 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
Agathon, yeah but it was a 50/50 trashing. Meaning it was only a joke, but I also WAS interested on the article you were suggesting at first, until I found out it was not exactly what I was looking for.
And I know my crap stinks too, I've made stupid arguments, most of the times I just don't bother even if I do have set of arguments to back up my final answer which I give right away, I'm just too tired to set up traps etc because not everyone accepts them, meaning if they are basically owned, they still wiggle and call for chewbacca defense, and then you ask yourself, was it worth the time and thought, absolutely not. But I've been wrong too several times and owned. I'd like to think it's about 50/50, I get trashed and then I get to be the trasher and around we go but maybe I'm being a bit too positive on my abilities 
Anyhow, the spinning. Yes... that was what I also wanted to talk about. And the SPINNING is one of the things that should be also described in dictionary with nullification of the brains.
A lot of people don't actually want to change their views. If they feel that they have good set of arguments and they can survive the onslaught, it's enough, and acceptable. Acceptable defeat. What is that? It's a defeat, where you are on the weaker side of debate, but you don't get absolutely killed, just played with. This means, you can still keep the current beliefs in your system and feel good about it. Actually, you defend your BELIEFS, that are not based on any facts, it's natural, however the level people go to defend what is ultimately just a thought based on feelings and emotions and some dudes article is.. astonishing.
For example: In here, most people believe that we have #1 health care. I don't mean the idea how it is done, you know, free health care for everyone. I mean, they believe, that the quality of service, the time spent on you, the effort made to heal you in any case is the best in the world. That is the biggest pile of stink I've ever heard. So why people believe that? And at the same time they go home and curse the ER to Hell for being 'so bad again'. So even with first hand experience, they fall back to the same old #1 quality of service. The reason is limited world view, and the feelings and emotions. When you think of Finland, you think of free healthcare where we care about everyone. This is what you are being told when you born. 'Thank God you live in here.. it's different everywhere else..'. This is a CLEAR case of facts being against you, your personal experience most likely being against you, but you still feel, honest to Lord Putin, that it's like that, #1.
Now think about it.. we are pretty advanced country in terms of education, 100% can read, majority speaks 3 languages, and at least 2 languages averagely.. so what gives? Why people are so stupid in the brain with these simple things?
BEcause it's what they want to belive.
Just like people still say, some people say, that for example Rumsfeld didn't lie, I got news for you he lied and his ass was shaking so hard I still have nightmares. You can go on and study the EXACT WORDINGS, if you can spin it as 'well it's not 100% exactly a lie' while it was. He said, for example about the WMDs that 'WE KNOW they are there.' when asked where, he replied 'Everywhere.. north, south, west, east..' and he said yes we know the locations. But when Kay went there, with 1400 strong team, they found didlydoo. Now how is that NOT a lie? Because he couldn't have known? Let me repeat, he said they KNOW and that they are all over. This same message can be repeated by 100 times and in different medias and by different folks saying it. It wasn't 'we have evidence that indicates/suggests that..' or 'we believe..' .. No. It was 'We Know', and it was in the tone of 'don't ask questions, don't be annoying busy body, we know OK there's no doubt'.
Now, DO NOT turn this into Iraq thread or WMD thread. I just find it amazing, that some people still find it in their hearts to say that these were not lies. Not ALL of them were lies... For example I can't remember a time where Bush makes a blatant lie. For others... straight out 100% in your face arrogant lies. All I know is, if I make **** ups like that, I'll get fired or jailed. I won't get a medal for sure.
Now, this is all about what I've been saying, what are the facts, what is the truth, what do we know. Not what we feel, how does it sound, well what does this person think who I respect and find interesting, etc.
What party loyales lack is pragmatism. And they are proud of their loyalty to the party... which is interesting. ANY Party, commies, SDP, republicans, democrats, christian coalition, anyone. Proud.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
little joke. you have written a lot of text so i was saying if you had written for example translations from finnish to english that were this long, you would have made a lot of money.
now that i explained it it kind of sucks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Say what you want, believe what you want, but there is no such thing as left and right. |
Actually, there is (and this comes from a self described "Commie with a right-winger's mentality"). One's opinions on many issues are correlated with the core beliefs one has. For example, most people who oppose public healthcare, public retirement systems, or prisoner rehabilitation are strong believers in personal responsibility. When you have a general belief that says "If you're in the crapper, it's your own damn fault", there are plenty of particular political beliefs that logically follow. And these beliefs are acceptably represented by the political spectrum.
Remember the Political Compass threads we have here. The Political Compass' idea is that "left" and "right" don't represent today's political spectrum well, because economic issues and social issues are not related.
Yet, if you observe the very results we have here, there's a strong correlation between the free-market axis and the authoritarianism axis: by looking at the results, you'll observe that generally speaking, the more free-marketeer one is, the more authoritarian as well (there are exceptions, and the correlation is not 100%, but it is real nonetheless)
quote:
Decide your own stance and position on every single issue by yourself, because if you let anyone to influence it, imaginary things you feel you need to have some loyality to, like political parties, you're nothing but a whore. |
I disagree with that. Not all people have the time to think about every issue in depth. Sure, it's better when people think by themselves (which has begun to be a massive phenomenon since the 70ies), but you simply cannot expect that everybody can formulate an opinion on agrisubsidies, abortion, European hunting laws, the construction of the next power plant, the budget of scientific research, the regulation of the aerial transport market, the evolution of the retirement system, the election process, the tort laws, the ethics of DNA research, etc etc etc...
