What Is Your Political Tilt?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Actually it makes perfect sense because some things aren't ideologically driven. The "middle" can only exist in the mind of one. You look to be suggesting that since compromise exists, a "middle" must exist, which simply isn't the case. Just because someone can come to a rational compromise on a particular social issue does not mean they are "middle", it just means they might be a bit pragmatic. Two sides meeting in the middle does not mean that those meeting are "middle", and it's the same with ideologies.

The issue here is not whether middle ground exists or not, it's whether people can be "middle" or an ideology can be considered "middle"? Let me ask you a question. What sort of ideological principles would a "middle" person have? There are plenty of principles and such for both right and left - so where are these principles of the "middle"?
I have never been able to get a good answer from people who think "middle" is an ideology lable or that people can be "middle". In their attempts to define it they wander off into the "moderate" discussion which then turns the discussion towards defining degrees of left or right.

Why are you having so much trouble with the idea that many people do not have a dominant ideology? There is no single ideology. We each have a set of different ideologies in different areas. Political labels are merely a convenience to help group together people who often share similar sets of ideologies.

For example, you are easy to label. You are broadly conservative. That's fine. It means your set of ideologies is roughly similar to the sets of others who are "conservative". It is not that black and white for many of us. We aren't "confused", we aren't "undecided", we don't need to "make up our minds". We just don't fit those arbitrary labels.

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Some people may tend to lean the same way on most issues; others can be all over the board. We simply couldn't coin enough words to label every possible combination of idealogies. You need to accept that two sizes don't fit all, and that's not a bad thing.

I have no trouble with it because it simply isn't the truth. There is no way you can be "middle" except in your own mind. How you weigh bits and pieces of ideology would be very different from others so it simply doesn't exist.

BS, you do to fit. You just aren't willing to admit it, and the political talking heads encourage you to never admit it because you both seem to believe it makes you more influential.

I do understand that not everything falls neatly into line but for someone to claim they are "middle" or "moderate" is meaningless because they only exist in one's mind(meaning it is entirely subjective for those not able to follow along). If you would have read my post instead of going off on your little tirade maybe you would have realized that I understand that "some things aren't ideologically driven". But I guess in your "moderate" haste to defend your "middle" you overlooked what I've said.

So hotshot, what defines "middle" since we all have a pretty good idea of what left and right are? Sorry, but people willingly choose to label themselves "middle" - so what is it? My vote is "denial"

Yawn. You always were so full of yourself.

Sorry, your black-and-white labels simply, factually, obviously do not fit everyone. There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

duck/dodge

I'm getting quite used to your non-answers and lame attempts trying to turn the issue into me. Back to the issue I raised though, please atleast try to answer next post.

So hotshot, what defines "middle" since we all have a pretty good idea of what left and right are? Sorry, but people willingly choose to label themselves "middle" - so what is it? My vote is "denial"

If you keep claiming it exists(and people obviously think it does because they willingly label themselves as such), define it. You can't, because it doesn't exist except in your own head.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Actually it makes perfect sense because some things aren't ideologically driven. The "middle" can only exist in the mind of one. You look to be suggesting that since compromise exists, a "middle" must exist, which simply isn't the case. Just because someone can come to a rational compromise on a particular social issue does not mean they are "middle", it just means they might be a bit pragmatic. Two sides meeting in the middle does not mean that those meeting are "middle", and it's the same with ideologies.

The issue here is not whether middle ground exists or not, it's whether people can be "middle" or an ideology can be considered "middle"? Let me ask you a question. What sort of ideological principles would a "middle" person have? There are plenty of principles and such for both right and left - so where are these principles of the "middle"?
I have never been able to get a good answer from people who think "middle" is an ideology lable or that people can be "middle". In their attempts to define it they wander off into the "moderate" discussion which then turns the discussion towards defining degrees of left or right.

Why are you having so much trouble with the idea that many people do not have a dominant ideology? There is no single ideology. We each have a set of different ideologies in different areas. Political labels are merely a convenience to help group together people who often share similar sets of ideologies.

For example, you are easy to label. You are broadly conservative. That's fine. It means your set of ideologies is roughly similar to the sets of others who are "conservative". It is not that black and white for many of us. We aren't "confused", we aren't "undecided", we don't need to "make up our minds". We just don't fit those arbitrary labels.

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Some people may tend to lean the same way on most issues; others can be all over the board. We simply couldn't coin enough words to label every possible combination of idealogies. You need to accept that two sizes don't fit all, and that's not a bad thing.

I have no trouble with it because it simply isn't the truth. There is no way you can be "middle" except in your own mind. How you weigh bits and pieces of ideology would be very different from others so it simply doesn't exist.

BS, you do to fit. You just aren't willing to admit it, and the political talking heads encourage you to never admit it because you both seem to believe it makes you more influential.

I do understand that not everything falls neatly into line but for someone to claim they are "middle" or "moderate" is meaningless because they only exist in one's mind(meaning it is entirely subjective for those not able to follow along). If you would have read my post instead of going off on your little tirade maybe you would have realized that I understand that "some things aren't ideologically driven". But I guess in your "moderate" haste to defend your "middle" you overlooked what I've said.

So hotshot, what defines "middle" since we all have a pretty good idea of what left and right are? Sorry, but people willingly choose to label themselves "middle" - so what is it? My vote is "denial"

Yawn. You always were so full of yourself.

Sorry, your black-and-white labels simply, factually, obviously do not fit everyone. There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

duck/dodge

The irony is strong in this one.

I'm getting quite used to your non-answers and lame attempts trying to turn the issue into me. Back to the issue I raised though, please atleast try to answer next post.

So hotshot, what defines "middle" since we all have a pretty good idea of what left and right are? Sorry, but people willingly choose to label themselves "middle" - so what is it? My vote is "denial"

If you keep claiming it exists(and people obviously think it does because they willingly label themselves as such), define it. You can't, because it doesn't exist except in your own head.

