News:

SMF - Just Installed!

 

The best topic

*

Replies: 10385
Total votes: : 4

Last post: Today at 10:06:23 PM
Re: Forum gossip thread by Erica Mena

IMHOtep

Started by Anonymous, June 15, 2014, 12:44:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Window Lickers are viewing this topic.

Obvious Li

Quote from: "reel"
Quote from: "Renee"It's not just limited to politics or politicians; there are social aspects of the left/right issue that are directly affected and cause by following one ideology or the other. You cannot really ignore how these ideological issues affect your life.

 

I understand that you are not political but hopefully you understand that politics creates the policies and laws that affect us all in our daily lives. It's not that I'm passionate about politics, I just think it is prudent to be aware of who or what is fucking me over or reaching into my wallet.


I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada the policies and laws that affect us on a day to day basis are created by bureaucrats and courts, both groups that are notionally apolitical.  Politicians only touch the day to day decisions after they are already decided by the bureaucrats and primarily deal with issues that have a high media profile, but little impact on most of our day to day lives.  The political side of the government is mostly about showmanship, media sound bites, the latest polls, and cronyism, altogether independent of political party.  Most of it is irrelevant to political ideology and has far more to do with direct benefit of a particular minority group.



As to opinions on the issues that do come up, why should they follow an ideology at all?  Why would they not follow a logical analysis of the issue at hand, based on costs and benefits?  If I'm called a lefty or a righty, you are basically saying that my mind is pre-determined by someone else's ideology on any given issue.  Is that the case with you?  It's not with me and I take offense to the implication that I am unable to decide my opinion on an issue for myself.  I will base my opinion on the facts presented and if new facts are presented that invalidate my previous conclusion, I may change my mind.  



I view those who argue an issue based on pre-determined talking points created by their "team" as weak-willed, arrogant, and/or intellectually indolent.  Categorizing your opponent in a debate as belonging to a particular political team is equally intellectually lazy and most often constitutes a straw man logical fallacy (assuming that they have not already categorized themselves as their only  support to their argument).




the concept that the courts and bureaucrats are apolitical, is to put it kindly, silly.....as is the notion that one can realistically look at each individual issue and take them as they come...there is a theme and emphasis that run through all policies and laws whether you come from the more conservative side or liberal point of view.....these themes are consistent with a certain point of view, left or right, on every issue.......i have heard countless and countless people make that same argument over the years only to find they consistently vote the same (or a certain way) on every issue...they are all for free speech as long as it is their speech that is heard........you could be that one in 33 million....but i suspect it is the same old spiel........ :ugeek:

Renee

Quote from: "reel"I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada the policies and laws that affect us on a day to day basis are created by bureaucrats and courts, both groups that are notionally apolitical.  Politicians only touch the day to day decisions after they are already decided by the bureaucrats and primarily deal with issues that have a high media profile, but little impact on most of our day to day lives.  The political side of the government is mostly about showmanship, media sound bites, the latest polls, and cronyism, altogether independent of political party.  Most of it is irrelevant to political ideology and has far more to do with direct benefit of a particular minority group.


Well you are lucky that way because in the US activist bureaucrats and judges usually fill the role you describe. It is the ideology of the particular administration in power that sets the tone for much of the policies be they social or political. Legislators make laws that either directly or indirectly affects people's lives. Yes there is showmanship involved but it's all part of the greater game.


Quote from: "reel"As to opinions on the issues that do come up, why should they follow an ideology at all?  Why would they not follow a logical analysis of the issue at hand, based on costs and benefits?  If I'm called a lefty or a righty, you are basically saying that my mind is pre-determined by someone else's ideology on any given issue.  Is that the case with you?  It's not with me and I take offense to the implication that I am unable to decide my opinion on an issue for myself.  I will base my opinion on the facts presented and if new facts are presented that invalidate my previous conclusion, I may change my mind.


 I hear you Reel and I know that you are an independent thinker but it is a fact that others are not so much.  We all have the ability to decide an issue on its merits but those merits can be up to interpretation based on "perceived" benefits and costs. How those merits are perceived are a direct result of the predominate ideology you prescribe to. Example; on social issues if you lean left you are going to view a given issue from a left point of view. Now that doesn't mean YOU cannot change your mind based on examination of the facts but since when do the facts always play a part? It is an unfortunate fact that politics is a partisan game and issues and facts can be twisted and changed as needed to suit an agenda.  


Quote from: "reel"I view those who argue an issue based on pre-determined talking points created by their "team" as weak-willed, arrogant, and/or intellectually indolent.  Categorizing your opponent in a debate as belonging to a particular political team is equally intellectually lazy and most often constitutes a straw man logical fallacy (assuming that they have not already categorized themselves as their only  support to their argument).


Okay all too often people do categorize themselves by consistently siding one way or another on almost every given issue. That is what I'm talking about. I understand what you are saying but unfortunately it doesn't always apply. Sometimes you know what you are dealing with before the first shot is fired.
\"A man\'s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box and the cartridge-box.\"

Frederick Douglass, November 15, 1867.


RW

And sometimes you are pleasantly surprised.  Either way, debating and countering arguments serves to solidify your own.
Beware of Gaslighters!

Obvious Li

Quote from: "Real Woman"And sometimes you are pleasantly surprised.  Either way, debating and countering arguments serves to solidify your own.




when you are on the side of the angels that is easy....... :ugeek: