• 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!

The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

  • Self-Contradictory

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Self-Consistent

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • Total voters
    8
SirGareth said:
Not if words actually have meaning:

Murder:

1) noun: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

2) verb: "kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation."
Click to expand...

Dude.

Why the **** would you give the STATE, the same socioeconomic dimension that produces things such as Communism and Nazis, the right to KILL YOU?
 
xMathFanx said:
Actually, they are "widely used in real world ways to organize our daily lives" as our entire society is based around Science & Technology (including the device you are using at this moment to read these words). This is exceedingly robust evidence in regards to just how powerful the model used in STEM is.
Click to expand...

xMathFanx:

Fair enough. I will amend what I said above in post #44.

The only reason that these differences within the physical sciences seem less serious to the outside general public and don't lead to open schism in the wider society is that these ideas are too abstract, too removed from mundane existence, not really understood by the general public and are not consciously used by most people in real world ways in order to organise their daily lives. Thus the disputes of scientists and mathematicians tend to stay limited to tighter social and academic circles than the disputes in the social sciences which can more readily metastasise to the society at large. Therefore these scientific concepts and language/vocabulary are inaccessible to most people and are thus ignored rather than adopted and messed up by common usage and parlance.

One does not have to understand how a smart phone works in order to use one.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
xMathFanx:

Yes, I took your meaning but digressed nonetheless. I'm bad that way, a lack of discipline. There is plenty of linguistic and ideological drift occurring in the political forum as there always has been. "Left" has been detached from its original anti-monarchist and pro-classical liberal meaning and has been colonised by later generations to mean different things in different places. Socialism colonised the term, then social and societal liberals paltrooned it for cultural, ethical and social causes. Then environmentalists somehow went from conservationists to leftists. Later anti-war advocates found themselves labelled as members of the left. Then internationalists and globalists found themselves ghettoed in Leftsvile. The process continues today with advocates of social justice, anarchists and sexual/gender diversity advocates being shunted under the leftist umbrella.

Likewise "Right" has been adrift as well, as various groups have either appropriated the term for themselves or had it thrust upon them by others. The original rightists were supporters of monarchical power, aristocratic privilege, and Church authority. But then the term was appropriated by the rising bourgeoisie to mean rich commercial and financial elites. Right was then colonised by pro-free-market but otherwise classical liberals who resisted strong centralised power and statism. Then it swung over to pro-corporatist boosters of big business and empire. Then it was shifted to include social conservatives and traditionalists. Finally it was extended to include a religious aspect and a nationalist aspect. Today the label is being applied to people completely off the political spectrum like racists, ersatz left-wing radical anti-fascists and disengaged and aloof libertarians.

This bewildering situation is made worse by geographical differences. So in modern Russia hardcore leftists are actually right-wing fascists and in Israel you can be declaimed as leftist for opposing Zionism or supporting Palestinian causes.

Sloppy language and sloppy thinking have turned these polar terms into meaningless labels of "otherness". It would be better just to scrap them both and declare everyone to be "them" or "us". It would be simpler, save time and would be just as meaningless. Thus the concepts of division and otherness have triumphed over any real meaning in the terms "left" and "right". Their meanings today have been so lost that they are often used just as warning calls of hostile ideological positions or outright insults.

Cheers.
A sinister and dexterous Evilroddy in the centre.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there!
Good one.
 
xMathFanx said:
The Self-Contradictory Nature of Both the Left and Right

A huge problem with the typical talk surrounding the Left-Right dynamic is that the many of the positions/views on both sides are self-contradictory and often highly out of step with theory.

A few examples I have previously given about this from the Left are "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic", champions of free speech while perpetrating student "protests" designed to shut-down Free Speech, champions of Science while promoting 63+ genders pseudo-science, champions of anti-discrimination/anti-prejudice while simultaneously promoting positions and values that inherently are discriminatory (e.g. Affirmative Action, new laws/rules regarding M-F dynamics in court, M-F dynamics in rape/sexual assault and elsewhere, ect.) ect. ect.

From the Right, there are also a plethora of self-contradictory positions such as Small Government but massive military with a global presence, Nationalism and sovereignty are of chief importance but we should perpetually interfere with the affairs of other Nations, Lazefaire Capitalism in theory should reign supreme however promote all sorts of Mixed Economy positions, "Family values" are most important but most parents are encouraged to physically, emotionally, psychologically, educationally, ect. abuse their children, ect. ect.

