Scott
Verified User
I think internet fora -can- be a medium for earnest debate, but it requires strict discipline on the part of the debater.
The stick vs. the carrot (online discussions here)
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
I think internet fora -can- be a medium for earnest debate, but it requires strict discipline on the part of the debater.
Libhater
Verified User
I have this jersey I wear when I'm circled by my 3 extreme liberal brothers that says on the front....'I'm not arguing I'm simply explaining why I'm right'. When it comes to political debating against liberals, I have to say that I am always right.
Scott
Verified User
Alright. Honestly, we'd have to define the term liberal and then list some examples to even begin to debate the issue
.
Libhater
Verified User
Alright. Honestly, we'd have to define the term liberal and then list some examples to even begin to debate the issue
Well, current liberalism is as you most likely know is quite a bit different than the Classical liberalism of yesteryear.
There should be no debate about that. The only debate I foresee is that current conservatives rightly believe that
their alignment with classical liberalism is the complete opposite of the current democrat liberalism. Wow, let the
debate begin on which one is more aligned with the best wishes for a strong and safe America.
Scott
Verified User
I took a look at the definition of modern liberalism, which Wikipedia notes is frequently just called liberalism. It also references classical liberalism:
**
Modern liberalism, often referred to simply as liberalism, is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy. Modern liberalism is one of two major political ideologies in the United States, with the other being conservatism. According to American philosopher Ian Adams, all major American parties are "liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism."
Economically, modern liberalism supports government regulation on private industry, opposes corporate monopolies, and supports labor rights. Its fiscal policy opposes any reduction in spending on the social safety net, while simultaneously promoting income-proportional tax reform policies to reduce deficits. It calls for active government involvement in other social and economic matters such as reducing economic inequality, increasing diversity, expanding access to education and healthcare, regulating economic activity, and environmentalism. Modern liberalism was formed in the 20th century in response to the Great Depression. Major examples of modern liberal policy programs include the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, the Affordable Care Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
**
Full article:
Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia
So, is this the liberalism you oppose?
WOKE is not liberalism at all....they are anti-liberals....the exact opposite.
"The label on the box is not remotely what is in the box"
Heather
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Fuck off then go eat shit.I've been doing a bit of browing the forums here in the last day or 2 and the content of my browsing to me thinking, do people really think they're doing a good thing by casting shade on others so much? I know for my part that I disagree strongly with some posters here on various issues, but then, we I can also strongly -agree- with those same posters on other issues. There was a time when I considered my arch nemesis to be Dutch Uncle, based on the insults he was always sending my way, and so he was the first person I ever thread banned. Now that thread banning has been abolished, we rarely cross paths and when we do, it's not always as ideological opponents. Honestly, the person I least like the posts of these days is actually dancing dave, simply because they all seem to make little sense and so I just feel like I waste my time reading them.
I spent a bit of time in the War Zone Forum. Ironically, I've had some short conversations there that were actually quite nice, but then some posters that are -usually- reasonable started saying things that I wouldn't expect from them elsewhere- not against me, but against ther person I was responding to. I've seen this happen elsewhere too. I just don't see the point in insulting other's ideas and beliefs in simplistic ways- you're bound to either shut the conversation or tune you out at best, or for them to respond with the same at worst, resulting in a possible flame war. I suppose a "Can't we all just get along?" line isn't going to cut it, but I still think the following meme says a lot
View attachment 48076
Don't get me wrong, I have certainly gotten mad at people offline (though rarely), but one of the things about doing things offline is that you don't always have time to choose your words carefully and editing is not an option. I've personally found that the carrot generally works much better than the stick in getting people to see things differently. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean it works wonders, just better.
Then put your concerns in your asshole.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
But woke is nazism. You're fucking dumbI took a look at the definition of modern liberalism, which Wikipedia notes is frequently just called liberalism. It also references classical liberalism:
**
Modern liberalism, often referred to simply as liberalism, is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy. Modern liberalism is one of two major political ideologies in the United States, with the other being conservatism. According to American philosopher Ian Adams, all major American parties are "liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism."
Economically, modern liberalism supports government regulation on private industry, opposes corporate monopolies, and supports labor rights. Its fiscal policy opposes any reduction in spending on the social safety net, while simultaneously promoting income-proportional tax reform policies to reduce deficits. It calls for active government involvement in other social and economic matters such as reducing economic inequality, increasing diversity, expanding access to education and healthcare, regulating economic activity, and environmentalism. Modern liberalism was formed in the 20th century in response to the Great Depression. Major examples of modern liberal policy programs include the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, the Affordable Care Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
**
Full article:
Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So, is this the liberalism you oppose?
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
The two party system switches issues and positions on those issues from one party to the other, as needed to keep party loyalists equally divided in the population.As I just said to Tobytone:
**
Being a political hybrid, where I agree with the left/democrats on some things and the right/republicans on others, I find it almost comical how I find that some people who I strongly disagree with on some issues I also strongly -agree- with on others and thus, how in some conversations we're good friends and in others, we're dire enemies
**
They try to keep the population 50/50 so any election result will seem roughly plausible.