Doh! The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like "left" and "right". Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Actually it makes perfect sense because some things aren't ideologically driven. The "middle" can only exist in the mind of one. You look to be suggesting that since compromise exists, a "middle" must exist, which simply isn't the case. Just because someone can come to a rational compromise on a particular social issue does not mean they are "middle", it just means they might be a bit pragmatic. Two sides meeting in the middle does not mean that those meeting are "middle", and it's the same with ideologies.

The issue here is not whether middle ground exists or not, it's whether people can be "middle" or an ideology can be considered "middle"? Let me ask you a question. What sort of ideological principles would a "middle" person have? There are plenty of principles and such for both right and left - so where are these principles of the "middle"?
I have never been able to get a good answer from people who think "middle" is an ideology lable or that people can be "middle". In their attempts to define it they wander off into the "moderate" discussion which then turns the discussion towards defining degrees of left or right.

Why are you having so much trouble with the idea that many people do not have a dominant ideology? There is no single ideology. We each have a set of different ideologies in different areas. Political labels are merely a convenience to help group together people who often share similar sets of ideologies.

For example, you are easy to label. You are broadly conservative. That's fine. It means your set of ideologies is roughly similar to the sets of others who are "conservative". It is not that black and white for many of us. We aren't "confused", we aren't "undecided", we don't need to "make up our minds". We just don't fit those arbitrary labels.

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Some people may tend to lean the same way on most issues; others can be all over the board. We simply couldn't coin enough words to label every possible combination of idealogies. You need to accept that two sizes don't fit all, and that's not a bad thing.

I have no trouble with it because it simply isn't the truth. There is no way you can be "middle" except in your own mind. How you weigh bits and pieces of ideology would be very different from others so it simply doesn't exist.

BS, you do to fit. You just aren't willing to admit it, and the political talking heads encourage you to never admit it because you both seem to believe it makes you more influential.

I do understand that not everything falls neatly into line but for someone to claim they are "middle" or "moderate" is meaningless because they only exist in one's mind(meaning it is entirely subjective for those not able to follow along). If you would have read my post instead of going off on your little tirade maybe you would have realized that I understand that "some things aren't ideologically driven". But I guess in your "moderate" haste to defend your "middle" you overlooked what I've said.

So hotshot, what defines "middle" since we all have a pretty good idea of what left and right are? Sorry, but people willingly choose to label themselves "middle" - so what is it? My vote is "denial"

Yawn. You always were so full of yourself.

Sorry, your black-and-white labels simply, factually, obviously do not fit everyone. There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

duck/dodge

The irony is strong in this one.

I'm getting quite used to your non-answers and lame attempts trying to turn the issue into me. Back to the issue I raised though, please atleast try to answer next post.

So hotshot, what defines "middle" since we all have a pretty good idea of what left and right are? Sorry, but people willingly choose to label themselves "middle" - so what is it? My vote is "denial"

If you keep claiming it exists(and people obviously think it does because they willingly label themselves as such), define it. You can't, because it doesn't exist except in your own head.

Doh! The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like "left" and "right". Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?

So since I am "between" the two extremes I can claim I am "middle"? So how wide of a band is this "middle"? (since you have chosen to the "moderate" argument now) What degree of right or left can someone be "moderate"? What defines "moderate"?
You see, all this exists in one's own mind and is entirely subjective depending on how you weigh things. But that whole "moderate" arguments gets away from the "middle" label people assigned themself instead of right or left.

You see, when someone assigns themselves a label, there is criteria they use. So what is the criteria for "middle" or if you want to continue playing games - "moderate"? I can define right and left using a pretty widely accepted definition but "middle" seems to keep coming back to "denial"

Please don't continue to duck and dodge, I think you are smarter than that. Self given labels have definitions- what is it?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So since I am "between" the two extremes I can claim I am "middle"? So how wide of a band is this "middle"? (since you have chosen to the "moderate" argument now) What degree of right or left can someone be "moderate"? What defines "moderate"?
You see, all this exists in one's own mind and is entirely subjective depending on how you weigh things. But that whole "moderate" arguments gets away from the "middle" label people assigned themself instead of right or left.

You see, when someone assigns themselves a label, there is criteria they use. So what is the criteria for "middle" or if you want to continue playing games - "moderate"? I can define right and left using a pretty widely accepted definition but "middle" seems to keep coming back to "denial"

Please don't continue to duck and dodge, I think you are smarter than that. Self given labels have definitions- what is it?

I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"


Edit: You know, for someone who now calls himself "ShadesOfGrey", you sure have a simplistic, black-and-white view of things. More intentional irony, I susepct.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So since I am "between" the two extremes I can claim I am "middle"? So how wide of a band is this "middle"? (since you have chosen to the "moderate" argument now) What degree of right or left can someone be "moderate"? What defines "moderate"?
You see, all this exists in one's own mind and is entirely subjective depending on how you weigh things. But that whole "moderate" arguments gets away from the "middle" label people assigned themself instead of right or left.

You see, when someone assigns themselves a label, there is criteria they use. So what is the criteria for "middle" or if you want to continue playing games - "moderate"? I can define right and left using a pretty widely accepted definition but "middle" seems to keep coming back to "denial"

Please don't continue to duck and dodge, I think you are smarter than that. Self given labels have definitions- what is it?

I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'm a radical lefty, but part libertarian too.

Me, too.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Edit: You know, for someone who now calls himself "ShadesOfGrey", you sure have a simplistic, black-and-white view of things. More intentional irony, I susepct.

You can thank my "progressive" parents for that "irony". As you know, my online nickname is a reflection of my name. BTW, I do not have a black and white view of things despite your claim that I do. There are different degrees of right and left, I never suggested there wasn't.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"
So since I am "between" the two extremes I can claim I am "middle"? So how wide of a band is this "middle"? (since you have chosen to the "moderate" argument now) What degree of right or left can someone be "moderate"? What defines "moderate"?
You see, all this exists in one's own mind and is entirely subjective depending on how you weigh things. But that whole "moderate" arguments gets away from the "middle" label people assigned themself instead of right or left.

