Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Beast Tamer]

Anyway, seeing as how we have devolved into political metadebate, are there any suggestions for a new thread title?

How about "Figurative analysis of voting intentions by socio-economic cultural groups in contemporary online culture"

Too long, how about "The Other Politics Thread"?

[alexandertnt]

"The Politics of Metapolitics"?

[Sheb]

tahujdt's Bay12 Politics Megathread?

[tahujdt]

tahujdt's Rant-Turned-Metapolitics Megathread?

[Tack]

Here's the question: What makes you define yourself as a conservative?


Because I'm a conservative simply because Australia has two parties where it used to have three.
And what I consider the 'intelligent' party went and joined the conservatives.

So I have nothing against gay rights or atheism, evolution or free healthcare.
But in order to get the grain subsidies and local-produce bills which an Australian farmer needs to live, I have to vote with the conservatives.

Not that ours have much in common with America anyway. We aren't affiliated with the NRA - in fact, it was a liberal (republican) who issued our gun laws in the 1990's.

[GlyphGryph]

Thats the part I really dont understand. If you are only supporting them to get something you want, why consider yourself a conservative at all? If you take the label of a group, you are associating yourself with all of that groups ideas. And unlike with liberals where, at least in the US, most of the idiot fringe is kept out of the party platform, conservatives seem to embrace terrible ideologoy for political expediency, and I simply don't understand why someone would want to consider themselves one of them, especially in regards to a political debate ( I can understand identity politics on a social and practical level, but that doesnt seem like it should apply here).

I dont pretend that any of the politicians I vote for represent me. I vote for them because I think they are the most likely to push positions I support. Unless I am actually running for office, where again association has practical impact and where I would associate with whichever group gives me the best chance of success, why would I willingly adopt such a label during a political discourse?

It is especially confusing when I see people label themselves not just with a broad ideological association but with an explicit part status. I am honestly curious what drives people to do this, on either side of the aisle. Its like watching football fans argue that they are LITERALLY red sox or yankees, even though they don't play any baseball, instead of just people who support a given team.

[MaximumZero]

Wow. You said football, then went right into baseball. Ballsy.

[tahujdt]

If I weren't at school, I would have laughed out loud at that.

[tahujdt]

If I weren't at school, I would have laughed out loud at that.

[kaijyuu]

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/
adjective
adjective: rational
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

I would imagine that the most rational statement for the given rain example would be (in lack of knowledge of how weather works) "I dont know if it will rain tomorrow".

Well, truth be told, we don't know anything perfectly well. All of science is built upon inductive reasoning. We must accept some level of imperfection in our data if we are going to come to any conclusion at all.

[Helgoland]

Damn, why didn't I join in earlier - so many people would have gotten pissed

My contribution, because I believe this hasn't been said before: I guess it helps if you know the other person from other places on the board. Looking at the Ukraine thread: My viewpoint is radically different from that of Guardian GI, but I still get along well with him (I hope) because I've seen him make good contributions in other places - that's why I can appreciate his point of view, and evaluate my own according to the new information. That's a thing that actually happened!
On the other hand, take gogis: I've never seen him around, so - by gut feeling - I read his posts as typical internet material, making building bridges much more difficult. Or maybe Vector is a better example: I sure as hell disagree with her on some issues, but in a debate, should I ever get into one with her, it'll be much easier to stay civil - because she's got a 'face', so to speak.




Also, solipsism stuff: It's a valid point here. The Aztecs were perfectly rational in sacrificing their POWs, as were the slave traders when they decided on an acceptable death-during-transport rate. Rationality describes the method, not the goal.

[Max White]

And what I consider the 'intelligent' party went and joined the conservatives.

Now by 'intelligent' party do you mean the Liberals or the Nationals?

[tahujdt]

Damn, why didn't I join in earlier - so many people would have gotten pissed

My contribution, because I believe this hasn't been said before: I guess it helps if you know the other person from other places on the board. Looking at the Ukraine thread: My viewpoint is radically different from that of Guardian GI, but I still get along well with him (I hope) because I've seen him make good contributions in other places - that's why I can appreciate his point of view, and evaluate my own according to the new information. That's a thing that actually happened!
On the other hand, take gogis: I've never seen him around, so - by gut feeling - I read his posts as typical internet material, making building bridges much more difficult. Or maybe Vector is a better example: I sure as hell disagree with her on some issues, but in a debate, should I ever get into one with her, it'll be much easier to stay civil - because she's got a 'face', so to speak.




Also, solipcism stuff: It's a valid point here. The Aztecs were perfectly rational in sacrificing their POWs, as were the slave traders when they decided on an acceptable death-during-transport rate. Rationality describes the method, not the goal.

You misspelled solipsism. Your argument is invalid.

[Elephant Parade]

Damn, why didn't I join in earlier - so many people would have gotten pissed

My contribution, because I believe this hasn't been said before: I guess it helps if you know the other person from other places on the board. Looking at the Ukraine thread: My viewpoint is radically different from that of Guardian GI, but I still get along well with him (I hope) because I've seen him make good contributions in other places - that's why I can appreciate his point of view, and evaluate my own according to the new information. That's a thing that actually happened!
On the other hand, take gogis: I've never seen him around, so - by gut feeling - I read his posts as typical internet material, making building bridges much more difficult. Or maybe Vector is a better example: I sure as hell disagree with her on some issues, but in a debate, should I ever get into one with her, it'll be much easier to stay civil - because she's got a 'face', so to speak.




Also, solipcism stuff: It's a valid point here. The Aztecs were perfectly rational in sacrificing their POWs, as were the slave traders when they decided on an acceptable death-during-transport rate. Rationality describes the method, not the goal.

You misspelled solipsism. Your argument is invalid.

You used sentence fragments instead of a semicolon; your argument is invalid.

[tahujdt]

Damn, why didn't I join in earlier - so many people would have gotten pissed

My contribution, because I believe this hasn't been said before: I guess it helps if you know the other person from other places on the board. Looking at the Ukraine thread: My viewpoint is radically different from that of Guardian GI, but I still get along well with him (I hope) because I've seen him make good contributions in other places - that's why I can appreciate his point of view, and evaluate my own according to the new information. That's a thing that actually happened!
On the other hand, take gogis: I've never seen him around, so - by gut feeling - I read his posts as typical internet material, making building bridges much more difficult. Or maybe Vector is a better example: I sure as hell disagree with her on some issues, but in a debate, should I ever get into one with her, it'll be much easier to stay civil - because she's got a 'face', so to speak.




Also, solipcism stuff: It's a valid point here. The Aztecs were perfectly rational in sacrificing their POWs, as were the slave traders when they decided on an acceptable death-during-transport rate. Rationality describes the method, not the goal.

You misspelled solipsism. Your argument is invalid.

You used sentence fragments instead of a semicolon; your argument is invalid.

Unless, of course, I meant them as two separate statements. If I had meant "You misspelled solipsism therefore your argument is invalid," then a semicolon might have been more appropriate. You falsely accused another citizen of falsehood, which is treason. Ignore that.