Links to discussion concerning "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic" here:

(A) Crisis of Democracy | CreateDebate
(B) Fascism is Good (Please read my argument) | CreateDebate (Look for my posts in the discussion)
(C) Plato's Republic is the Ideally Just Society | CreateDebate

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


heres is the problem, at least for liberal part, the arguments are made up version of what liberals stand for and are bastardizations of it. I'll address below:

"A few examples I have previously given about this from the Left are "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic",

champions of free speech while perpetrating student "protests" designed to shut-down Free Speech, -Protests are free speech, that's a bogus assertion

champions of Science while promoting 63+ genders pseudo-science THere is nothing pseudoscience about gender, scientists are the ones that do it. See, this entire point is based on an opinion not rooted in fact or logic- its a fallacy


, champions of anti-discrimination/anti-prejudice while simultaneously promoting positions and values that inherently are discriminatory (e.g. Affirmative Action, new laws/rules regarding M-F dynamics in court, M-F dynamics in rape/sexual assault and elsewhere, ect.) ect. ect. I don't see it as dicriminatory but correcting people's behavior of disregarding minorities. The other points I have no idea what you are getting at
 
Moderate Right said:
I lean to the right but one of my favorite ones is the right being all high and mighty against abortion but then being highly in favor of the death penalty. On the left side, I think it rather funny that the the left are very much into rights of all different kinds, except for second amendment rights and, as you pointed out, first amendment rights as well.
Click to expand...

Because it is a stupid, outdated right that strips away 10s of thousands of people's lives a year, but it is what it is. Also, most liberals don't want outright ban. The 2nd amendment does not say that every single weapon known to man can be owned. Preventing someone from buying an assault rifle (or a tank, nuke, grenade launcher, which is in fact illegal) does no infringe their rights to buy a normal rifle or a hand gun. So there is nothing contradictory about that.

Requiring training or background check, again, I don't think is infringing. Mentally ill people, felons can't own guns, people can't bring guns into courthouses, planes and other things. Are people claiming rights are infringed? There are even limits to free speech as well
 
Sampson Simpson said:
heres is the problem, at least for liberal part, the arguments are made up version of what liberals stand for and are bastardizations of it. I'll address below:

"A few examples I have previously given about this from the Left are "The Crisis of Democracy", Plato's "Republic",

champions of free speech while perpetrating student "protests" designed to shut-down Free Speech, -Protests are free speech, that's a bogus assertion

champions of Science while promoting 63+ genders pseudo-science THere is nothing pseudoscience about gender, scientists are the ones that do it. See, this entire point is based on an opinion not rooted in fact or logic- its a fallacy


, champions of anti-discrimination/anti-prejudice while simultaneously promoting positions and values that inherently are discriminatory (e.g. Affirmative Action, new laws/rules regarding M-F dynamics in court, M-F dynamics in rape/sexual assault and elsewhere, ect.) ect. ect. I don't see it as dicriminatory but correcting people's behavior of disregarding minorities. The other points I have no idea what you are getting at
Click to expand...

@Sampson Simpson

Everything you stated here is precisely why I created this Thread/topic
 
xMathFanx said:
@Sampson Simpson

Everything you stated here is precisely why I created this Thread/topic
Click to expand...

Does this address a single point I made? What is your point? Your views of what liberal positions are were bogus and fictional, made solely so it can be attacked. I corrected those misconceptions and explained why. I know, ridiculous concept to some, providing reasoning to support your position
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Does this address a single point I made? What is your point? Your views of what liberal positions are were bogus and fictional, made solely so it can be attacked. I corrected those misconceptions and explained why. I know, ridiculous concept to some, providing reasoning to support your position
Click to expand...

You seem to think your "arguments" have in some way bolstered your position, while you are in fact digging yourself into an ever deeper hole--of which anyone on *the Right* can see. Similarly, as you perceive many of their actions likewise (some of which were discussed in the description)
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Because it is a stupid, outdated right that strips away 10s of thousands of people's lives a year, but it is what it is. Also, most liberals don't want outright ban. The 2nd amendment does not say that every single weapon known to man can be owned. Preventing someone from buying an assault rifle (or a tank, nuke, grenade launcher, which is in fact illegal) does no infringe their rights to buy a normal rifle or a hand gun. So there is nothing contradictory about that.

Requiring training or background check, again, I don't think is infringing. Mentally ill people, felons can't own guns, people can't bring guns into courthouses, planes and other things. Are people claiming rights are infringed? There are even limits to free speech as well
Click to expand...

Hillary was on the record for agreeing with legislation to hold gun manufacturers and gun stores liable for crimes committed with guns. This would have effectively put gun manufacturers and gun stores pretty much out of business. In other words, it would be smashing American's second amendment rights, and taking guns out of the hands of law abiding purchasers.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Because it is a stupid, outdated right that strips away 10s of thousands of people's lives a year, but it is what it is. Also, most liberals don't want outright ban. The 2nd amendment does not say that every single weapon known to man can be owned. Preventing someone from buying an assault rifle (or a tank, nuke, grenade launcher, which is in fact illegal) does no infringe their rights to buy a normal rifle or a hand gun. So there is nothing contradictory about that.

Requiring training or background check, again, I don't think is infringing. Mentally ill people, felons can't own guns, people can't bring guns into courthouses, planes and other things. Are people claiming rights are infringed? There are even limits to free speech as well
Click to expand...

A civilian assault rifle is semiautomatic just the same as any "normal" rifle or handgun. The only difference is how it looks and ergonomics.

Tanks and grenade launchers are legal. If you got the money you can buy fully automatic weapons (including a minigun) or a Russian Hind helicopter if you just really want to reenact a scene out of Rambo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom