|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. Depends on the context. In specific terms of American politics they are left and right. On absolute scale (let's assume it is 1D scale) from command economy to completely free market they are both right wing parties.
EDIT: For example in Europe which has much wider range of electable parties they are both considered right wing parties.
|
On January 13 2014 15:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. Depends on the context. In specific terms of American politics they are left and right. On absolute scale (let's assume it is 1D scale) from command economy to completely free market they are both right wing parties.
This. I think that would be a good argument for "American Exceptionalism". Having your own political scale and letting the rest of the world "do their thang" :p
|
On January 13 2014 15:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. Depends on the context. In specific terms of American politics they are left and right. On absolute scale (let's assume it is 1D scale) from command economy to completely free market they are both right wing parties. EDIT: For example in Europe which has much wider range of electable parties they are both considered right wing parties. In Europe left/right only signifies preference for market vs command economies? How do people advocating command economies still get elected?
|
On January 13 2014 11:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 10:50 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 08:52 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 08:45 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 08:37 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 08:33 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 07:34 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 06:09 ziggurat wrote: Is there any logical way to rule out the possibility that some god created the earth 6000 years ago and it was already old when he made it? Have any of you read that old Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them. Because A conforms with the observable evidence we know about the universe while B is just a thought experiment that amounts to armchair philosophers going "what if everyone else is just in my imagination, the only thing I know for sure is that I am". These are not two equally valid intellectual exercises. No. A and B both conform equally well to the observable evidence. What if you only think they both conform, what then?!? I'm going to keep doing that until you admit it's not a valid argument. I don't understand what you're asking but let me try explaining this a different way. We live in a world that appears to be millions of years old, in a universe that appears to be billions of years old. There are (at least) two hypotheses to explain this: A: It actually is what it appears to be B: It was made by God 6000 years ago, and when he made it he designed it to appear much older, as described in (some interpretations of) the bible I think you agree that we have no way of knowing which is true for sure. What I'm asking is, how do we even begin to choose between these two hypotheses? I don't see how the science can answer this question. And what I'm saying is why even bother talking about B when it's entirely possible I just think you're talking about B but you're not really real and you're in my imagination and even though you may yourself know you're real how can you possibly know we're really having this exchange and it's not all just a dream? The B argument is intellectually worthless. Save it for late nights when you're high and saying shit like "How do you know you see the same colour as red that I do? What if your red is my yellow!?!? What then!?!?". It's a dead end that wastes the time of everyone involved and gives the lazy or stupid the ability to ignore doing any actual thinking in favour of nonsense they think is clever. But what if I'm not really making this argument?!?! What if it's all in your head and this is your brain trying to tell you you're being dumb!?!?? What then!?!??! As you can see, B is really fucking dumb. Well, talking about this stuff is largely what philosophy is all about. It doesn't really matter for our day to day lives whether it's A or B or something else. But if you start talking about what the real nature of the universe is then you're going to end up talking about these deep questions. You seem a bit upset and I don't want to upset you further. (Or maybe this is just how you talk!) Anyway I would encourage you to be a bit more open-minded and try to understand the way other people think, even if they are very different from you. It won't give you the smug satisfaction of being able to call half the world's population lazy, stupid, or "fucking dumb" -- but you might get something out of it nonetheless. What if you're not really posting that but just think you are, what then?!?!
its ok im a third party observer who helps confirm that all of this in fact is real
but what if im just a construct designed to perpetuate your belief in your reality?
or what if im god?
|
On January 13 2014 02:15 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 20:09 Danglars wrote:On January 12 2014 16:08 IgnE wrote:![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mtmhrggv0u278tchtddptw.gif) Evolution still deeply unpopular among Americans. Dismissed by 4 in 10 as elitist malarkey. Politicians shift towards promoting Intelligent Design in public schools. If they (or you) are going to draw broad "God Created" conclusions, they really should include old earth creationism as well. There's plenty that believe in a billion-year-old earth created by God without the evolution of species. On January 12 2014 16:04 Roe wrote: Yes, all 500 people don't like obamacare Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of statistics will be able to read "the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level" together with the earlier "a random sample of 1,020 adults" and draw a far different conclusion. I really thought sampling and confidence intervals were better known by the long term posters. Ridiculous conclusion. umm what's your point? saying half of americans don't like obamacare is indeed a ridiculous conclusion. follow the evidence. don't lead it to where you want it to go because of "it's science! we've got these formulas that work, trust me!" The conducted poll surveyed 1020 adults and gave results with a +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence levels. Reading this and giving the DURR "all 500 people don't like obamacare" is tantamount to dismissing the science of any poll that doesn't spend billions and trillions interviewing everybody or some kind of majority of the population. For all the charges leveled against the dumb tea party, there's the occasional liberal enlightened fellow that doesn't understand statistics or polling.
You can explain why it doesn't prove anything. You can do this without also trying to invalidate every poll of its kind ever made on any topic.
|
On January 13 2014 15:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 15:02 mcc wrote:On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. Depends on the context. In specific terms of American politics they are left and right. On absolute scale (let's assume it is 1D scale) from command economy to completely free market they are both right wing parties. EDIT: For example in Europe which has much wider range of electable parties they are both considered right wing parties. In Europe left/right only signifies preference for market vs command economies? How do people advocating command economies still get elected?