You see, when someone assigns themselves a label, there is criteria they use. So what is the criteria for "middle" or if you want to continue playing games - "moderate"? I can define right and left using a pretty widely accepted definition but "middle" seems to keep coming back to "denial"

Please don't continue to duck and dodge, I think you are smarter than that. Self given labels have definitions- what is it?

I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"
So since I am "between" the two extremes I can claim I am "middle"? So how wide of a band is this "middle"? (since you have chosen to the "moderate" argument now) What degree of right or left can someone be "moderate"? What defines "moderate"?
You see, all this exists in one's own mind and is entirely subjective depending on how you weigh things. But that whole "moderate" arguments gets away from the "middle" label people assigned themself instead of right or left.

You see, when someone assigns themselves a label, there is criteria they use. So what is the criteria for "middle" or if you want to continue playing games - "moderate"? I can define right and left using a pretty widely accepted definition but "middle" seems to keep coming back to "denial"

Please don't continue to duck and dodge, I think you are smarter than that. Self given labels have definitions- what is it?

I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So it seems the esteemed Bowfinger has resorted to personal attacks. While I'm sure you'd love to see me respond in kind, I will not this time because I want you to address the issue instead of trying to divert this into an attack fest.

Sorry, but you are the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exists. Your definition is dependent on left/right but yet somehow "middle" is it's own option seperate from left or right? Well, does it stand on it's own or not Bowfinger? Seems like a lot of people here think it does.

I will note your "think for themselves" comment though, as if a person identifies themself as something other than this yet to be determined "moderate" or "middle" label they somehow aren't or can't "think for themselves" :roll:

 

[redgtxdi]

I'm definitely "right". Not far right, but right nonetheless.

Looking at the results of our last state special election, you begin to realize why more & more folks are judging "left" not so much as "ignorant" anymore, but perhaps just plain "foolish".

It's a sad state of affairs, but as they say......things typically get a whole lot worse before they get better!!! (Right?) LOL!!

California has decided.......

#1.) Secede the state & turn it over to Mexico

#2.) Continue permission slips for minors in regards to things like field trips, giving a kid aspirin, etc..... but allow local schools to escort your 13 year old daughter down to the clinic for an abortion.

#3.) Don't force unions to proactively ask permission regarding political allocation of union dues, instead allow unions to require the UNION MEMBER to reactively ask that they *not* do so.

#4.) Continue to spend far more than the state earns. (This one doesn't really need an excuse........none of 'em make sense........just........well...........keep overspending).


But dont worry, the Feds will be there to bail us out when we go bankrupt. After the Fed doubles its money on the funds given.....(err, invested)......in the current hurricane projects, in about 2010, we'll only need a few hundred billion.....(which will be readily available, right?)......to get us back to ZERO!!!

God....(err, I mean Shirley MacLaine).....help us all!!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm an extreme middle.

OP - please add an option for "self-deluded".

:laugh:

As of right now 26% say they are "in the middle" Well, that is quite a riot. I guess I should claim that too because I don't think my opinions are extreme.:roll: There is no "middle", it is just something that the political talking heads have invented to give the left some cover since they(the left) allowed "liberals" to mean extreme.(yes, the right was successful in creating that perception ) But I repeat, there is no such thing as the "middle", it simple doesn't exist. You can take different sides on different issues but ideology doesn't permit "middle", unless you never take a position.

Although, I have this suspicion that people want to think they are "mainstream" and "middle" so they don't have to defend their positions against the "other side", they simply reply with the standard "I'm in the middle" BS which sometimes backs the dogs off.


BTW, I'm right of center. No apologies for my ideology at all.

That makes no sense. Clearly if left and right ideas on a topic exist, a "middle" must exist as well. Very few issues are totally black and white (or left and right). Take the concept of welfare, for example. The socialists on the left simply want to hand out money and the assholes on the right don't want to spend a thin dime on the poor. A middle position might be spending money to improve the living standards and money earning potential of poor people, such as improved education for the kids and work-skills programs for the adults. Or how about gay marriage? Lefties might want to totally legalize gay marriage, while righties want gay couples to have no spousal rights at all. A moderate might want civil unions to be legalized, with many of the attending legal rights for gay couples. Or how about teaching evolution in the science classroom? A liberal might want to teach evolution as iron clad fact, with no discussion, while a conservative might want to teach whatever dumbass idea his religious leader thought up when he was drunk on ceremonial wine. A moderate position might be teaching evolution, but presenting the factual, scientific shortcomings and encouraging intelligent discussion of evolution as a theory.

No need to go on, I would imagine it's obvious that a middle ground often does exist. That doesn't mean it's the best for every issue, or any issue. It simply means that trying to make everything left or right is silly.

Actually it makes perfect sense because some things aren't ideologically driven. The "middle" can only exist in the mind of one. You look to be suggesting that since compromise exists, a "middle" must exist, which simply isn't the case. Just because someone can come to a rational compromise on a particular social issue does not mean they are "middle", it just means they might be a bit pragmatic. Two sides meeting in the middle does not mean that those meeting are "middle", and it's the same with ideologies.

The issue here is not whether middle ground exists or not, it's whether people can be "middle" or an ideology can be considered "middle"? Let me ask you a question. What sort of ideological principles would a "middle" person have? There are plenty of principles and such for both right and left - so where are these principles of the "middle"?
I have never been able to get a good answer from people who think "middle" is an ideology lable or that people can be "middle". In their attempts to define it they wander off into the "moderate" discussion which then turns the discussion towards defining degrees of left or right.

That's an easy question to answer, a moderate is simply someone who has views that are somwhere between the left and the right. Let me first say that everyone in unique, and I generally feel all these labels are silly, they can't possibly describe even the most extremist individual. But it we're going to define some people as left and some people as right, wouldn't it follow that there are some people "between" those two sides? I suppose we could call them moderate lefties or moderate righties, if that makes you feel better. But the basic principle is still there, if you define the political universe as a line with a left and a right, people must exist at every point along that line. It's a rough definition of political views at best, but if that's what we're working with, we need a middle...every line has a middle. Of course that's just a point, on either side you would be slightly left or slightly right...for the purposes of discussion, I think "moderates" would exist somewhat to either side of the mid-point.

Of course that's using the line definition of political views, I have a slightly different theory on moderates, liberals and conservatives. It's interesting that you used the word pragmatic to describe someone who can come to a rational compromise on an issue. Because that's exactly what I think is the defining characteristic of a moderate. It's not that they are in the middle, it's that they are "between" left and right. I think, fundamentally, lefties and righties have a different decision making process. Everything is filter through their political ideology, decision making is not totally rational.

Take war for example. I think that righties, in general, are emotionally and intellectually attached to the concept of war, or more generally, violence, as a problem solving tool. They favor "being tough" as an answer to problems, without any additional information, they are inclined to want to shoot someone in the head in order to solve a problem. This seems obvious from the criticism of anti-war groups, it's not that they are wrong, it's that they are WEAK...because they don't like using war to solve a problem. Lefties are, in general, the opposite. They favor non-violent solutions to problems. Those that favor war are gun-toting rednecks. Which side is "right" is not the point, the point is that whether you are a leftie or a rightie, you go into a war type situation with a predetermined view of possible solutions. I think that a moderate, by my definition, does not lean either way...or they have a slight preference one way. In some situations they will favor violent solutions, other times they won't. But the key difference is that their decision making process is based on a pragmatic look at the issue, there is no leftie or rightie ideas influencing their view of things.

Maybe I'm full of crap, but I look at moderates as being fundamentally different from righties and lefties in that they don't base their decision making on where they sit in the spectrum. I think a moderate can SEEM like a leftie or a rightie based on the particular issues of the day, but the key difference is how they arrived at those views. They could support the Iraq war, not because it makes them feel tough and strong, but because they believe it is the best way to fight terrorism. Or they could be against it, not because they hate the idea of violence, but because they think it's a bad way to combat extremists. I realize this sounds mean to both lefties and righties, but I think a lot of the self-identified lefties and righties are really probably moderates, at least by my definition But you, my friend, are as righty as they come

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So it seems the esteemed Bowfinger has resorted to personal attacks. While I'm sure you'd love to see me respond in kind, I will not this time because I want you to address the issue instead of trying to divert this into an attack fest.

Wah!!! "Mommmmmeeee!!! Bowfinger's picking on me!!!" :roll:

"you entered the ring without thinking first"
"but 'middle' seems to keep coming back to 'denial'"
"My vote is 'denial'"

Sorry, but you are the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exists. Your definition is dependent on left/right but yet somehow "middle" is it's own option seperate from left or right? Well, does it stand on it's own or not Bowfinger? Seems like a lot of people here think it does.

duck/dodge

Exactly what I expected. I defined "middle", objectively and measurably ... as soon as you define "left" and "right" (to my satisfaction, taking into account the myriad issues which factor into one's ideology -- a fact from which you continue to flee).

I will note your "think for themselves" comment though, as if a person identifies themself as something other than this yet to be determined "moderate" or "middle" label they somehow aren't or can't "think for themselves" :roll:

Bull! That's not what I suggested at all. Give your blind partisanship a rest.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I'm definitely "right". Not far right, but right nonetheless.

Looking at the results of our last state special election, you begin to realize why more & more folks are judging "left" not so much as "ignorant" anymore, but perhaps just plain "foolish".

It's a sad state of affairs, but as they say......things typically get a whole lot worse before they get better!!! (Right?) LOL!!

California has decided.......

#1.) Secede the state & turn it over to Mexico

#2.) Continue permission slips for minors in regards to things like field trips, giving a kid aspirin, etc..... but allow local schools to escort your 13 year old daughter down to the clinic for an abortion.

#3.) Don't force unions to proactively ask permission regarding political allocation of union dues, instead allow unions to require the UNION MEMBER to reactively ask that they *not* do so.

#4.) Continue to spend far more than the state earns. (This one doesn't really need an excuse........none of 'em make sense........just........well...........keep overspending).


But dont worry, the Feds will be there to bail us out when we go bankrupt. After the Fed doubles its money on the funds given.....(err, invested)......in the current hurricane projects, in about 2010, we'll only need a few hundred billion.....(which will be readily available, right?)......to get us back to ZERO!!!

God....(err, I mean Shirley MacLaine).....help us all!!

California certainly has some strange laws and a strange approach to democracy, but those crazy liberals sure have managed to make their state quite the economic powerhouse, haven't they? Not to mention there don't seem to be a shortage of people trying to live there. How IS the housing market in the heart of Bush country, anyways?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So it seems the esteemed Bowfinger has resorted to personal attacks. While I'm sure you'd love to see me respond in kind, I will not this time because I want you to address the issue instead of trying to divert this into an attack fest.

Wah. "Mommmmmeeee! Bowfinger's picking on me." :roll:

"you entered the ring without thinking first"
"but 'middle' seems to keep coming back to 'denial'"
"My vote is 'denial'"

Sorry, but you are the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exists. Your definition is dependent on left/right but yet somehow "middle" is it's own option seperate from left or right? Well, does it stand on it's own or not Bowfinger? Seems like a lot of people here think it does.

duck/dodge

Exactly what I expected. I defined "middle", objectively and measurably ... as soon as you define "left" and "right" (to my satisfaction, taking into account the myriad issues which factor into one's ideology -- a fact from which you continue to flee).

I will note your "think for themselves" comment though, as if a person identifies themself as something other than this yet to be determined "moderate" or "middle" label they somehow aren't or can't "think for themselves" :roll:

Bull! That's not what I suggested at all. Give your blind partisanship a rest.

