boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 5:54 am
I don't think we'll agree. If you don't accept that there is a Left or Right, and that each side wishes to eradicate each other (perhaps not through violence, but certainly by exercising power), I don't know what I can say to convince you.
First of all, I accept there is a Left/Right. It's the eradication claim that you made that I have asked for
an example of where this has taken place.
I note that no examples were provided.
Just like businesses want to crush the competition, so do political parties, and people who vote for those parties.
However, you said: "The Right Wing has been very vocal
and violent about
eradicating the Left.
You supplied an analogy for the claim you made that is taking place by alluding to businesses. I was looking for an actual example where what you claim is happening happened.
I don't want Republicans to win because it negatively affects my interests and those of the ones I love. Republicans don't want Democrats to win for the same reason - but our reasons are largely incompatible.
I see no issues with this. Where is the violent eradication taking place?
There are Us's and Them's. There just is. In all areas of life.
I do not dispute this. In fact, I acknowledge this. It's what started all this in the first place... I felt you were arguing mainly with emotionally charged words leveled against your 'Thems' in place of an actual argument we might learn something from.
One group of people believes that if the Government can tax people to pay for Health Care, it would be available to more people - even if it means we may all have to pay a little more. Another group believes the government shouldn't be in the Health Care business, and people should make enough money to buy their own Health Care if they want it - even if it means people will go without.
So, if I don't use "Us" and "Them" to describe the two view points, what should I say? It's my fault that the GOP doesn't want Single Payer Health Care?
You miss my point, but to answer your question since you asked. Argue your position logically. Slapping negative labels on those in place of actual arguments is what I would love to see less from both sides. The slander has become too much IMO.
I'm not sure what you are accusing me of in your example?
Copy/paste:
For clarity, my position was (copy/paste): "I notice that often people talk passionately about politics like some do about their preferred god concept. I assume humans use the same part of our brains for both and we should be cautious to not let our emotions control out thinking."
I avoid such reasoning because as I said, it is all to easy to label the other side as lost/corrupt/insane/immoral/incompetent/power-hungry/bigoted/hateful/misogynist/racist/irresponsible and then I don't even have to consider an opposing position if it in fact it might have some merit. The Us's get more 'us' and the Them's get more 'them' and the division only increases.
That I'm causing my own division - I'm blaming others for having a different opinion than mine?
Nope, it's the slander in place of arguments. This is in general by the way (meaning commonly done), not to be about you specifically even though I pointed to an example where you have done this here.
There are Materialists and Idealists - is it my fault that "They" hold a different position than I?
No, and still missing the point about slander in place of arguments. I hope I'm explaining my position better this time around.
Explain how you can completely reject the idea that there are people - and camps - that simply have very different ideas that are incompatible with other ideas.
First of all, I don't reject what you think I do. To try to further explain my position... I can either attempt to explain my position and why you are wrong, or I can use slander and tell my self that whatever you mean doesn't have any merit because you are, lost, or corrupt, or insane, or immoral, or....
Let's use ISIS as an example. Are we all the same in how we view women, religious freedom, etc.? I know I am never going to view the world as "They" do. (Conservative, Extremist Islamists would be a great example of a group that wants to literally eradicate Liberals).
Great example! Now you could argue as to why you feel that ISIS has inferior views on women, or you can claim that they are lost/corrupt/insane/immoral/incompetent/power-hungry/bigoted/hateful/misogynist/racist/irresponsible.
Perhaps I'm not understanding you?
Perhaps you now understand better? And again, even though I used an example of your specific words here, I'm discussing this as a whole and noting that I see both sides doing it, often in place of providing actual arguments. I make no claim that this is a boatsnguitars issue specifically, my goal is to point to this phenomenon.
The gods and politics really seem to have the ability to get people riled up and emotional don't you think? Agreeing with this would not lessen any political or religious positions you might hold. I make no claims about which side is the bigger eradicator after all.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
