• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How does one debate ideology?

Thingfish

Thingfish

Banned
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
365
Location
Yo mammas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
How does one debate ideology?
 
Thingfish said:
How does one debate ideology?
Click to expand...

Usually with tactics and insults.

The problem with ideology is that it's very subjective. I find people who are ideological will ignore a lot of things that are inconvenient, and push for the things that "prove" they're right. Being ideological is a mistake, totally. People should simply look for the truth.

What's the best way of running a society?

Equality? What does equality mean? Does equality lead to a better society? The problem with such a question is, the answer is both yes and no. Equality can work in certain situations, and in others it can be bad.

So, Nazis are wrong and Communists are wrong, and every other ideology which sticks to something rigidly is wrong too.
 
You have to boil an issue down to the basic observations of reality that different parties hold, and then you have to go a step deeper than that. For example, in the abortion issue, you have a fundamental disagreement over whether or not a fetus is a person, but even below that, you have a decision making process over whether or not bodily autonomy outweighs the value of a potential human being. The lack of value for autonomy is a large part of why so many anti-choice ideologues have no concern for the fate of prisoners on death row or on alleviating childhood suffering through allowing gay couples to adopt children that desperately need a family, in spite of their insistence that they value human lives.

If you can't get to the value systems responsible for an observation of the world, you're only engaging with ideas on a surface level.
 
Last edited:
Frigidweirdo said:
Usually with tactics and insults.

The problem with ideology is that it's very subjective. I find people who are ideological will ignore a lot of things that are inconvenient, and push for the things that "prove" they're right. Being ideological is a mistake, totally. People should simply look for the truth.

What's the best way of running a society?

Equality? What does equality mean? Does equality lead to a better society? The problem with such a question is, the answer is both yes and no. Equality can work in certain situations, and in others it can be bad.

So, Nazis are wrong and Communists are wrong, and every other ideology which sticks to something rigidly is wrong too.
Click to expand...

One criticism, my centrist friend: you seem to be operating under the assumption that trying to limit yourself to working with objective "truth" isn't an ideological stance in and of itself.
 
Jesse Booth said:
One criticism: you seem to be operating under the assumption that trying to limit yourself to working with objective "truth" isn't ideological.
Click to expand...

Well, when I say "truth" I mean things like "what works best for a society?" and trying to achieve the best for society. There's a certain amount of opinion here about what could be the best and what isn't.

The difference here is that everything is done on a case by case situation, possibly with underlying fundamental principles. With ideology it's not just about fundamental principles, it's starting with a whole view of something and making everything fit.

If that makes sense.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Well, when I say "truth" I mean things like "what works best for a society?" and trying to achieve the best for society. There's a certain amount of opinion here about what could be the best and what isn't.

The difference here is that everything is done on a case by case situation, possibly with underlying fundamental principles. With ideology it's not just about fundamental principles, it's starting with a whole view of something and making everything fit.

If that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Everyone operates off of the pursuit of what's best and defines it on a case-by-case basis, unless they're purely operating off of someone else's commands and dictates. Ideology is a distillation of observations, and it's important to understand the baseline assumptions that define how they define and understand the world around them.
 
Thingfish said:
How does one debate ideology?
Click to expand...

You don't anymore... The left has adopted identity politics and brands those they disagree with as racists in order to prevent any ideological discussion from ever taking place.
 
Grim17 said:
You don't anymore... The left has adopted identity politics and brands those they disagree with as racists in order to prevent any ideological discussion from ever taking place.
Click to expand...
winner winner chicken dinner
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Usually with tactics and insults.

The problem with ideology is that it's very subjective. I find people who are ideological will ignore a lot of things that are inconvenient, and push for the things that "prove" they're right. Being ideological is a mistake, totally. People should simply look for the truth.

What's the best way of running a society?

Equality? What does equality mean? Does equality lead to a better society? The problem with such a question is, the answer is both yes and no. Equality can work in certain situations, and in others it can be bad.

So, Nazis are wrong and Communists are wrong, and every other ideology which sticks to something rigidly is wrong too.
Click to expand...

When is equality ever bad? If equality only works for you in certain situations, then it's not truly equal, is it?
 
HumblePi said:
When is equality ever bad? If equality only works for you in certain situations, then it's not truly equal, is it?
Click to expand...
when I work all day, you don’t, and want the same pay and benefits as me.
 
Tlrmln said:
That depends on the ideology.
Click to expand...
Okay let’s say

guy #1 wants his stuff
guy #2 wants guy #1’s stuff and feels entitled to it (why I still don’t know).
 
Thingfish said:
Okay let’s say

guy #1 wants his stuff
guy #2 wants guy #1’s stuff and feels entitled to it (why I still don’t know).
Click to expand...

Sorry, you'll have to do better. I don't sense any "ideology" in that.
 
Thingfish said:
Then it’s you who are lost and needs to do better.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'll do you one better, since you seem particularly hung up on one sort of "ideology."

Imagine that a few centuries of advances in AI and robotics automation lead to mass unemployment and concentration of wealth and, after a series of perfectly legal business deals, one family comes to own everything on Earth.

Their "ideology" is that, since they legally own everything, everyone else can eff off and starve.

Debate their ideology.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Everyone operates off of the pursuit of what's best and defines it on a case-by-case basis, unless they're purely operating off of someone else's commands and dictates. Ideology is a distillation of observations, and it's important to understand the baseline assumptions that define how they define and understand the world around them.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I find way too many people "know" things they don't know, because they're not true. Yet, they'll pretend like it's true to justify their ideological position.

Like Communists and Socialists pretending that Stalin was a good guy, for example. I've had that conversation.
 
HumblePi said:
When is equality ever bad? If equality only works for you in certain situations, then it's not truly equal, is it?
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll give a few examples.

Equality in education. All children are put together in the same class irrespective of their ability. It's kind of fair, all kids should have the same education, right? However what it means is the fast kids are being held back by the slower kids, and will not reach their potential, while slower kids are more likely to reach their potential.

Take fines for certain crimes, like speeding. A guy who earns say, $1000 a month gets fined $1000 for speeding, and a guy who earns $1 million a month gets fined $1000 for speeding. The fine for the guy who earns little is a massive punishment for him, whereas for the millionaire it's nothing as a punishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom