Debate and Discussion

Idealogical madness- Left, Right, Religious, Anti religious, Aniti-gay, Pro-life etc.
ozoneocean at 9:24AM, May 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
Don't you find it strange when people go off the deep end in support of their pet field? I do it myself of course, I regret it and try and pull back… But many people don't seem to see anything strange about saying hateful, vicious, nasty, thoughtless things constantly, as long as they're in support of their chosen platform and against those they oppose.

In case I'm being too abstract I'll give you some examples:
-A left-wing anti-royalist may say things like all aristocracy are worthless parasite scum that should be executed… And even though that's usually empty rhetoric, they're still blind to the inhuman violence of their words.
-An Ultra-conservative republican (American) might say that Obama is a socialist terrorist sympathiser and that all liberals should be thrown out of the country… Again, that sort of thing is idiot blathering, but it does have a cost when it polarises people to a ridiculous extent.

I find it disappointing when people devolve into ideological rhetoric (myself included), and I'm especially disgusted with public figures who do nothing but. -Dick Cheney, That O'Reilly fellow…

It's bad enough when people rant ideological rhetoric on a subject you oppose (like those two), but even worse and extremely mortifying when they do so on a subject you support. You feel that your views are being represented by an idiot and you don't want to be associated with them. It's a weird feeling and I personally feel a duty to try and present the other side when that happens, just to introduce balance and get things back to normal.

Anyone else get that, or do you just enjoy the black and white back and forth warfare?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
bravo1102 at 9:46AM, May 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,389
joined: 1-21-2008
I've spent my life being the moderate voice between polar opposites.

*Lunch time in College; a Reagan Republican, a classic socialist and a moderate Democrat.
*Family meals: Gun toting, right-wing, flag waving, US Army retired Republican; Feminist Liberal Democrat with decades of government experience, and the Moderate Registered Republican.
Meetings of the mindless ;)

People simplify their arguments until it becomes black and white as debating greys gets messy and ambiguous. When debating I find myself simplifying my opinions in an attempt to firm up the arguments because if not I will undermine myself as I can usually prove both sides to the satisfaction of either opposing viewpoint.

And it goes back to what I've been saying about belief systems forever. If someone believes something they only look to sources that reinforces their belief system and will not be budged by any amount of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter that the circles, arrows and specific photographic evidence is presented, the mind is not swayed. An open mind ready to take in both sides and make an objective judgement based on evidence and logic is rare. Change your mind? Admit that you could be (or were) wrong? Never.

And of course the reletivist will throw his arms up in the air, give up and say there is no such thing as an objective judgement, in which case you might as well have the black and white, because arguing all greys is boring and degenerates into angels dancing on the heads of pins. lol! Then you take it on faith and we're back to the unmovable belief system. lol!

The eternal balance of Taoism looks better and better everyday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
El Cid at 12:49PM, May 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
To a degree I definitely agree with what you're saying Ozone; there's nothing worse than when what could have been a constructive discussion breaks down into a lefty-righty turf war. It's especially bothersome for me because I'm what you might call a “militant centrist.” My views don't really conform to either a traditional “right” or “left” wing platform, but I do hold those views very strongly, so I find myself bumping heads with wingnuts from both sides of the aisle all the time. The way I see it, both the “conservative” and “liberal” doctrines, at least as practiced in the United States, are tainted with hypocrisy so supporting either dogmatically means you're probably letting other people think for you.

On the other hand though, I actually prefer for people, especially leaders, to express themselves in concise black-and-white terms. Sure your thought process can account for the gray areas in-between, but when you take action you have to be decisive, and you need something concrete for people to rally around. When someone makes a speech and they don't seem willing to commit to express a standpoint one way or the other, they just seem indecisive to me. I wonder why they haven't made up their mind yet. So I guess I'd prefer Dick Cheney's iron fist over Obama's gentle handshake.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
ozoneocean at 2:48AM, May 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
One caveat though guys- it's about moderation in all things, not just “taking the middle ground”, it's not about those holding extreme positions VS those holding the centre, it's nothing to do with that really…
It's more about reigning in excesses- when someone goes from reality into the realms of atrocious hyperbole.

Say for example you have someone concerned about the situation in Israel. They're alarmed at the treatment of the occupied territories at the captive Palestinian population there with the inhuman conditions that nation of people is forced to endure…
And then you get the President of Iran saying “Israel should be wiped off of the face of the Earth!”.

Both come from the Palestinian question, but the blatant idiocy of the second actively HURTS that cause.

——————
I get what you're both saying about simplifying ones potion and making arguments and statements clear, but most of the time statements just should not BE that clear.

Think about it: When an expert gives advice on something (like a scientist, doctor, or lawyer), when they're doing things right it will be complicated and seem long winded, but it will be as accurate as that can make it. The only time you craft your words to be extremely simple and direct is when you're talking to children, idiots, or people of diminished mental capacity (frightened, stressed, exhausted people etc).

You'd prefer people to treat you like an adult or an idiot? That's what it comes down to…

(hahaha, what a great simplification right there. :()
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
El Cid at 7:09AM, May 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
ozoneocean
Think about it: When an expert gives advice on something (like a scientist, doctor, or lawyer), when they're doing things right it will be complicated and seem long winded, but it will be as accurate as that can make it. The only time you craft your words to be extremely simple and direct is when you're talking to children, idiots, or people of diminished mental capacity (frightened, stressed, exhausted people etc).

Well, the way I see it, if that expert assumes you're also well informed, he won't see the need to explain everything. I only find myself explaining things in great detail when I'm dealing with someone completely ignorant of the task at hand.

ozoneocean
You'd prefer people to treat you like an adult or an idiot? That's what it comes down to…

(hahaha, what a great simplification right there. :()

LOL. Yeah, begging the question will get you nowhere! ;)

I might've misread the original post though. It's one thing to be strongly supportive of a reasonable and well thought-out position, but something completely different when people start spewing rhetoric just because they want their side to win. Partisan politics can have a real “gang warfare” feel to it at times, and sadly that's what it comes down to all too often. People choose a party or “pet cause” and then back it blindly and fanatically like a pack of rabid soccer fans.

The problem is, a lot of people actually do believe their own hype. President Ahmadinejad is dead serious about wanting to exterminate the Israelis, and a lot of people in the Arab world and Iran support him (he is an elected official, after all). That doesn't necessarily hurt your cause. I'm probably more sympathetic to the Israelis than the Palestinians but still I'm able to tell the difference between someone who legitimately seeks to find a solution by which the Palestinians can live with peace and dignity (a goal I share), and someone who's just fanatically hateful and out for blood. I think most reasonable people wouldn't lump you together. What you need is a moderate Ahmadinejad to counter the cuckoo-crazy Ahmadinejad.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
kyupol at 7:33AM, May 27, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
According to some political questionnaire test I took (which was accurate IMO), I scored as right wing libertarian. Aside from that, I am a spiritual person but I don't subscribe to dogmatic religious beliefs.

I don't consider myself an extremist though. These are the things that are off my list:

1) Encouraging violence and attacking cops.
- Yes too many cops are assholes. Yes police brutality is rampant. Yes you cannot trust the cops. Yes they're out there writing tickets and feeding off the general public like ticks on a dog.
But what does violence against them accomplish?
It only compacts them into their gang-mentality and it validates the brainwashing formula given to them by their officers – THE PUBLIC ARE AGAINST YOU. THEY ARE THE ENEMY. THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN TRUST IS US AND YOUR FELLOW POLICE OFFICERS. (source? Jack McLamb, Barry Cooper)
Instead, I wouldn't be hostile to these cops.
The police are also highly brainwashed like much of the general public is.
That's why its my job to show them the light.
If I see a policeman in a car wreck, yes I will help him. Because an act of kindness can help shatter his hatred for the general public. :)

Violence does not accomplish your objective. It only makes you look bad if you resort to violence.


2) Focusing on one particular group as the root of all evils.
- Yes there are factions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, New Age, etc. who are in bed with the New World Order.
But instead of dismissing all of these religions as evil, I also understand that there are people within those factions who mean well and are really good people.
Even in the ranks of the CIA, Mossad, ISI, MI-6, etc.
Even in the ranks of the communists, whose ideology I totally despise, I still must say that there are good, honorable people in it who mean well.
And I wouldn't even go into racism so as to totally hate the reptoids and the grays. What if they have elements within them that have the best interests of humanity at heart?
Its not about which group is in total control and on top of the New World Order. Its alot more complicated than that.

Also, I will not focus on who is an agent. Is it Alex Jones? David Icke? Jordan Maxwell? Alan Watt? Jeff Rense? George Noori? Who is an agent?

It doesn't matter. All I do is filter out the truths from the lies using my best judgement and research.
I wouldn't totally dismiss someone just because I disagree with them on some things.

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Monstro at 7:40AM, May 27, 2009
(offline)
posts: 28
joined: 4-24-2009
Couldn't it be argued that it's human nature to want to fight?
when you think about it, human's are always fighting about something. Whether it be religion or political party we can't seem to just be ok with difference in opinions. It's kind of sad really.

No matter what the opinion, when we come across the opposing idea, we tend to defend ourselves to hold our ground and our point. And in extreme cases, we will not stop until the other side shares the same ideas, which is why people die because of religion.

Many times have I gotten into debates with Christians. It's always resulted in them labeling me a satan worshipper or an atheist. Now, if they had simply been ok with my own belief and left me to myself, they wouldn't have had to resort to calling me such things.

It's basically human nature for humans to want a majority rule. When the majority rule is threatened, they get on the defensive. So, in other words ideas are like territory. Once you step onto someone's idea with something else, they'll want their harmony and try to push you off the cliff… metaphorically speaking that is.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:07PM
ozoneocean at 8:49AM, May 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
El Cid
President Ahmadinejad is dead serious about wanting to exterminate the Israelis, and a lot of people in the Arab world and Iran support him (he is an elected official, after all).
Is he really? How is it not rhetoric?

The only time I see people as really “believing” their own hype or being as bad as they sound is when they do something about it. That's why I'd tend to think of Dick Cheney as a worse man than Bill O'Reilly- despite the fact that Bill says much nastier things, Cheney has actually made sure that a few of them happened.
That way we get a nice freedom of speech thing happening- I don't like the nasty things people say, but it's ok to say them, as long as that's all they do. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
El Cid at 5:01PM, May 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
ozoneocean
El Cid
President Ahmadinejad is dead serious about wanting to exterminate the Israelis, and a lot of people in the Arab world and Iran support him (he is an elected official, after all).
Is he really? How is it not rhetoric?

I guess you're right; there's no way to really know how serious he is unless he actually does something. The way he references the Mahdi in his speeches kinda makes me think he really is unhinged, but it could all just be a bunch of rabble-rousing and hot air.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved