Challenge yourself

[Grim17]

Recently I was having a political discussion with a hard-core right-wing conservative friend, and the topic of a certain newspaper editorial came up. The piece was written by Paul Krugman, who is a hard-core left-wing liberal and avid political commentator. My conservative friend commented: "Oh, I never read his garbage - he's a moron."

Paul Krugman is one of the few that I also won't read. He is an economist, but his partisan political beliefs have far too much influence on his economic views and therefore can't be trusted as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Paschendale]

You know, you could have agreed with the other poster, and wrote that it's true liberal's have chants too. Instead, you took the low road. Obviously, you've missed the whole point.

No, I spoke the truth. Though if you read the first sentence, I did agree. But there is a difference and I talked about why there is a difference.

Again that is your bias speaking. Some liberal ideas are good and some conservative ideas are good, it isnt a pissing contest between the two its a difference in opinions. A conservative could say the exact same thing that you just said exchanging conservative for liberal and they would be just as right as you are.

Its funny how we promote tolerance of other cultures yet are unable to recognize the intolerance between the left and the right. Why cant we accept that some people just have different opinions? You admitted that every now and then a conservative has a good idea, why not share ideas without the chanting?

It's not merely opinions. It's policy. It's conclusions based on facts about how we should govern our nation and live our lives. Those aren't mere differences of opinion. There are some conclusions that are correct and some that are wrong. Denying evolution is not a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. Denying rights to homosexuals isn't a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. Denying systematic racism against non-whites or systematic sexism isn't a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. If you think that liberalism and conservatism have an equal amount of good and bad ideas... well, you're wrong, but unless you're making that exact assertion, then I don't see why you're disagreeing with me. We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts and reality and conclusions based on reality.

When it comes to opinions, liberals and conservatives tend to agree. We agree on the opinion that we shouldn't have an overly burdensome tax system. We agree on the opinion that we should preserve the environment. We agree on the opinion that we shouldn't unnecessarily infringe on personal liberty. But when we talk about how to achieve those goals, one side has almost all bad ideas.

Who can argue with that "logic"? Of course criminals will assert that they had to. How else can a poor person ever hope to obtain a new Lexus?

My point, which you chose to completely ignore, is that, while many poor folks would love to have that same car, very few of those poor folks would ever try to steal it and fewer yet actually try to carjack it.

And you are content to ignorantly say that some people are just evil and never try to find out why some people steal the car and why some people don't.

 

[ocean515]

No, I spoke the truth. Though if you read the first sentence, I did agree. But there is a difference and I talked about why there is a difference.



It's not merely opinions. It's policy. It's conclusions based on facts about how we should govern our nation and live our lives. Those aren't mere differences of opinion. There are some conclusions that are correct and some that are wrong. Denying evolution is not a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. Denying rights to homosexuals isn't a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. Denying systematic racism against non-whites or systematic sexism isn't a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. If you think that liberalism and conservatism have an equal amount of good and bad ideas... well, you're wrong, but unless you're making that exact assertion, then I don't see why you're disagreeing with me. We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts and reality and conclusions based on reality.

When it comes to opinions, liberals and conservatives tend to agree. We agree on the opinion that we shouldn't have an overly burdensome tax system. We agree on the opinion that we should preserve the environment. We agree on the opinion that we shouldn't unnecessarily infringe on personal liberty. But when we talk about how to achieve those goals, one side has almost all bad ideas.



And you are content to ignorantly say that some people are just evil and never try to find out why some people steal the car and why some people don't.

No you didn't. You offered a biased opinion. "Some, but not many". Laughable. You obviously didn't get the point.

 

[NonConformer]

Im all for reading opposing view points but Krugman's stuff is toxic and little intellectual value

Crovax: Yours is exactly the type of attitude I'm trying to discourage.

The cold hard fact is that Krugman has quite a following. If there is a "Voice of the Left" out there, he is it. I find his writing style to be clear, direct, and very persuasive. Yes, all his arguments CAN be refuted, but it is a challenge. If you can refute Krugman, you can refute anybody!