That's because mainstream parties all over Europe - whether it be left or right wing - don't advocate command economies anymore. Neoliberalism won.
|
On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing Regarding immigration and cultural topics I'd put the democrats left of almost any European party. Economics isn't the only topic on this planet.
|
On January 13 2014 15:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 02:15 Roe wrote:On January 12 2014 20:09 Danglars wrote:On January 12 2014 16:08 IgnE wrote:![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mtmhrggv0u278tchtddptw.gif) Evolution still deeply unpopular among Americans. Dismissed by 4 in 10 as elitist malarkey. Politicians shift towards promoting Intelligent Design in public schools. If they (or you) are going to draw broad "God Created" conclusions, they really should include old earth creationism as well. There's plenty that believe in a billion-year-old earth created by God without the evolution of species. On January 12 2014 16:04 Roe wrote: Yes, all 500 people don't like obamacare Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of statistics will be able to read "the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level" together with the earlier "a random sample of 1,020 adults" and draw a far different conclusion. I really thought sampling and confidence intervals were better known by the long term posters. Ridiculous conclusion. umm what's your point? saying half of americans don't like obamacare is indeed a ridiculous conclusion. follow the evidence. don't lead it to where you want it to go because of "it's science! we've got these formulas that work, trust me!" The conducted poll surveyed 1020 adults and gave results with a +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence levels. Reading this and giving the DURR "all 500 people don't like obamacare" is tantamount to dismissing the science of any poll that doesn't spend billions and trillions interviewing everybody or some kind of majority of the population. For all the charges leveled against the dumb tea party, there's the occasional liberal enlightened fellow that doesn't understand statistics or polling. You can explain why it doesn't prove anything. You can do this without also trying to invalidate every poll of its kind ever made on any topic.
no yeah, you sure proved your point...(still not sure what it was actually)
On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. not really
|
On January 13 2014 15:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing Regarding immigration and cultural topics I'd put the democrats left of almost any European party. Economics isn't the only topic on this planet.
Ever heard of the green party? Also, don't forget that historically the US is a country of immigrants.
And economics is the most important topic of our time - for better and for worse.
|
tongue in cheek kaczynski -
a country described as an unspecified point in some n-dimensional space. a group of people in power controlling it's position, moving it along a seemingly arbitrary path. same group paying lip service to the rest whose discussions are framed in terms of 'left' and 'right'.
us politics: mistaking 'left' and 'right' lip service for the actual movement of the point.
|
On January 13 2014 13:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5_2jqzaulusmlps9-fmska.png) The results are based on more than 18,000 interviews with Americans from 13 separate Gallup multiple-day polls conducted in 2013. In each of the last three years, at least 40% of Americans have identified as independents. These are also the only years in Gallup's records that the percentage of independents has reached that level. Source Republicans will war with their base for at least a little longer. It's very trendy. Yet, the base eventually exhausts of voting for a party actively opposing their interests, the same interests they pledged to share during election season. They'll shed support from within. They'll lose some of the moderates (declared oh so Electable by the Dems) to some radicals in the primaries, if not this cycle then the next cycle.
Mark Levin (lawyer back in Reagan admin, now on radio ~8.5mil audience) captures it. For those out there that can hear 12 minutes of audio with an open mind, that's about the most compact indictment of the "Give GOP the Senate and the Presidency to fix the country" from a tea party position. + Show Spoiler [couple excerpts] +We're tired of seeing people like Boehner surrender. No Child Left Behind wtf? Majority in House and Senate? They drove up the debt by over 4 trillion. They federalized more local education. They expanded medicare which its own trustees said was unsustainable. $152 bil in their own stimulus subsidizing GM and Chrysler.
The party that stands for nothing, particularly fiscal sanity, but whose establishment only wants 75% of the same the Democrats do, and wants it to arrive 50% slower. It is better to elect men and women that own it, and won't beat about the edges until it resembles the same 5 years later. To borrow a phrase describing our Senate Minority Leader; he would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. A senate GOP minority with himself in charge than a Senate GOP majority with himself retired. He attacks the Senate Conservatives Fund with his own National Republican Senatorial Committee. Get fighting or get out.
|
On January 13 2014 15:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 15:02 mcc wrote:On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. Depends on the context. In specific terms of American politics they are left and right. On absolute scale (let's assume it is 1D scale) from command economy to completely free market they are both right wing parties. EDIT: For example in Europe which has much wider range of electable parties they are both considered right wing parties. In Europe left/right only signifies preference for market vs command economies? How do people advocating command economies still get elected? It is a scale, and I used command economy as a shortcut, meaning any influence of the state on economic activity. So social-democrat parties are more to the left not because they are advocating command economy, but because they advocate more state power over the economy, like bigger safety net etc. And yes in some countries communist parties are still pretty strong.
As for the left and right divide in social arena it is more or less distinct from economic division as due to there being more parties you can have centrist (econ) conservative(social) party (most christian parties), liberal parties (both econ and social), social-democrats parties - centre-left (econ) liberal(social), communists, and all kinds of other parties.
