq; others (just as likely to be liberals) will suggest that the principle of a nation's sovereignty is far more important than any outcome. Other countries don't think like this at all. Take Germany and the Kant tradition, it is written in their constitution that individual concerns can never be trumped by the idea of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, so Germans may argue that it is wrong to shoot down a plane to prevent a terrorist incident eve though it may cost 230 lives, or even the lives of 5 terrorists, and save 6,000; whereas I imagine that most people in England and the United States would disagree. And it's where and when it comes to the crunch that you really find out what someone believes and what a nation stands for (just as you can't claim to be a cultural relatavist while using the argument that women should not be stoned in other countries, nor can you claim to be concerned with individual liberty while arguing for pragmatism, dethroning Saddam in Iraq, or killing terrorists to save lives).

In sum, I wouldn't say I'm a 'hard core liberal', assuming it means what I think it means, but I do consider myself to be liberal on economic and social matters, and would never argue for the pragmatism of dethroning Saddam because it is assumed it will save lives and lead to a new Iraq. And, when it comes to pragmatism in foreign policy, well, whose pragmatism?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875