My statements were comments on the reality of the situation, not a personal attack on you. You entered this without an argument, atleast not one that you've been able to back up. Then the denial part, yes, as a whole the people who think their is this magical "middle" option seem to be in denial. So don't even attempt to claim I'm whining when I am just pointing out your out of line attacks("pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable", "I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work","Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"). But you weren't trolling. :roll:

No, I'm not the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exist. That seems to be your contention yet you rely on the other two for a definition. Shouldn't a 3rd option be able to stand on it's own? And no you didn't define "middle", you made up some jibberish that relied on other definitions. "middle" should stand on it's own if it is an option like left or right.

Sure, back away from it just like your types always do. They throw out that "free thinker" BS and then shy away from it when called on their intent.

But I really would like to have you directly address the issue instead of hiding behind the diversion you trot out. If "middle" really is an option, how does one know they are one? left and right seem to be pretty straight forward using widely accepted ideological stances and thinking, so what do these "middle" people use to define themselves and their thinking?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So it seems the esteemed Bowfinger has resorted to personal attacks. While I'm sure you'd love to see me respond in kind, I will not this time because I want you to address the issue instead of trying to divert this into an attack fest.

Wah. "Mommmmmeeee! Bowfinger's picking on me." :roll:

"you entered the ring without thinking first"
"but 'middle' seems to keep coming back to 'denial'"
"My vote is 'denial'"

Sorry, but you are the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exists. Your definition is dependent on left/right but yet somehow "middle" is it's own option seperate from left or right? Well, does it stand on it's own or not Bowfinger? Seems like a lot of people here think it does.

duck/dodge

Exactly what I expected. I defined "middle", objectively and measurably ... as soon as you define "left" and "right" (to my satisfaction, taking into account the myriad issues which factor into one's ideology -- a fact from which you continue to flee).

I will note your "think for themselves" comment though, as if a person identifies themself as something other than this yet to be determined "moderate" or "middle" label they somehow aren't or can't "think for themselves" :roll:

Bull! That's not what I suggested at all. Give your blind partisanship a rest.

My statements were comments on the reality of the situation, not a personal attack on you. You entered this without an argument, atleast not one that you've been able to back up. Then the denial part, yes, as a whole the people who think their is this magical "middle" option seem to be in denial. So don't even attempt to claim I'm whining when I am just pointing out your out of line attacks("pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable", "I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work","Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"). But you weren't trolling. :roll:

No, I'm not the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exist. That seems to be your contention yet you rely on the other two for a definition. Shouldn't a 3rd option be able to stand on it's own? And no you didn't define "middle", you made up some jibberish that relied on other definitions. "middle" should stand on it's own if it is an option like left or right.

Sure, back away from it just like your types always do. They throw out that "free thinker" BS and then shy away from it when called on their intent.

But I really would like to have you directly address the issue instead of hiding behind the diversion you trot out. If "middle" really is an option, how does one know they are one? left and right seem to be pretty straight forward using widely accepted ideological stances and thinking, so what do these "middle" people use to define themselves and their thinking?

Are left and right really defined on their own, or simply in relation to each other? Most "righties" would find themselves to be quite liberal in truly authoritarian regimes, you may be a rightie in the US...but in Nazi Germany you would be a liberal...or maybe not.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm an extreme middle.

OP - please add an option for "self-deluded".

:laugh:

As of right now 26% say they are "in the middle" Well, that is quite a riot. I guess I should claim that too because I don't think my opinions are extreme.:roll: There is no "middle", it is just something that the political talking heads have invented to give the left some cover since they(the left) allowed "liberals" to mean extreme.(yes, the right was successful in creating that perception ) But I repeat, there is no such thing as the "middle", it simple doesn't exist. You can take different sides on different issues but ideology doesn't permit "middle", unless you never take a position.

Although, I have this suspicion that people want to think they are "mainstream" and "middle" so they don't have to defend their positions against the "other side", they simply reply with the standard "I'm in the middle" BS which sometimes backs the dogs off.


BTW, I'm right of center. No apologies for my ideology at all.

That makes no sense. Clearly if left and right ideas on a topic exist, a "middle" must exist as well. Very few issues are totally black and white (or left and right). Take the concept of welfare, for example. The socialists on the left simply want to hand out money and the assholes on the right don't want to spend a thin dime on the poor. A middle position might be spending money to improve the living standards and money earning potential of poor people, such as improved education for the kids and work-skills programs for the adults. Or how about gay marriage? Lefties might want to totally legalize gay marriage, while righties want gay couples to have no spousal rights at all. A moderate might want civil unions to be legalized, with many of the attending legal rights for gay couples. Or how about teaching evolution in the science classroom? A liberal might want to teach evolution as iron clad fact, with no discussion, while a conservative might want to teach whatever dumbass idea his religious leader thought up when he was drunk on ceremonial wine. A moderate position might be teaching evolution, but presenting the factual, scientific shortcomings and encouraging intelligent discussion of evolution as a theory.

No need to go on, I would imagine it's obvious that a middle ground often does exist. That doesn't mean it's the best for every issue, or any issue. It simply means that trying to make everything left or right is silly.

Actually it makes perfect sense because some things aren't ideologically driven. The "middle" can only exist in the mind of one. You look to be suggesting that since compromise exists, a "middle" must exist, which simply isn't the case. Just because someone can come to a rational compromise on a particular social issue does not mean they are "middle", it just means they might be a bit pragmatic. Two sides meeting in the middle does not mean that those meeting are "middle", and it's the same with ideologies.

The issue here is not whether middle ground exists or not, it's whether people can be "middle" or an ideology can be considered "middle"? Let me ask you a question. What sort of ideological principles would a "middle" person have? There are plenty of principles and such for both right and left - so where are these principles of the "middle"?
I have never been able to get a good answer from people who think "middle" is an ideology lable or that people can be "middle". In their attempts to define it they wander off into the "moderate" discussion which then turns the discussion towards defining degrees of left or right.

