Disfunctioning brains - political spectrum

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
In your mind I am. I also think free health care is the way to go, and that Iraq was a freaking mistake (first supporting it), and that dubya is a big fat head idiot, and pro-choice, I don't support DP, I think gay should be able to marry if they want.



The problem is, some of the views are seen as right wing IN THE US! You are labeling me what I would be in the US. In your opinion. I just have opinions. And I'm not right wing, because I don't agree with the great majority of beliefs/valus they claim is right wing.

You are living in Kidiverse. You are not debunking any single of my arguments on this issue but just repeating the same thing without backing it up. In here, you might be a fascist. Does that make you a fascist? Perception of someone about someone else hardly makes it so. Go read my earlier posts if you want to debate this and attack the main arguments, please. You are only repeating what I already demolished.

I'm talking about the way that you see the world. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. It's a fact that you see the world like a right winger.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
And this makes the spectrum real exactly how? It's a tool of thinking, it's not real. I don't mean real in a way that you have to be able to see it or touch it. This just isn't real. Like I said, why don't we just go with who throws jelly the furthest?

This makes the political spectrum as real as religion, or as real as science. The political spectrum is, exactly as you put it, a tool of thinking. A simplification of reality so that our human minds can grasp it. It's not absolute, it's bound to change as political beliefs change.
It's a useful tool nonetheless.

So? You have to have a position from party to those issues then?

The individual citizen doesn't have to have an opinion. The political system, however, must take decisions. That's why the political system must have an opinion on each and every issue. On which parcel of land should Townshireton's next school be built? In which country should the international lab for fusion power be built? If the political systems can't answer these questions (as well as all others), political decisions can simply not be made.

That's exactly what I meant by being a whore foa party. European hunting laws? I don't have an opinion! Why should I have one? a) I don't care about that law b) I don't know the law and c) I'm not interested enough to form an opinion about it. And that's it. And no one speaks for my position on European hunting laws, period.

Yet, we need someone to speak about European hunting laws (if we want an adequate protection of migrating animals as well as an enjoyable hunting season for the hunters living in "downstream" countries). Who should it be?

If people don't have the time to form an educated opinion, then they shouldn't have one, or at least they should admit it's half assed opinion.
While you might tend to agree with most things the party or thinkers you agree with the most, it doesn't mean you would agree on this particular issue.

We completely agree on that.

To have one ready, by default, is just stupid.

I must think of another definition of "by default". A "by default" opinion is the one that kicks in when you have no opinion on your own. And you don't hold it anymore, once you have developed an opinion on your own. Having a "by default" opinion doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot change your mind, or that you must defend this opinion while gnashing teeth.

So they just go on and push buttons how they are told to push the buttons?

Not quite. They develop strong opinions in the matters they are working about (my MEP worked on the matters of police, justice, and immigration). Their strong informed opinions on the matter significantly contribute to shaping the whole party's opinion. OTOH, because one individual spends much time working on only a few issues, other people spend much time working on other issues (One of my MEP's colleagues was very much about transportation and market laws). It's teamwork. In the end, the party has an opinion on everything (which is an essential role of a general political organization). Depending on the individual and on the party, people may vote against party's line if they have a strong opinion that goes against the party's (It happened to my MEP at least once during my internship). But, for the matters where the MEPs have a weak or no opinion, they vote among party lines, because a Parliament takes note of every voting MEP, not only on "informed" MEPs.

However, when you're a political figure that must vote on plenty of issues, it's a fairly logical choice to follow the party's opinion on matters where you don't have one. The reason is very simple: when you enter a party, you generally agree with what it stands for. You can expect the party to defend a position you'd agree with, simply because that's the reason you joined the party in the first place.

Hey, if you don't have the time to think it through, then go home and sit down and do something else. Or if you still are going to be there anyway and the work load simply is too much, then that must be changed.

What do you want? Do you want Europe to shrink to a few thousands inhabitants, so that its political issues are simple enough that a single guy can know all of them? (heck, my hometown of 30,000 is already too complex for a single person to have perfect knowledge of all the issues). In all branches of mankind, when workload is too big for one man, there's teamwork. Why should it be any different with politics? Why is politics so sacred that the only moral thing to do is to do the job all by yourself, without relying on anybody else?