You've never typed anything this honest or intelligent.
Scott
Verified User
I'm not fond of "formal debates", at least from what I've heard of their rules:
**
- The team supporting the motion must not shift its point of view. The same goes for the opposition, who must oppose the motion completely (whatever their private opinions may be).
Source:
What I'm for is civilized discussions.
I'm not fond of "formal debates", at least from what I've heard of their rules:
**
**
- The team supporting the motion must not shift its point of view. The same goes for the opposition, who must oppose the motion completely (whatever their private opinions may be).
Source:
What I'm for is civilized discussions.
You mean ones that ignore insane lunatic positions and fake history, and threat those as 'legitmate'.
The internet version of two old friends sitting on the front porch sipping lemonade is what I am after.I'm not fond of "formal debates", at least from what I've heard of their rules:
**
**
- The team supporting the motion must not shift its point of view. The same goes for the opposition, who must oppose the motion completely (whatever their private opinions may be).
Source:
What I'm for is civilized discussions.
Scott
Verified User
You mean ones that ignore insane lunatic positions and fake history, and threat those as 'legitmate'.I'm not fond of "formal debates", at least from what I've heard of their rules:
**
**
- The team supporting the motion must not shift its point of view. The same goes for the opposition, who must oppose the motion completely (whatever their private opinions may be).
Source:
What I'm for is civilized discussions.
If you're talking about what I mean by civilized discussions, I just mean discussions were people aren't insulting each other on a regular basis. I think that in such discussions, it's easier to separate fact from fiction because people are focusing on the evidence for various positions, rather then their hatred for each other.
Scott
Verified User
That sounds about right
. But I'll settle for at least trying to understand one's ideological opponent's position rather than insulting them because they disagree with one's own.
You might as well claim to be a 7' 2" dwarf. It would be more realistic.
American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major issue this country has faced since its founding.
During Revolutionary days, American conservatives were the ones asserting that people who wanted Independence from England were traitors who rightly owned fealty to George III of England.
During Civil War days, American conservatives were almost exclusively in the South...and demnaded that humans who happen to have dark skin rightly can be owned as slaves.
During both World War I and World War II...American conservatives were the ones insisting that America had no place in the war...that freedom from tyranny was the work of others.
So fuck your "clear-headed, common sense conservative horse shit.
Yeah, Bill Maher is preaching that these days.That sounds about right
So did Neville Chamberlain back in the 1930's.
I mean...what could go wrong with that?
Scott
Verified User
True, and I think that's a good thing. I actually made a thread on that:
From what I've read, I think Chamberlain was smart to -try- to make peace with Germany. However, with hindsight, it now seems clear that he trusted Hitler too much. After World War I, a lot of German lands and its people's were sectioned off to other countries. I think trying too find a balance there made sense. I decided to do a bit of reading on it, and it would appear that early on, Hitler had been intent on betraying him. From Wikipedia:
**
Before leaving the Führerbau, Chamberlain requested a private conference with Hitler. Hitler agreed, and the two met at Hitler's apartment in the city later that morning. Chamberlain urged restraint in the implementation of the agreement and requested that the Germans not bomb Prague if the Czechs resisted, to which Hitler seemed agreeable. Chamberlain took from his pocket a paper headed "Anglo–German Agreement", which contained three paragraphs, including a statement that the two nations considered the Munich Agreement "symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war again." According to Chamberlain, Hitler interjected "Ja! Ja!" ("Yes! Yes!"). The two men signed the paper then and there. When, later that day, German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop remonstrated with Hitler for signing it, the Führer replied, "Oh, don't take it so seriously. That piece of paper is of no further significance whatever." Chamberlain, on the other hand, patted his breast pocket when he returned to his hotel for lunch and said, "I've got it!" Word leaked of the outcome of the meetings before Chamberlain's return, causing delight among many in London but gloom for Churchill and his supporters.
**
Hitler apparently did this later on and I think that Chamberlain reacted appropriately:
**
On 15 March 1939, Germany invaded the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, including Prague. Though Chamberlain's initial parliamentary response was, according to biographer Nick Smart, "feeble", within 48 hours he had spoken more forcefully against the German aggression. In another Birmingham speech, on 17 March, Chamberlain warned that Hitler was attempting to "dominate the world by force" and that "no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing the nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it were ever made. The Prime Minister questioned whether the invasion of Czechoslovakia was "the end of an old adventure, or the beginning of a new" and whether it was "a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force." Colonial Secretary Malcolm MacDonald said, "whereas the Prime Minister was once a strong advocate of peace, he has now definitely swung around to the war point of view." This speech was met with widespread approval in Britain and recruitment for the armed services increased considerably.
**
So in summation, I think that Chamberlain's attempt to find a diplomatic solution with Germany was good, because it showed that he had -tried- to achieve peace- it was Hitler who was apparently disdainful of it. So Chamberlain's flaw was in being too trusting of Hitler, but I also think that it can be hard to find a balance between being too trusting and being too cynical.
More examples of the lack of ability to separate fact from fiction and thus 'civlized debate'.