That's an easy question to answer, a moderate is simply someone who has views that are somwhere between the left and the right. Let me first say that everyone in unique, and I generally feel all these labels are silly, they can't possibly describe even the most extremist individual. But it we're going to define some people as left and some people as right, wouldn't it follow that there are some people "between" those two sides? I suppose we could call them moderate lefties or moderate righties, if that makes you feel better. But the basic principle is still there, if you define the political universe as a line with a left and a right, people must exist at every point along that line. It's a rough definition of political views at best, but if that's what we're working with, we need a middle...every line has a middle. Of course that's just a point, on either side you would be slightly left or slightly right...for the purposes of discussion, I think "moderates" would exist somewhat to either side of the mid-point.

Of course that's using the line definition of political views, I have a slightly different theory on moderates, liberals and conservatives. It's interesting that you used the word pragmatic to describe someone who can come to a rational compromise on an issue. Because that's exactly what I think is the defining characteristic of a moderate. It's not that they are in the middle, it's that they are "between" left and right. I think, fundamentally, lefties and righties have a different decision making process. Everything is filter through their political ideology, decision making is not totally rational.

Take war for example. I think that righties, in general, are emotionally and intellectually attached to the concept of war, or more generally, violence, as a problem solving tool. They favor "being tough" as an answer to problems, without any additional information, they are inclined to want to shoot someone in the head in order to solve a problem. This seems obvious from the criticism of anti-war groups, it's not that they are wrong, it's that they are WEAK...because they don't like using war to solve a problem. Lefties are, in general, the opposite. They favor non-violent solutions to problems. Those that favor war are gun-toting rednecks. Which side is "right" is not the point, the point is that whether you are a leftie or a rightie, you go into a war type situation with a predetermined view of possible solutions. I think that a moderate, by my definition, does not lean either way...or they have a slight preference one way. In some situations they will favor violent solutions, other times they won't. But the key difference is that their decision making process is based on a pragmatic look at the issue, there is no leftie or rightie ideas influencing their view of things.

Maybe I'm full of crap, but I look at moderates as being fundamentally different from righties and lefties in that they don't base their decision making on where they sit in the spectrum. I think a moderate can SEEM like a leftie or a rightie based on the particular issues of the day, but the key difference is how they arrived at those views. They could support the Iraq war, not because it makes them feel tough and strong, but because they believe it is the best way to fight terrorism. Or they could be against it, not because they hate the idea of violence, but because they think it's a bad way to combat extremists. I realize this sounds mean to both lefties and righties, but I think a lot of the self-identified lefties and righties are really probably moderates, at least by my definition But you, my friend, are as righty as they come

But as I pointed out, I could say that only the far .5% is extreme and everyone else is "moderate". Would I be wrong defining "moderates" that way?

I disagree, pragmatism doesn't require compromise. And compromise does not mean "moderate".(In my view) I have moderate stances that I won't compromise on, I would dare say that they are pragmatic stances also. But yes, I think you are on to it when you suggest the "middle" or "moderates" don't let ideology get in the way. Of course that begs the question of how their final position was reached, but I will grant you that it seems the people who want to call themselves such do allow ideology to be pitched at times. But is that something that is required? Is an ideology defined by the lack of principles? Why is that "moderate" or "middle"? Sure it isn't extreme to on side but to what degree does someone have to compromise or to what degree can't they use ideology to make a decision to be "moderate" or "middle"?

I'm sure I seem like a far "righty" to you and others here but while a solid "righty", I know there is a place for the other side in our form of Government and society. They just happen to be wrong about a lot of things though.

I suggest you read "Pragmatism" by William James if you are interested in Pragmatism. It's a pretty good little book that looks at a bunch of different views and angles regarding Pragmatism. Should point you to other works for further reading if so desired too. If nothing more it provides a bit of food for thought.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So it seems the esteemed Bowfinger has resorted to personal attacks. While I'm sure you'd love to see me respond in kind, I will not this time because I want you to address the issue instead of trying to divert this into an attack fest.

Wah. "Mommmmmeeee! Bowfinger's picking on me." :roll:

"you entered the ring without thinking first"
"but 'middle' seems to keep coming back to 'denial'"
"My vote is 'denial'"

Sorry, but you are the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exists. Your definition is dependent on left/right but yet somehow "middle" is it's own option seperate from left or right? Well, does it stand on it's own or not Bowfinger? Seems like a lot of people here think it does.

duck/dodge

Exactly what I expected. I defined "middle", objectively and measurably ... as soon as you define "left" and "right" (to my satisfaction, taking into account the myriad issues which factor into one's ideology -- a fact from which you continue to flee).

I will note your "think for themselves" comment though, as if a person identifies themself as something other than this yet to be determined "moderate" or "middle" label they somehow aren't or can't "think for themselves" :roll:

Bull! That's not what I suggested at all. Give your blind partisanship a rest.

My statements were comments on the reality of the situation, not a personal attack on you.

Riigghht: "you entered the ring without thinking first".

You entered this without an argument, atleast not one that you've been able to back up. Then the denial part, yes, as a whole the people who think their is this magical "middle" option seem to be in denial.

That's an interesting opinion, albeit an absurd one you refuse to support by defining your terms.

So don't even attempt to claim I'm whining when I am just pointing out your out of line attacks("pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable", "I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work","Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"). But you weren't trolling. :roll:

Trolling? Hardly. Lampooning your anal assertions and contorted evasions? Guilty.

(BTW, re. "whining", you absolutely were. The difference between us is I don't get all teary when someone attacks me. I just respond in kind. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should either learn how to have a civil discussion or get off the Internet and go back to hiding behind your mommy's apron.)

No, I'm not the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exist. That seems to be your contention yet you rely on the other two for a definition. Shouldn't a 3rd option be able to stand on it's own?

Not at all. "Middle" is a relative term. It can only exist in relation to two opposing endpoints. "Left" and "right" are relative terms as well, of course, which is why I've repeatedly challenged you to define them. You use the terms a lot; surely you can define them, can't you??? Once you can define "left" and "right" objectively, I can hone the definition of "middle". Until you do -- and you won't of course, you'll just continue to dance and dodge -- the rest of us will use the simple, obvious, common sense definition of "middle" while you continue to stand with your fingers in your ears shrieking, "There is no middle! There is no middle!" Talk about denial.

