Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR

Page 7 of 11 [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


What's PPR's bend?
Far Right Bend 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Rightwing Bend 18%  18%  [ 7 ]
Centre-Right Bend 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Centrist Bend 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Radical Centrist Bend 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Centre-Left Bend 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
Leftwing-Bend 23%  23%  [ 9 ]
Far Left Bend 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Syncreticist Bend? 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Extremist Bend (any direction) 18%  18%  [ 7 ]
Undecided 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Other (write in thread) 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 39

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 7:32 pm

ikorack wrote:
Yes well I doubt that imperialism was the only issue that any political leader back then felt strongly about. If your only complaint is the words he used might i suggest replacing right with conservative?

I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 7:43 pm

marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Yes well I doubt that imperialism was the only issue that any political leader back then felt strongly about. If your only complaint is the words he used might i suggest replacing right with conservative?

I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.


right and conservative are not synonymous. It is not false to label them as conservative.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 7:49 pm

ikorack wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Yes well I doubt that imperialism was the only issue that any political leader back then felt strongly about. If your only complaint is the words he used might i suggest replacing right with conservative?

I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.


right and conservative are not synonymous. It is not false to label them as conservative.


What is the precise definition of each? Why don't each of you provide a definition of what each of you think these words mean?



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 8:08 pm

I suggest he read the full of both articles but consider these footnotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80 ... t_politics

Quote:
Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]

The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. As a result, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean

and
Quote:
The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class. Those on the Left seek social justice through redistributive social and economic intervention by the state. Those on the Right defend private property and capitalism. But the nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development.[8] Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, mistrust of strong personal political leadership, and social justice. To the Right, this is seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The Right are skeptical about the capacity of radical reforms to achieve human well-being, which they see as harmful to personal liberties. They believe in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the Left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population, and a tendency to authoritarianism and repression.[9] The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left). During the 19th century the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the Left.[10]


Also

Quote:
The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect which is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood the terms liberal and conservative.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Quote:
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 8:13 pm

ikorack wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Yes well I doubt that imperialism was the only issue that any political leader back then felt strongly about. If your only complaint is the words he used might i suggest replacing right with conservative?

I use "right" and "conservative" pretty much synonymously. It's still false to label these people as either right or conservative.


right and conservative are not synonymous. It is not false to label them as conservative.

Nitpicking my words is just a distracting technique that has nothing to do with the my argument. If you want to make an argument please explain to me how the founding fathers had a "conservative" political leaning. Use whatever definition suits your fancy.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 8:21 pm

Fine, conservatism is as following the definition i posted above is "A political philosophy that advocates traditional values; A risk-averse attitude or approach" seeing as those ruveyn listed set up/contributed to the way our government stands today, any change would be reactionary our progressive if you will. That would place those ruveyn listed as conservatives for the most part. They set up the traditional values of our government that would make their policies(the ones they put in place for our government) the policies that any conservative would be espousing if they are following the definition of conservatism that you have consented for me to use.

EDIT: it is not nitpicking words are the building block of language and as such an important part of any discussion/argument.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 8:25 pm

ikorack wrote:
I suggest he read the full of both articles but consider these footnotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80 ... t_politics

I haven't read the entire article yet but none of portions you quoted pertaining to the definitions of left-vs-right or conservatism seem to apply to the founding fathers. If anything, their ideals were liberal for their time as the established ideal in Europe was of monarchy and aristocratic rule. The Enlightenment movement was a liberal/progressive ideal in the context of the times.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 8:28 pm

We are not talking about their time we are talking about our time

EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 8:59 pm

ikorack wrote:
We are not talking about their time we are talking about our time

EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.

And this is your own proclamation based on your own conservative views. You see ideas as static and independent of time and circumstances. Not everyone see's things the same way you do. Going by your definition every single reformer throughout history should be labeled a conservative.

Your view of the founding fathers as conservative is no more correct than my view of them as reformers/progressives. Your insistence of having a fixed time reference is completely arbitrary.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 9:18 pm

marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
We are not talking about their time we are talking about our time

EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.

And this is your own proclamation based on your own conservative views. You see ideas as static and independent of time and circumstances. Not everyone see's things the same way you do. Going by your definition every single reformer throughout history should be labeled a conservative.

Your view of the founding fathers as conservative is no more correct than my view of them as reformers/progressives. Your insistence of having a fixed time reference is completely arbitrary.