Depends on the country. In my country term left vs right means economic scale. Both major parties were socially liberal as religion plays nearly no part in political discourse. Some other European countries have right defined as Christian centrist party and left as social-democrats ...
|
On January 13 2014 16:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 13:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5_2jqzaulusmlps9-fmska.png) The results are based on more than 18,000 interviews with Americans from 13 separate Gallup multiple-day polls conducted in 2013. In each of the last three years, at least 40% of Americans have identified as independents. These are also the only years in Gallup's records that the percentage of independents has reached that level. Source Republicans will war with their base for at least a little longer. It's very trendy. Yet, the base eventually exhausts of voting for a party actively opposing their interests, the same interests they pledged to share during election season. They'll shed support from within. They'll lose some of the moderates (declared oh so Electable by the Dems) to some radicals in the primaries, if not this cycle then the next cycle. Mark Levin (lawyer back in Reagan admin, now on radio ~8.5mil audience) captures it. For those out there that can hear 12 minutes of audio with an open mind, that's about the most compact indictment of the "Give GOP the Senate and the Presidency to fix the country" from a tea party position. + Show Spoiler [couple excerpts] +We're tired of seeing people like Boehner surrender. No Child Left Behind wtf? Majority in House and Senate? They drove up the debt by over 4 trillion. They federalized more local education. They expanded medicare which its own trustees said was unsustainable. $152 bil in their own stimulus subsidizing GM and Chrysler.
The party that stands for nothing, particularly fiscal sanity, but whose establishment only wants 75% of the same the Democrats do, and wants it to arrive 50% slower. It is better to elect men and women that own it, and won't beat about the edges until it resembles the same 5 years later. To borrow a phrase describing our Senate Minority Leader; he would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. A senate GOP minority with himself in charge than a Senate GOP majority with himself retired. He attacks the Senate Conservatives Fund with his own National Republican Senatorial Committee. Get fighting or get out.
Eh, many people in this thread are in the Lock-Step party (the Democrats).
It's funny to see people complain about having only two options and yet jump with glee to see the Tea Party battle the Establishment and "destroy the party." It makes me think that they care more about party than country, idk.
This poll is great, more and more republicans are disgusted with their "leadership" and may take more and more action. I love seeing these results.
|
On January 13 2014 15:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing Regarding immigration and cultural topics I'd put the democrats left of almost any European party. Economics isn't the only topic on this planet. In what way are they more liberal on cultural topics ? You have to just look at any left-wing party in northern Europe to find counter-example.
|
Probably he's confusing what certain leftish parties do when elected and what certain parties have in their programms (or would do if they could "rule" alone whiteout some more right/conservative coalition Partner).
|
On January 13 2014 15:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 15:02 mcc wrote:On January 13 2014 14:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing What a silly thing to say. Depends on the context. In specific terms of American politics they are left and right. On absolute scale (let's assume it is 1D scale) from command economy to completely free market they are both right wing parties. EDIT: For example in Europe which has much wider range of electable parties they are both considered right wing parties. In Europe left/right only signifies preference for market vs command economies? How do people advocating command economies still get elected? Because thank god we have less Jonny than in the US.
|
Good luck getting elected in France with a vaguely pro-free market program, since... errr, forever ? That being said, the US and its protectionnism...
|
I wouldn't call the Democrats right wing at all they would be a mid party I'd say. ANd yes Jonny people still vote for communists here. The populist left party in NL got 15 out of 150 seats and was the 3rd biggest in the election together with the populist right party from Wilders.
|
On January 13 2014 22:10 RvB wrote: I wouldn't call the Democrats right wing at all they would be a mid party I'd say. ANd yes Jonny people still vote for communists here. The populist left party in NL got 15 out of 150 seats and was the 3rd biggest in the election together with the populist right party from Wilders.
They are pretty far to the right of the centre by European standards. Even more so by Swedish/Nordic standards - although becoming less and less so due to almost 8 years of the right bloc running the country. The disgust I feel when I think about how the entire Swedish political spectra has slowly shifted to the right. It's so easy to portray things with the values of personal freedom. Even if everyone will be worse off when the pillars of our good society are slowly torn down bit by bit. I'm sidetracking pretty hard here though. The point is that even though we're moving to the right, the Democrats aren't even represented politically by any party in Sweden (ie. they are more right than our right parties). And the Republicans just seem insane.
|
On January 13 2014 17:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 15:23 Nyxisto wrote:On January 13 2014 14:40 Roe wrote:On January 13 2014 14:37 Nyxisto wrote: It's probably more a semantic thing than anything else, due to the two party system. I'm a Rep/Dem just seems to be a synonym for I'm left/right. they're both very right wing Regarding immigration and cultural topics I'd put the democrats left of almost any European party. Economics isn't the only topic on this planet. In what way are they more liberal on cultural topics ? You have to just look at any left-wing party in northern Europe to find counter-example.
LGBT- rights for example, or drug policy (nowadays). Most bigger European left wing/ "social democratic" parties are pretty conservative on those topics because they got their fair share of European "stick up your ass" - traditionalism.
|
|
|
|