And no you didn't define "middle", you made up some jibberish that relied on other definitions. "middle" should stand on it's own if it is an option like left or right.

Wrong again. And I'm sorry if you don't understand basic mathematical concepts like median and standard deviation. Not a surprise given your previous display of innumeracy in your (childish) "cBS" thread.

Sure, back away from it just like your types always do.

Typical misdirection. The only one running is you. As usual.

They throw out that "free thinker" BS and then shy away from it when called on their intent.

Once again, your lack of reading comprehension (or, I suppose, your dishonesty) betrays you. I simply, factually, did NOT suggest that thinking for one's self is exclusive with being left or right. Your claim to the contrary is either a straw man or intellectual inadequacy.

But I really would like to have you directly address the issue instead of hiding behind the diversion you trot out.

Been there, done that, didn't even get a T-shirt.

If "middle" really is an option, how does one know they are one?

The same way they decide if they're left or right. The intelligent folks consider where they fall on the political spectrum based on their understanding of the ideologies. The mindless wait for their parents/minister/spouse/boss/whatever to tell them where they fall. (Note, in a doubtless futile attempt to prevent your next duhversion, the previous sentenece is hereby explicitly delcared to apply to the left, the right, and everyone in between.)

left and right seem to be pretty straight forward using widely accepted ideological stances and thinking,

So it should be so easy for you to define them objectively, correct?

so what do these "middle" people use to define themselves and their thinking?

Already covered.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Pro-American liberal. I haven't met a person like me yet.

You're about as liberal as ntdz or CADsortaguy.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Are left and right really defined on their own, or simply in relation to each other? Most "righties" would find themselves to be quite liberal in truly authoritarian regimes, you may be a rightie in the US...but in Nazi Germany you would be a liberal...or maybe not.

I would imagine that we are discussing American politics here, but correct me if I'm wrong. So yes while right vs left may be relative, there would be a line, correct?(I however would argue that left and right do stand on their own, and the type of government really only affecte implementation of ideological principles) I'm just curious how there came to be this 3rd option and how one knows if they are "middle" instead of right or left.

 

[Bowfinger]

By the way, this thread reminds me a lot of an earlier, similar thread here. It's an interesting read, and seems strangely similar to this thread (especially the last half, though some of the names have changed). Nothing was resolved there either, of course.

 

[OrByte]

dumb labels FTW!!

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOf"Grey"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work. "The middle is somewhere between the two extremes. It is an over-simplified ideological label of convenience, just like 'left' and 'right'. Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"

So where is this "somewhere"? What defines it? That's right, it doesn't exist except in one's own head. The positioning between ends is relative and entirely subjective. Hey! 99% of people are "moderates" because I say only the .5% on the fringe ends don't constitute "middle" or "moderate". :roll:
The only think that is hard to do is getting people like you to answer the question and address the issue.

Stating that I'm not X or Y (X and Y representing the extremes) does not mean one is "middle" or "moderate". Those two terms must have been defined somehow, correct? Well, quit ducking and dodging and address it.

I expected a better argument out of you Bowfinger. You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "middle" or "Moderate" (if I agree with the criteria )but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So compulsively black and white. Doesn't that pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable?

Fine. A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

So it seems the esteemed Bowfinger has resorted to personal attacks. While I'm sure you'd love to see me respond in kind, I will not this time because I want you to address the issue instead of trying to divert this into an attack fest.

Wah. "Mommmmmeeee! Bowfinger's picking on me." :roll:

"you entered the ring without thinking first"
"but 'middle' seems to keep coming back to 'denial'"
"My vote is 'denial'"

Sorry, but you are the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exists. Your definition is dependent on left/right but yet somehow "middle" is it's own option seperate from left or right? Well, does it stand on it's own or not Bowfinger? Seems like a lot of people here think it does.

duck/dodge

Exactly what I expected. I defined "middle", objectively and measurably ... as soon as you define "left" and "right" (to my satisfaction, taking into account the myriad issues which factor into one's ideology -- a fact from which you continue to flee).

I will note your "think for themselves" comment though, as if a person identifies themself as something other than this yet to be determined "moderate" or "middle" label they somehow aren't or can't "think for themselves" :roll:

Bull! That's not what I suggested at all. Give your blind partisanship a rest.

My statements were comments on the reality of the situation, not a personal attack on you.

Riigghht: "you entered the ring without thinking first".

which is true

You entered this without an argument, atleast not one that you've been able to back up. Then the denial part, yes, as a whole the people who think their is this magical "middle" option seem to be in denial.

That's an interesting opinion, albeit an absurd one you refuse to support by defing your terms.

Absurd? No, definately not, especially in light of the fact you haven't been able to define this other self chosen label called "middle". "I'm not ___ or ___." is not a definition.

So don't even attempt to claim I'm whining when I am just pointing out your out of line attacks("pole up your rectum get a bit uncomfortable", "I know, I know. Reading is hard. It's hard work","Any other basic concepts you'd like me to define for you?"). But you weren't trolling. :roll:

Trolling? Hardly. Lampooning your anal assertions and contorted evasions? Guilty.

(BTW, re. "whining", you absolutely were. The difference between us is I don't get all teary when someone attacks me. I just respond in kind. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should either learn how to have a civil discussion or get off the Internet and go back to hiding behind your mommy's apron.)

You can believe what you wish but I was not the one who crossed the line and started with the crass attacks. You are smarter than that Bowfinger, I'm not sure why you would need to stoop to those types of attacks.

No, I'm not the one who says "middle" or "moderate" exist. That seems to be your contention yet you rely on the other two for a definition. Shouldn't a 3rd option be able to stand on it's own?