Why am i a conservative? Ideas are influenced by the the people who implement them and their surroundings but ideas themselves are independent of direct influence. No going by my definition every single successful reformer is a conservative by today's standards. By successful i mean their policies have been assimilated as part of the current government identity. and yes my idea of the founding fathers being conservative has more weight than of yours claiming they are progressive. That is not to say that all of them are conservative but just that most of them are after all if our government still implements their policies in a way that does not completely twist what the founding fathers put into place then claiming the founding fathers as conservative is a perfectly justified statement. While you are viewing them in the context of the past i am viewing them as their ideals stand in the present. I will say it again what was progressive in the past is not necessarily progressive in the present.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

19 Oct 2010, 9:25 pm

Aimless wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
Aimless wrote:
I think the problem, in a word, is smugness.


PPR is a smug fit.


Aimless likes this.


Thanks, it was really fun squeezing two puns into a five word sentence.

I was in turn amused and pleased in that particular aspie way when your reply was exactly the same length as my post.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 9:39 pm

ikorack wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
We are not talking about their time we are talking about our time

EDIT: in case you don't quite understand the importance of this. whether or not they where considered liberals in their time is irrelevant as we are discussing politics in the present time and must use the definitions of present time. a liberal of the past is not necessarily the liberal of today.

And this is your own proclamation based on your own conservative views. You see ideas as static and independent of time and circumstances. Not everyone see's things the same way you do. Going by your definition every single reformer throughout history should be labeled a conservative.

Your view of the founding fathers as conservative is no more correct than my view of them as reformers/progressives. Your insistence of having a fixed time reference is completely arbitrary.


Why am i a conservative? Ideas are influenced by the the people who implement them and their surroundings but ideas themselves are independent of direct influence. No going by my definition every single successful reformer is a conservative by today's standards. By successful i mean their policies have been assimilated as part of the current government identity. and yes my idea of the founding fathers being conservative has more weight than of yours claiming they are progressive. That is not to say that all of them are conservative but just that most of them are after all if our government still implements their policies in a way that does not completely twist what the founding fathers put into place then claiming the founding fathers as conservative is a perfectly justified statement. While you are viewing them in the context of the past i am viewing them as their ideals stand in the present. I will say it again what was progressive in the past is not necessarily progressive in the present.


I don't know what you are. All I'm saying that you choice is just as arbitrary as mine. People like ruveyn are conveniently presenting the views of people like Jefferson in a fixed framework just so they can claim the Founding Fathers support the modern conservative movement from beyond the grave.

I could equally argue from a fixed framework that the founding fathers were pro-slavery. Therefore if you're against slavery you shouldn't pay any heed to the constitution as it was written by racist oppressors. I think this is a fallacious argument but can you see why?



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 10:00 pm

What fixed framework? Current conservative fews match up with past progressive views thats a perfectly valid statement.

Also arguing that the founding fathers are pro-slavery is a little twisted seeing as they had to include a clause preventing the government from abolishing slavery for a set amount of time.(otherwise not all of the states would have joined) The only reason slavery wasn't immediately abolished is because of practical concerns.(not enough people where against it at that time) That is to say many founding fathers where against slavery but implementing their views at that time was not possible. This is largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned however most of the founding fathers(and most people back then) where racist and even if they had freed the slaves then it likely wouldn't have amounted to anything for quite some time.

Also i would say your argument is invalid because the constitution does not encourage racism regardless of what its writers may have felt.
The reason this(the tendency towards racism in the founding fathers) is hardly ever if not never pointed out is because for many it would destroy the credibility of the founding fathers.(there would be no grounds for it of course but it would still happen)


"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." ~Article 1 Section 9



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 10:21 pm

ikorack wrote:
What fixed framework? Current conservative fews match up with past progressive views thats a perfectly valid statement.

And that's not what ruveyn stated. He stated that the Founding Fathers were right-wing which I interpreted as conservative. You yourself are saying that they had progressive views.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Oct 2010, 10:28 pm

marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
What fixed framework? Current conservative fews match up with past progressive views thats a perfectly valid statement.

And that's not what ruveyn stated. He stated that the Founding Fathers were right-wing which I interpreted as conservative. You yourself are saying that they had progressive views.


I am saying that they had progressive views for their time, they are conservatives by today's standards.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2010, 10:37 pm

ikorack wrote:
Also i would say your argument is invalid because the constitution does not encourage racism regardless of what its writers may have felt.

The constitution allowed for slavery at one time. Whether or not it was done as a matter of political expediancy in getting the other states to join the union isn't relevent. Allowing slavery for the means of political expediancy was still wrong as slavery is wrong. If the constitution was wrong at one point in time it could very well all be wrong. Maybe we should rewrite it.