Heck, when I worked in the EuroParliament, I noticed that the Representatives themselves couldn't have time to formulate an informed opinion on all issues, because they are so fricking numerous and diverse. If professionals don't have the time, who can? (well, maybe retirees  )
The parties offer a simplification of the political debate. And simplification has been absolutely necessary since the end of the Greek City-State, merely because one individual cannot know all matters that deserve an opinion, let alone formulate an informed opnion on the matter. Parties are organizations whose job is to have an opinion on everything (and they succeed because there are many people working in a party). Without them, the political system couldn't work, because it would be torn between an unmanageable amount of different demands, that the political leaders couldn't get organized into something fathomable.
And if you want the political system to respond to your demands, you better have your message be clear in the ear of the leaders. If they're drowned into millions of other noises, your wishes will never be granted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
well yes it does, doesn't it What a weird joke though.. interesting in its own way 
But I am quite taken that even though I have been trashing registered party folks, which I assume are in big numbers in here, no one has taken a huge ego hit and started mindless bashing so the thread has been on its original track
So is a person who joins a party stupid? No no no.. intelligence has very little to do with this all. But I think we all think, that every party has a common goal, they want their country to do well in all fields. They just believe it can be achieved in their way better than the other way.
What I feel amazing is how strong they are on their position, how their way is the only way, or the best way, and how some way others are competitors. I don't care who takes the country to the top, but if it happens, great. So instead of taking countries to the top, they mostly fight each other, and I don't mean the healthy debate that is found on succesful democracies, and I feel this is why the idea of a party is long dead and defeats its purpose. Because they are in it to serve their own purpose. And that purpose just isn't for the benefit of the country anymore, because people are knocking their heads together and not making any progress, claiming superiority in moral levels. Then everyone just settles for it and says 'well that's politics for you'. What people don't often consider, is that it doesn't have to be like that. We just need to change the power structure all together. Of course how would this happen? Forming a party and promoting demolishing all parties . And that's why democracy is failing us now. At least the democracies we have now. We should have a better democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Seriously, I don't think there is really a center. People are either left or right. |
There's a center as much as there is a left or right.
All of these positions are relative to the mainstream ideas in the society.
For example, I would be considered a lunatic raving insane left-winger in today's US, considering that I want to do away with capitalism. In today's France, I would be labeled as clearly on the left, but not extreme (the extremists are much louder than my party). In the USSR, if I had beem free to express my views, I'd have been considered a right winger, considering that I want a (socialist) economy with a strong market component.
Since "left" and "right" are labels relative to a country's political spectrum, so is the "centre". They're all artificial labels, that denote a reality (i.e. how your beliefs relate to the ones of your society)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
"
Actually, there is (and this comes from a self described "Commie with a right-winger's mentality"). One's opinions on many issues are correlated with the core beliefs one has. For example, most people who oppose public healthcare, public retirement systems, or prisoner rehabilitation are strong believers in personal responsibility. When you have a general belief that says "If you're in the crapper, it's your own damn fault", there are plenty of particular political beliefs that logically follow. And these beliefs are acceptably represented by the political spectrum."
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?
"I disagree with that. Not all people have the time to think about every issue in depth. Sure, it's better when people think by themselves (which has begun to be a massive phenomenon since the 70ies), but you simply cannot expect that everybody can formulate an opinion on agrisubsidies, abortion, European hunting laws, the construction of the next power plant, the budget of scientific research, the regulation of the aerial transport market, the evolution of the retirement system, the election process, the tort laws, the ethics of DNA research, etc etc etc..."
So? You have to have a position from party to those issues then? 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.
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. To have one ready, by default, is just stupid. 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.
This is what Eddie Izzard said perfectly. There's the passive and active research. in passive research, you let the research come to you (with a remote control), and then you know about it.
"Heck, when I worked in the EuroParliament, I noticed that the Representatives themselves couldn't have time to formulate an informed opinion on all issues, because they are so fricking numerous and diverse. If professionals don't have the time, who can?"
So they just go on and push buttons how they are told to push the buttons? 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. 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.
" Parties are organizations whose job is to have an opinion on everything (and they succeed because there are many people working in a party). Without them, the political system couldn't work, because it would be torn between an unmanageable amount of different demands, that the political leaders couldn't get organized into something fathomable."
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
There's a center as much as there is a left or right.
All of these positions are relative to the mainstream ideas in the society.
For example, I would be considered a lunatic raving insane left-winger in today's US, considering that I want to do away with capitalism. In today's France, I would be labeled as clearly on the left, but not extreme (the extremists are much louder than my party). In the USSR, if I had beem free to express my views, I'd have been considered a right winger, considering that I want a (socialist) economy with a strong market component.
Since "left" and "right" are labels relative to a country's political spectrum, so is the "centre". They're all artificial labels, that denote a reality (i.e. how your beliefs relate to the ones of your society) |
I think there's a difference in what people's perceptions of you are and what you really are. Maybe you would be considered a right winger in USSR, but in actuality you would just be a true left winger. I think it goes down to people's core beliefs. When you get down to that people are at one side or the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
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 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2005 22:31
|