Not at all. "Middle" is a relative term. It can only exist in relation to two opposing endpoints. "Left" and "right" are relative terms as well, of course, which is why I've repeatedly challenged you to define them. You use the terms a lot; surely you can define them, can't you??? Once you can define "left" and "right" objectively, I can hone the definition of "middle". Until you do -- and you won't of course, you'll just continue to dance and dodge -- the rest of us will use the simple, obvious, common sense definition of "middle" while you continue to stand with your fingers in your ears shrieking, "There is no middle! There is no middle!" Talk about denial.

Then why is it always presented as an option other than left or right if it doesn't stand on it's own? Why do over 25% of the people in this poll willingly label themselves that instead of left or right - or "none"? You suggest it exists, the OP must think it exists and 30 others think it exists, but none can define it on it's own? Doesn't seem like a stand alone option to me if it can't be defined on it's own.

And no you didn't define "middle", you made up some jibberish that relied on other definitions. "middle" should stand on it's own if it is an option like left or right.

Wrong again. And I'm sorry if you don't understand basic mathematical concepts like median and standard deviation. Not a surprise given your previous display of innumeracy in your (childish) "cBS" thread.

:roll: I understand those concepts well, in fact I use them almost every day in my profession, but this isn't about math. It's about defining another option you suggest exists instead of left or right.

Sure, back away from it just like your types always do.

Typical misdirection. The only one running is you. As usual.

Hardly. Why would you post such a comment then?

They throw out that "free thinker" BS and then shy away from it when called on their intent.

Once again, your lack of reading comprehension (or, I suppose, your dishonesty) betrays you. I simply, factually, did NOT suggest that thinking for one's self is exclusive with being left or right. Your claim to the contrary is either a straw man or intellectual inadequacy.

No, that's not what I said. People like you throw out this "free thinker" BS as if you can't think for yourself if you are left of right.(IE have an ideology). I would love to know why you would inject that comment into your line of thought?

But I really would like to have you directly address the issue instead of hiding behind the diversion you trot out.

Been there, done that, didn't even get a T-shirt.

Nope, just the duck/dodge

If "middle" really is an option, how does one know they are one?

The same way they decide if they're left or right. The intelligent folks consider where they fall on the political spectrum based on their understanding of the ideologies. The mindless wait for their parents/minister/spouse/boss/whatever to tell them where they fall. (Note, in a doubtless futile attempt to prevent your next duhversion, the previous sentenece is hereby explicitly delcared to apply to the left, the right, and everyone in between.)

:roll: Well, what principles make up this "middle" ideology? Aren't you really just admiting that this "middle" only exists in one's mind since they are the sole arbitor of how positions are weighted?

left and right seem to be pretty straight forward using widely accepted ideological stances and thinking,

So it should be so easy for you to define them objectively, correct?

Those are not at issue here, what is at issue is what "middle" is. If you want the OP to define left/right, fine you can bring that issue up but it isn't relevant to this stand alone "middle" option.

so what do these "middle" people use to define themselves and their thinking?

Already covered.

Nope, it wasn't. You sure type alot and try to divert into other areas but it all comes back to my assesment that it has to just be denial. Nothing has ever been offered to define it as it's own option so until then...

 

[Bowfinger]

A moderate is anyone who falls within one standard deviation of the median of all politically-aware adults on a political spectrum arbitrarily defined with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. Now, it's up to you to exactly and objectively define "left" and "right" given that there is no one political ideology, but rather an almost infinite set of ideology issues upon which most people -- or at least those who can and will think for themselves -- can strike a default position. As I pointed out before:

There is a vast spectrum of political issues: social, fiscal, governmental, environmental, economic, religious, defense, law and order, science, guns, abortion, etc. It is silly to think that a single label like "conservative" or "liberal" can encapsulate everyone's beliefs across this spectrum. Political ideology is like a multiple choice test with dozens of questions. Some people mostly answer "A", and they can be labeled "A's". Some people answer mostly "B", and they can be labeled "B's". But some people answer "A" to some, "B" to some, and "C" and "D" and "E". There isn't one simple label that matches this. This may not meet your demand for simplistic order, but that's too bad.

I expect a solid definition out of you ShadesOf"Grey". You seem to enjoy mixing it up, but on this one you entered the ring without thinking first it seems. I'm more than willing to conceed the existence of a "left" and a "right" (if I agree with the criteria ) but I've not seen any definition or band presented.

"Middle" is a relative term. It can only exist in relation to two opposing endpoints. "Left" and "right" are relative terms as well, of course, which is why I've repeatedly challenged you to define them. [They do not stand on their own either. Ed] You use the terms a lot; surely you can define them, can't you??? Once you can define "left" and "right" objectively, I can hone the definition of "middle". Until you do -- and you won't of course, you'll just continue to dance and dodge -- the rest of us will use the simple, obvious, common sense definition of "middle" while you continue to stand with your fingers in your ears shrieking, "There is no middle! There is no middle!" Talk about denial.

Edit: Just curious, is there anyone else here who cannot understand what it means to be a "moderate" or in the "middle" of the political ideology spectrum? Anyone at all?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Just curious, since Bowfinger can't offer anything, is there anyone who can provide a definition for the "middle" ideology? Preferrably someone who chose "middle" instead of left, right, or "none". I sure would love to know what makes "middle" a stand alone option, especially when the question was - "What Is Your Political Tilt?".

Anyone?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Just curious, since Bowfinger can't offer anything, is there anyone who can provide a definition for the "middle" ideology? Preferrably someone who chose "middle" instead of left, right, or "none". I sure would love to know what makes "middle" a stand alone option, especially when the question was - "What Is Your Political Tilt?".

Anyone?

I'd place myself in the middle on issues - that is, I'm on the left on some, the right on others

support left:
Social issues - if you aren't hurting anyone else, go for it.
Universal health care
Oppose preemptive war and any war that isn't purely defensive
Support Unions
Oppose free trade with nations that violate human rights, heavily polute, and fix their currency
Decriminalize marijuana
Support science over religion

support right:
fiscal conservancy
strong borders
gun rights
pro-life without the freaky religion (I support sex education, inexpensive and available birth control, inexpensive adoption, etc. as alternatives to abortion.)