Disfunctioning brains - political spectrum

[Lawrence of Arabia]

im not left or right. im free.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
im not left or right. im free.

You're deluded.

[Pekka]

LoA that's right! Better free than a whore.

Just because you would agree with an opinion that someone says who is known to belong to the 'left' or 'right' doesn't make you one. In fact, it doesn't make them one either.

I'm saying, we don't need no stinking parties. IF it was up to me, I'd demolish ALL parties. I don't know a solution to make another structure though, but say I'd try one where we would randomly draft certain amount of people from certain region, and they would not get paid big money, it would be their responsibility. Just like when you have to go to Jury... the same deal. Keep the politics as close to reality as possible, without hindering structures or agendas, or lobbyists.

What I want is less power in the political leadership, less governing, more freedom. "Well guuhh that's a right wing view!1". No it's not. It's MY view. Just because some right wingers would share the same view means crap.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, I didn't say there was a center and everyone was in it with a flavour. I was saying, there's none of that ****. It's just a spectrum. It's not real. Beliefs are not real. Facts however, in some extent, are real.

Beliefs can be real. Sometimes there are no facts to guide us. Everyone has beliefs, even when there are no facts. That's why I say there really is no center.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Agathon
It was a study done at Berkeley and pubished in some bigwig journal. I think that it largely rings true. Of course, the usual suspects howled, but they had no comeback of any substance.

It doesn't claim anything about the validity of their views, just some of the causes of them.

Of course it can't cover every single conservative, but it covers most of the ones on this board (for an example of an obvious exception: it's hard to pin any of that **** on Ming, who is an avowed tory).

In an enlightened society, the kind of conservatism described in this paper will be regarded as a mild mental disability. And it so obviously is..

While I understand your concern here, this is an example of how it isn't just limited to conservativism: Liberals are most definatly guilty of this too. I've seen you in many threads cling to any articles that support your point of view as if it was the gospel or something; simply put, if that form of conservativism is a mental disability, so is an anologue version of liberalism.

[Agathon]

I think you're being a bit harsh, Pekka.

People hold political beliefs for lots of reasons and they hold many different and sometimes contradictory clusters of them. "Left" and "Right" are just handy labels we use so that we don't have to spend hours explaining our views to other people.

The purpose of this is, of course, like everything else in human culture, sexual. Imagine how awful a date would be if you had to explain your entire politics to the other person. One's balls would be bluer than the ocean.

But if you can say to each other: "I'm on the left/right" you can quickly realize whether the other person is evil scum or not and get down to the copulation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
What I want is less power in the political leadership, less governing, more freedom. "Well guuhh that's a right wing view!1". No it's not. It's MY view. Just because some right wingers would share the same view means crap.

Less government doesn't necessarily mean more freedom. That's what you want to believe because you are a righty.

[Pekka]

Ok I agree with you, there is no center. But I also say there is no left and right either. If you agree, then I don't see why you are debating this, if you disagree, please explain me, convincingly, why there is left and right, what it means and how it reflects the reality. And please do remember, that it's not supposed to be subjective matter, or it's really not a fact, because it is imposed on all of us.

Now, if you say what does it matter even, well.. why not call it the toasters and we could make decisions on who throws jelly the furthest. It would have the same validity to hold the power of leading nations and people.

[Shi Huangdi]

quote:
political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system."

If you want to claim that, Agathon, you should also note that psychologist have also found that non-severe depression, all of which those "Syptoms" would be associated with, is also correlated strongly with being more in touch with reality. Pessimists and mildly depressed people tend to be in touch with reality much more so then optimists. So if you wanted to claim then the conservatives are the only ones with a realalistic view of the world, well, you'd probably be correct.

[Agathon]

While I understand your concern here, this is an example of how it isn't just limited to conservativism: Liberals are most definatly guilty of this too. I've seen you in many threads cling to any articles that support your point of view as if it was the gospel or something; simply put, if that form of conservativism is a mental disability, so is an anologue version of liberalism.

That's not what is being argued in this paper. It is not that people cling to such views, but why they do.

The study identifies endorsement of conservative views with the list of disabilities above. If you have links to a suitably prestigious study of liberalism, it would be interesting.

[Agathon]

If you want to claim that, Agathon, you should also note that psychologist have also found that non-severe depression, all of which those "Syptoms" would be associated with, is also correlated strongly with being more in touch with reality. Pessimists and mildly depressed people tend to be in touch with reality much more so then optimists. So if you wanted to claim then the conservatives are the only ones with a realalistic view of the world, well, you'd probably be correct.

I guess that explains Sartre then.

And if conservatives are in touch with reality, I'm a carrot.

[Pekka]

Kid, And you just based it on what? If you want to debate, don't come throwing beliefs on a debate that is denouncing beliefs as a way to lead something.

Less governing means freedom in many ways. For example, if you think that the government should tell you what the values are, then I suggest that is the opposite of freedom, the one where you can choose. So you are still allowed to make up your own mind, sure, but is it essential for the gov to tell you waht values are? Exactly what is the point in that, what is the value of it? I know it's value when you can use it as a tool, but I thought that was what we wanted to get rid of, aka less governing, less power, so we could decide, and just because many people can still decide, most are lambs who can't tell their left nut from the right nipple.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Less government doesn't necessarily mean more freedom. That's what you want to believe because you are a righty.

less government does mean more freedom. it means less taxes, less regulations, less intrusive social laws, less police. that meas more freedom.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, And you just based it on what? If you want to debate, don't come throwing beliefs on a debate that is denouncing beliefs as a way to lead something.

Less governing means freedom in many ways. For example, if you think that the government should tell you what the values are, then I suggest that is the opposite of freedom, the one where you can choose. So you are still allowed to make up your own mind, sure, but is it essential for the gov to tell you waht values are? Exactly what is the point in that, what is the value of it? I know it's value when you can use it as a tool, but I thought that was what we wanted to get rid of, aka less governing, less power, so we could decide, and just because many people can still decide, most are lambs who can't tell their left nut from the right nipple.

Control is a function of society. Government is just a part of that. What is "more" government anyway? More taxes? So what if those taxes go to eliminate the control that society has over you?

[Ted Striker]

Lawerence,

It actually depends.


When there is a lack of social services, such as police protection, people are less free because they become slaves, not to the government, but to other things like organized crime.