Disfunctioning brains - political spectrum

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by 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.

Allright, I get your point here; but I am saying that there are reasons for liberals as well. Even if there is no such thing as moral relativity, there most definatly is political relativity, simply for the fact that there are so many people with so many diverse points of view.

And BD: While that is the stereotype, it's not true in the debate sense. Conservatives use rhetoric just as much as liberals do and are no more realistic in debates as liberals.

Simplest example is Ned.

[Agathon]

Allright, I get your point here; but I am saying that there are reasons for liberals as well.

Absolutely.

I don't know what they are. Perhaps we just say things to get laid.

[Pekka]

"Control is a function of society."

Umm... ????

"What is "more" government anyway?"

It is the amount of power it has, and that it can use.

"So what if those taxes go to eliminate the control that society has over you?"

This makes no sense, it's almost a paradox it seems.

[Agathon]

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

But not perhaps the sorts of freedom that people find valuable. Hobbes' lesson..

[Kidlicious]

Pekka,

You're definitely right wing, so I don't really know why you are going on like this.

[JohnT]

BEcause it prolyl supports my views so I could do mental masturbation and feel elitist in my ivory tower of truth!

Pekka, this is one of the funniest things you ever wrote. Too bad the intended target totally missed the point.

[Pekka]

Ted, yes but that's ultra view. Of course we would need certain services, police actually serves the people. I'm not talking about going super wild with NO power nowhere, except criminals. Tell me we need all elements, I mean truly need, in the current structures and I can make up more important offices we need for you to sign up .

But that wasn't essentially my point. My point was, that the spectrum is nothing but a delusion, it doesn't mean anything at all unless you believe in it, making you delusional, and that the current power structure has lost its original idea and are not working for us 100% anymore because we come second to party.

[Jaguar]

Agathon, I love how you immediately did exactly what Pekka was ranting about and didn't even realize it.

[Pekka]

JohnT, I'm glad someone got it

[JohnT]

Note, Jag, that he did it in his very first post in this thread and kept continuing!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

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.

ya, youre right

[Agathon]

Agathon, I love how you immediately did exactly what Pekka was ranting about and didn't even realize it.

And you believe this was unintentional...

You've been pwned again by the master of irony.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ted, yes but that's ultra view. Of course we would need certain services, police actually serves the people. I'm not talking about going super wild with NO power nowhere, except criminals. Tell me we need all elements, I mean truly need, in the current structures and I can make up more important offices we need for you to sign up.

Never said we needed all of them.

But there are alot of great government services that keep a society healthy. On another note, I'm very opposed to privitizing alot of these services, because the for profit motive is not always the best when it comes to social services.

But that wasn't essentially my point. My point was, that the spectrum is nothing but a delusion, it doesn't mean anything at all unless you believe in it, making you delusional, and that the current power structure has lost its original idea and are not working for us 100% anymore because we come second to party.

I agree with you there, I've actually posted on this for years, and have avoided things that fit into a preconcieved, box of ideals as much as I am consiously able to.

I do think Clinton has been the most moderate of our leaders over the past 30 years, and balancing the budget was a great success. That goes against him being a "leftist," so that's an example of where the political spectrum just doesn't work.

[Pekka]

Kid, No I'm not right wing. To you I might be right wing, but to myself I'm am not any wing at all. Some opinions I hold are commonly supported by people who associate being in the right wing, and some my opinions are left wingish. It doesn't work that way, where I then would calculate how many of my opinions are supported by which side, and then I'm that side.

If I can demolish the whole spectrum, and come up with another thinking pattern, that is not relating to any facts at all, is it automatically better, same or worse? Is it more or less valid, and should we change to that or not? I don't know is wrong answer.

If you think it out, you should come across to 'OK let's play a little.. ok why not, it's the same'. OK I suggest we shall have NO spectrum at all, and devide people into car owners and people who have no car, and they are now the two sides. Does it make any sense? In political field, absolutely no sense at all. So is it now worse or not? Why can't car owners, I mean they must agree on many things, and the other side must disagree with few things.. what's the difference?

What about we devide folks into who think prosperity is a good thing? Ohh but now we have only one side?! OK, ok, so is there an alternative? No! Because none of them are valid, none of them are real. But somehow we accept this current one. And it's not any better than the who throws jelly the furthest, because they are all invalid, there's no such things as less invalid, if they are all invalid. We should have a VALID one, that, unfortunately does not support the current structure of any western country and I think none of other countries structures either.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Agathon

Agathon, I love how you immediately did exactly what Pekka was ranting about and didn't even realize it.

And you believe this was unintentional...

You've been pwned again by the master of irony.

Oh, that is so a copout.