OR don't go pushing any buttons on issues you haven't bothered/had the time to study. This is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Too much to know, so I just go and .. say yes or no? How about saying nothing??? This is nothing but being a WHORE.

Saying nothing is all good when your only relationship to politics is 'Poly (or any other troll/debate hangout). When your relationship to politics is to actually take decisions that involve millions, "saying nothing" (instead of following your allies' informed proposals) actually gives a chance to let other proposals pass, that you'd find abhorrent if you had the time to study them.

Did you miss the point where I said they have lost their ORIGINAL idea? where they are mostly pursuing their own agendas and a) keep the current power or b) gain more power.

You are very effectively missing all the major points. You didn't read my posts, did you?

I only read the first one, and the one I'm currently responsing to.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
So, if you as much as agree with the major points I made, then you realize, that the 99% of internet debates are all moot

Duh.

I have seen extremely few internet debates where people were willing to listen to the others' points, to the point that they could change their minds themselves.

And it's true for 99% (I find the figure a bit light, actually) of the debates in the real world as well.

[Odin]

Spiffor:
Kid:


The political spectrum is a convenient way of showing where a person is politically compared to the "average" of that society.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think it goes down to people's core beliefs. When you get down to that people are at one side or the other.

I strongly disagree with the words you use then.

"Right wing" and "left wing" originally come from the way French revolutionaries sat during the first assemblies.

I would think there are better words to describe one's core beliefs ("reactionary", "conservative", "progressist", "radical"), but even these words cannot be of use, when you try to categorize one's entire spectrum of political ideas into a word. Actually, save for using one word per individual, (Kuci would be a "schmooist", I would be a "Spifforist" etc), I don't think it is possible to have one word that can depict your whole set of political beliefs.

Heck, Odin and I mostly agree on all matters political, but if we were to debate on biological/social causes of behaviour, we'd be fighting like rabid dogs

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Heck, Odin and I mostly agree on all matters political, but if we were to debate on biological/social causes of behaviour, we'd be fighting like rabid dogs

Nah, I just think the behavior debate is too politicized, the researchers should be neutral, not biased to one side or another. I think in most behavior (and intellegence as well) is a mix of both. But thats another thread.

[Az]

Hi, never bothered to read the thread over here:

Is this another "people who disagree with me are stupid" thread?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
Is this another "people who disagree with me are stupid" thread?

Close, but not completely. Pekka raises valid points.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

alors spiff, t'as chômé hier?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I strongly disagree with the words you use then.

"Right wing" and "left wing" originally come from the way French revolutionaries sat during the first assemblies.

I would think there are better words to describe one's core beliefs ("reactionary", "conservative", "progressist", "radical"), but even these words cannot be of use, when you try to categorize one's entire spectrum of political ideas into a word. Actually, save for using one word per individual, (Kuci would be a "schmooist", I would be a "Spifforist" etc), I don't think it is possible to have one word that can depict your whole set of political beliefs.

Heck, Odin and I mostly agree on all matters political, but if we were to debate on biological/social causes of behaviour, we'd be fighting like rabid dogs

Everyone will be slightly different that's true. But I think everyone has a tendency towards one side or the other based on their core beliefs, because those core beliefs determine how they will feel about all the issues.

[Az]

Close, but not completely. Pekka raises valid points.

Stop it, now I know you're trying to play me!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
Spiffor:
Kid:


The political spectrum is a convenient way of showing where a person is politically compared to the "average" of that society.

Is that the average Joe with 2.1 children?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
alors spiff, t'as chômé hier?

Non, j'ai bossé comme un âne. Et le pire, c'est que je suis chômeur 90% du temps, mais il faut que je trouve un petit boulot qui me fasse bosser pendant le 1er Mai

[Pekka]

What! I see IDF attacking me, I see the french communist connection plotting, ... must be.. a normal day

I have to go to sleep, I'll examine your answers tomorrow.