I suspect that your comment that his stuff is "toxic and of little intellectual value" might have more to do with your inability to counter his arguments.

If you want to be a persuasive political writer, then seek out good writers, no matter WHAT side they're on, and learn what it is about their writing style that makes it popular, and then emulate it.

Oh and by the way, I've read some things written by hard-core libertarians, my own brethren, that are so poorly written that it makes me cringe.

 

[departure]

This is so reminiscent of the supply and demand argument. Isn't it obvious that both sides are necessary, to support economic maintenance and growth? Snip off the extremes and you end up closer to a realistic and sustainable capitalistic framework that benefits most.

 

[NonConformer]

Im all for reading opposing view points but Krugman's stuff is toxic and little intellectual value

Crovax: Yours is exactly the type of attitude I'm trying to discourage.

The cold hard fact is that Krugman has quite a following. If there is a "Voice of the Left" out there, he is it. I find his writing style to be clear, direct, and very persuasive. Yes, all his arguments CAN be refuted, but it is a challenge. If you can refute Krugman, you can refute anybody!

I suspect that your comment that his stuff is "toxic and of little intellectual value" might have more to do with your inability to counter his arguments.

If you want to be a persuasive political writer, then seek out good writers, no matter WHAT side they're on, and learn what it is about their writing style that makes it popular, and then emulate it.

Oh and by the way, I've read some things written by hard-core libertarians, my own brethren, that are so poorly written that it makes me cringe.

 

[Nilly]

Recently I was having a political discussion with a hard-core right-wing conservative friend, and the topic of a certain newspaper editorial came up. The piece was written by Paul Krugman, who is a hard-core left-wing liberal and avid political commentator. My conservative friend commented: "Oh, I never read his garbage - he's a moron."

This made me think how totally wrong my friend was. Not about being right-wing (a totally different subject for another day), but about avoiding opinion pieces with which he disagrees.

There is no challenge in limiting yourself to reading and listening ONLY to commentary you agree with. Part of the problem with the Internet, where each of us can tailor-fit the content to our own personal tastes, is that it makes it too easy to only visit sites written by those who think like us, and avoid the others. At least old fashioned print media (i.e. "newspapers") made somewhat of an attempt to include a diversity of opinion on their editorial pages.

Everyone interested in politics should actively seek out and read editorials written by the "other" side, for several reasons: First, because it challenges you, forces you to defend your point-of-view, and educates you to what they are thinking, and why they think that way. You say the author is a moron? Good - that makes it easy!

Secondly, it give you ammunition. Now you know ahead of time what silly arguments they will make to defend their wrong-headed ideas, and you can prepare and rehearse your arguments to refute them.

Finally, and most importantly, what if they put forth an argument you cannot refute? What if they are right and you are wrong, and in fact, HAVE been wrong all along? I cannot think of a worse situation than walking around being totally wrong about something.

You say that will never happen? Then you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by reading, studying, and contemplating what the other side has to say. Oh and remember: you want them to do the same for YOUR favorable editorials!

Good thread.

I do try to keep an open mind, and I follow a few right wing news sources, but honestly I find some of them so dishonest and hackish (looking at you Breitbart report and youngcons) that if anything they've pushed me further to the left. It might be my fault for not looking for it hard enough but I would welcome a moderate right viewpoint which doesn't, at some point, proclaim obamas suckyness. A media rife with hackishness (on both sides - the left is by no means innocent) breeds more hackishness, but it also brings in views, so I'm not sure it will change anytime soon.

The forums do a good job of mitigating this by providing some rational voices on the right, but it does also seem that even on here for every rational voice there are 2 hacks ready to step in. I would argue there are far more of those on this forum who are right wing than left.

 

[Crovax]

Crovax: Yours is exactly the type of attitude I'm trying to discourage.

The cold hard fact is that Krugman has quite a following. If there is a "Voice of the Left" out there, he is it. I find his writing style to be clear, direct, and very persuasive. Yes, all his arguments CAN be refuted, but it is a challenge. If you can refute Krugman, you can refute anybody!

I suspect that your comment that his stuff is "toxic and of little intellectual value" might have more to do with your inability to counter his arguments.

If you want to be a persuasive political writer, then seek out good writers, no matter WHAT side they're on, and learn what it is about their writing style that makes it popular, and then emulate it.

Oh and by the way, I've read some things written by hard-core libertarians, my own brethren, that are so poorly written that it makes me cringe.

Im sure you think conspiracy theories are a legitimate area of thought but when writers start to dabble in them I am going to check out

Paul Krugman Exposes Amazon Plot to Ship Right-Wing Books Faster

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It's not merely opinions. It's policy. It's conclusions based on facts about how we should govern our nation and live our lives. Those aren't mere differences of opinion. There are some conclusions that are correct and some that are wrong. Denying evolution is not a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. Denying rights to homosexuals isn't a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. Denying systematic racism against non-whites or systematic sexism isn't a mere matter of opinion, it's wrong. If you think that liberalism and conservatism have an equal amount of good and bad ideas... well, you're wrong, but unless you're making that exact assertion, then I don't see why you're disagreeing with me. We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts and reality and conclusions based on reality.

When it comes to opinions, liberals and conservatives tend to agree. We agree on the opinion that we shouldn't have an overly burdensome tax system. We agree on the opinion that we should preserve the environment. We agree on the opinion that we shouldn't unnecessarily infringe on personal liberty. But when we talk about how to achieve those goals, one side has almost all bad ideas.

Not all conservatives agree with that list. Im not saying that there isnt a alarming amount of conservatives that dont see those things as wrongs. Its true there are a lot of bad things that conservatives promote and want to do and are trying to do. Liberalism isnt without its fair share of wrongs. Obviously not that many to you. Which isnt surprising considering your position on socialism. Am I right when I assume that you dont see it as a wrong? Just think how many wrongs that you would see without that bias?

I know whats right and whats wrong. Though i admit a certain amount subjectivity it what I know as right or wrong. I can and have been swayed to think in different ways when a compelling argument is presented to me. Homosexuality for example. I was taught like most people in my generation to basically hate it and those that are gay. That worked up until I had a good friend as a kid that just happen to be gay. I have had many growing experiences where before the growth I would have sworn up and down that I was right. I stay away from groups that want to dictate what I see as right and wrong. And debate the individuals that disagree with me. Because I am right up until I am wrong. Perhaps I am wrong now, but at least I didnt follow anyone to my demise. While I respect your right to be a part of whatever grouping that you want I still wouldnt advise it as a good thing to do IMHO.

 

[Paschendale]

Not all conservatives agree with that list. Im not saying that there isnt a alarming amount of conservatives that dont see those things as wrongs. Its true there are a lot of bad things that conservatives promote and want to do and are trying to do. Liberalism isnt without its fair share of wrongs. Obviously not that many to you. Which isnt surprising considering your position on socialism. Am I right when I assume that you dont see it as a wrong? Just think how many wrongs that you would see without that bias?

Oh good, a snarky comment about socialism. That's original. No, there is nothing wrong with an economic system based on promoting the collective good rather than allowing a few individuals to control and dominate everything. If you want to discuss economic policy we can do that, but when you see that word and think of Stalin, understand that he and his government did nothing that resembles socialism at all. I think that a more egalitarian system is both necessary and ideal because I have learned a great deal. That's where the facts point. As I keep trying to explain to you, I do not have positions because of some kind of political allegiance. I have positions because of reality, and I align myself with those political ideologies that will bring about those ideal positions. I would think that anyone would attempt to do that, but the facts only actually allow for a single conclusion.

Even though many conservatives don't follow through on those three opinions in their actions, many will state that they agree with them. I don't think anyone disagrees with the proposition that we shouldn't have an unnecessarily burdensome tax system, but a person who doesn't base their ideas on reality will start contending that even a small bit of taxation is too much. This is obviously absurd. Likewise, I know of few conservatives who will argue that we shouldn't ensure that we have clean air and clean water. Many don't care if anyone else does, and many deny the science that tells us how to keep it clean, but that's ignoring the facts. That's what we shouldn't do.

I know whats right and whats wrong. Though i admit a certain amount subjectivity it what I know as right or wrong. I can and have been swayed to think in different ways when a compelling argument is presented to me. Homosexuality for example. I was taught like most people in my generation to basically hate it and those that are gay. That worked up until I had a good friend as a kid that just happen to be gay. I have had many growing experiences where before the growth I would have sworn up and down that I was right. I stay away from groups that want to dictate what I see as right and wrong. And debate the individuals that disagree with me. Because I am right up until I am wrong. Perhaps I am wrong now, but at least I didnt follow anyone to my demise. While I respect your right to be a part of whatever grouping that you want I still wouldnt advise it as a good thing to do IMHO.

So, you were taught to hate homosexuals because you knew nothing about them, and once you knew more, the truth was evident. That is my point. Reality and knowledge of it should inform our positions. Now that you know more, and had these experiences, it is plainly obvious to you that the hate is wrong. Anyone with the same knowledge that you now possess ought to reach the same conclusion, right? Knowing reality points us to a very small array of conclusions about it, the real conclusions.

Now, if you look at demographics, having more education consistently moves people towards liberalism. The more you know, the more you understand the world, the more likely you are to embrace liberal ideas. This is because they conform to reality. They are correct once you know what's going on. I urge you to learn as much as you possibly can about as many topics as you can, and let that knowledge inform your political and philosophical positions. I have little doubt that more knowledge will drive you towards liberal positions.

As the OP says, challenge yourself. Learn more. Learn more every day. Conform your positions to what you learn. I do that as often as I possibly can, and almost invariably, more knowledge leads me towards liberal positions.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Oh good, a snarky comment about socialism. That's original. No, there is nothing wrong with an economic system based on promoting the collective good rather than allowing a few individuals to control and dominate everything. If you want to discuss economic policy we can do that, but when you see that word and think of Stalin, understand that he and his government did nothing that resembles socialism at all. I think that a more egalitarian system is both necessary and ideal because I have learned a great deal. That's where the facts point. As I keep trying to explain to you, I do not have positions because of some kind of political allegiance. I have positions because of reality, and I align myself with those political ideologies that will bring about those ideal positions. I would think that anyone would attempt to do that, but the facts only actually allow for a single conclusion.

Even though many conservatives don't follow through on those three opinions in their actions, many will state that they agree with them. I don't think anyone disagrees with the proposition that we shouldn't have an unnecessarily burdensome tax system, but a person who doesn't base their ideas on reality will start contending that even a small bit of taxation is too much. This is obviously absurd. Likewise, I know of few conservatives who will argue that we shouldn't ensure that we have clean air and clean water. Many don't care if anyone else does, and many deny the science that tells us how to keep it clean, but that's ignoring the facts. That's what we shouldn't do.

I dont relate Stalin with anything but being a dictator. Socialism makes me think Karl Marx. And it wasnt snarky at all but you sure did take it that way...not my fault and no snark was intended. I asked if you saw socialism as a good, and then pointed out that some see it ass bad. Do you not realize that some people see socialism as bad? it doesnt matter why anyone see's it as bad, i was making the point that what you see as right and wrong is very subjective. And overly stating what is good and bad can become forceful and dogmatic.

So, you were taught to hate homosexuals because you knew nothing about them, and once you knew more, the truth was evident. That is my point. Reality and knowledge of it should inform our positions. Now that you know more, and had these experiences, it is plainly obvious to you that the hate is wrong. Anyone with the same knowledge that you now possess ought to reach the same conclusion, right? Knowing reality points us to a very small array of conclusions about it, the real conclusions.

Now, if you look at demographics, having more education consistently moves people towards liberalism. The more you know, the more you understand the world, the more likely you are to embrace liberal ideas. This is because they conform to reality. They are correct once you know what's going on. I urge you to learn as much as you possibly can about as many topics as you can, and let that knowledge inform your political and philosophical positions. I have little doubt that more knowledge will drive you towards liberal positions.

As the OP says, challenge yourself. Learn more. Learn more every day. Conform your positions to what you learn. I do that as often as I possibly can, and almost invariably, more knowledge leads me towards liberal positions.

I know that was your point and I was trying to show you that your own beliefs on right and wrong can change as well with new information. until then you will not believe that anything that you believe is wrong. Just like everyone else. This is why debates among people with different beliefs is a good thing. Most of the time it shows that people are not all that different. it also magnifies to yourself your own dogmas, we all have our won dogmatic positions whether we admit it or not.

I do challenge myself but the knowledge that i learn doesnt confirm a political lean, instead leads me closer to the truth. But dont take me wrong if you like having a political lean that is your thing and I would never suggest that you abandon something important to you. I might suggest though that it has a hint of confirmation bias to it though.

 

[Paschendale]

I dont relate Stalin with anything but being a dictator. Socialism makes me think Karl Marx. And it wasnt snarky at all but you sure did take it that way...not my fault and no snark was intended. I asked if you saw socialism as a good, and then pointed out that some see it ass bad. Do you not realize that some people see socialism as bad? it doesnt matter why anyone see's it as bad, i was making the point that what you see as right and wrong is very subjective. And overly stating what is good and bad can become forceful and dogmatic.

Perhaps the simplicity of your question made me expect something snarky. The vast majority of the time when anyone references my lean, it's over some kind of cold war mentality. I don't think that socialism needs to be shackled by Marx. He was good for his day, but any ideology needs to grow over time and I'm sure that he and I would disagree about a few things. I don't see right and wrong as subjective at all. Letting children starve is wrong. I don't see how that's subjective at all. Not in any real way. Maybe you can make purely academic arguments, but when it comes to how we make decisions in our lives, we shouldn't let children starve.

Yes, a lot of people see socialism as bad. A lot of people see religious liberty as bad, too. Just because an opinion is popular doesn't make it correct. Good ideas are good of their own merits, and the more we learn about the world around us and about ourselves, the more we will be able to tell the bad ideas from the good ones.

Now, your point about "dogmatic"... is it dogmatic that no one should think that the sun revolves around the Earth? Or is it simply true? I don't think that right and wrong are subjective at all. I think that knowledge can show us very easily what is right and what is wrong.

I know that was your point and I was trying to show you that your own beliefs on right and wrong can change as well with new information. until then you will not believe that anything that you believe is wrong. Just like everyone else. This is why debates among people with different beliefs is a good thing. Most of the time it shows that people are not all that different. it also magnifies to yourself your own dogmas, we all have our won dogmatic positions whether we admit it or not.

New information should alter one's beliefs. Again, on the whole, learning more leads people to liberal positions. Let's run a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose you knew everything. Literally everything. Do you think that you would hold conflicting opinions? Do you think that you would simply be able to accurately judge what was best in every scenario because you knew all the possible variables? If so, then you understand that reality, that the facts don't give rise to multiple conclusions. They only really give rise to one. As you yourself said, you used to hold the conservative view about homosexuality, and now that you know more, you hold the liberal one. This same thing will happen on nearly every single topic. Rely on those fact checkers. They won't steer you wrong.

I do challenge myself but the knowledge that i learn doesnt confirm a political lean, instead leads me closer to the truth. But dont take me wrong if you like having a political lean that is your thing and I would never suggest that you abandon something important to you. I might suggest though that it has a hint of confirmation bias to it though.

I describe myself with a political lean because that label is the closest that approximates the positions I take (though I argue a great deal with other socialists on many points). That you don't find a label that can be used as a shorthand doesn't make either of us more or less prone to bias. Knowing more information does.

 

[soot]

Now, if you look at demographics, having more education consistently moves people towards liberalism. The more you know, the more you understand the world, the more likely you are to embrace liberal ideas.

I think that's only partially correct.

When it comes to things like gender, sexuality, and racial equality I think the acculturative effect of the college experience plays a much greater role in shaping mores and values than does the educational effect.

You don't "learn" to accept homosexuals and minorities as "equals" because of something that comes out of a book.

You "learn" those things by being transplanted out of your racially/religiously/ideologically homogeneous hayseed backwater (or equally homogenous urban ghetto, as the case my be) and thrown in to a situation where you encounter people who are different than yourself every day and come to find that those people don't eat babies either.

I think there is an educational aspect to it as well, but I think that plays second fiddle by a country mile.

I think when it comes to non-social issues the "educated" are frequently as in-the-dark as the uneducated.

Let's face facts, most "educated" people don't actually study economics, finance, or foreign affairs.

I would hazard to guess that in a nation overflowing with liberal arts degrees most Americans cruise through four years of education without taking more than a basic 100 level introduction to any one of those courses of study and we could probably count on one hand the number in a hundred who take as much as a single class in all three.

Frankly, I think most "educated" people gravitate toward liberalism out of wholly selfish motives.

Liberalism promises entitlements and entitlements are something that the "educated" soak up just as readily as the uneducated.

When you come out of school strapped with loan debt and an essentially useless degree in French Renaissance Literature or Gender Studies and can't get get a job you're going to side with whichever party is promising student loan forgiveness, free healthcare insurance, and a chicken in every pot.

 

[Paschendale]

I think that's only partially correct.

When it comes to things like gender, sexuality, and racial equality I think the acculturative effect of the college experience plays a much greater role in shaping mores and values than does the educational effect.

You don't "learn" to accept homosexuals and minorities as "equals" because of something that comes out of a book.

Sure you do. You learn that by gaining the knowledge that there is no significant difference between people of different sexualities or different races. You defeat stereotypes with knowledge.

You "learn" those things by being transplanted out of your racially/religiously/ideologically homogeneous hayseed backwater (or equally homogenous urban ghetto, as the case my be) and thrown in to a situation where you encounter people who are different than yourself every day and come to find that those people don't eat babies either.

That is one of the ways to obtain knowledge. Simply interacting on the internet or seeing positive depictions on TV can have that same effect.

I think there is an educational aspect to it as well, but I think that plays second fiddle by a country mile.

I think when it comes to non-social issues the "educated" are frequently as in-the-dark as the uneducated.

Let's face facts, most "educated" people don't actually study economics, finance, or foreign affairs.

I don't know much about foreign affairs, and so don't have too many strong opinions on the subject. Most educated people (what exactly is the point you're making with all of these quotations, by the way? Are educated people not really educated? Are sexual and racial minorities not equal to straight whites?) do know more about economics than uneducated people. Education, meanwhile, is like exercise for your brain. The more you learn, the better you are at learning, and so more educated people are more likely to be knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects. I can't say that I've ever met a high school dropout, for example, who knows more about economic policy than someone with a Phd in astrophysics.

I would hazard to guess that in a nation overflowing with liberal arts degrees most Americans cruise through four years of education without taking more than a basic 100 level introduction to any one of those courses of study and we could probably count on one hand the number in a hundred who take as much as a single class in all three.

You don't need to take a class on it. You need simply learn about it.

Frankly, I think most "educated" people gravitate toward liberalism out of wholly selfish motives.

Liberalism promises entitlements and entitlements are something that the "educated" soak up just as readily as the uneducated.

If you knew more, you would know why this is nonsense.

When you come out of school strapped with loan debt and an essentially useless degree in French Renaissance Literature or Gender Studies and can't get get a job you're going to side with whichever party is promising student loan forgiveness, free healthcare insurance, and a chicken in every pot.

You do know that it is the working poor, including a whole lot of poor working conservatives, and senior citizens, who use most entitlement spending, right? No one is promising student loan forgiveness, free healthcare, or free chicken. Again, if you knew more, you would know why this is all nonsense. I think you'd also get over this cynical streak that makes you think that everyone is miserable and selfish.

 

[tres borrachos]

Recently I was having a political discussion with a hard-core right-wing conservative friend, and the topic of a certain newspaper editorial came up. The piece was written by Paul Krugman, who is a hard-core left-wing liberal and avid political commentator. My conservative friend commented: "Oh, I never read his garbage - he's a moron."

This made me think how totally wrong my friend was. Not about being right-wing (a totally different subject for another day), but about avoiding opinion pieces with which he disagrees.

There is no challenge in limiting yourself to reading and listening ONLY to commentary you agree with. Part of the problem with the Internet, where each of us can tailor-fit the content to our own personal tastes, is that it makes it too easy to only visit sites written by those who think like us, and avoid the others. At least old fashioned print media (i.e. "newspapers") made somewhat of an attempt to include a diversity of opinion on their editorial pages.

Everyone interested in politics should actively seek out and read editorials written by the "other" side, for several reasons: First, because it challenges you, forces you to defend your point-of-view, and educates you to what they are thinking, and why they think that way. You say the author is a moron? Good - that makes it easy!

Secondly, it give you ammunition. Now you know ahead of time what silly arguments they will make to defend their wrong-headed ideas, and you can prepare and rehearse your arguments to refute them.

Finally, and most importantly, what if they put forth an argument you cannot refute? What if they are right and you are wrong, and in fact, HAVE been wrong all along? I cannot think of a worse situation than walking around being totally wrong about something.

You say that will never happen? Then you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by reading, studying, and contemplating what the other side has to say. Oh and remember: you want them to do the same for YOUR favorable editorials!

I'm sorry. I've read a lot of Krugman, too much Krugman - and he is a moron.

But I agree with your post and that's exactly what I do. I do it here, too. I actually enjoy reading the opposition posts more than the ones that agree with me much of the time. I respect that people have a different opinion. I may not agree with it, but I'll look at it. That's how we all learn.

 

[NonConformer]

If you knew more, you would know why this is nonsense.

Paschendale,

In my original post, I implored all who are interested in politics to try and understand what [your adversary] is thinking, and why they think that way. In other words, you need to "get inside their head." Know thine enemy!

Having read your replies (on this thread and others), I must conclude that you don't do that. If you disagree with a post (and ALL of us disagree with posts at some time or other), rather than attempt to understand, you just ... nitpick. Face it, ANY post can be nit-picked, even the truly excellent material written by moi!

But nitpicking is not debating. True debating is much tougher; you must digest, analyze, and compose an elegant rebuttal that will draw readers and challenge your adversary!

 

[maxparrish]

Crovax: Yours is exactly the type of attitude I'm trying to discourage.

The cold hard fact is that Krugman has quite a following. If there is a "Voice of the Left" out there, he is it. I find his writing style to be clear, direct, and very persuasive. Yes, all his arguments CAN be refuted, but it is a challenge. If you can refute Krugman, you can refute anybody!

I suspect that your comment that his stuff is "toxic and of little intellectual value" might have more to do with your inability to counter his arguments.

If you want to be a persuasive political writer, then seek out good writers, no matter WHAT side they're on, and learn what it is about their writing style that makes it popular, and then emulate it.

Oh and by the way, I've read some things written by hard-core libertarians, my own brethren, that are so poorly written that it makes me cringe.

NonConformer, there is nothing wrong with encouraging those on the right to familiarize themselves with the writings of those on the left but in my experience, among those who consider themselves politically left, erudite and worldly (as opposed to the trailer park residents), the ignorance of the right's intellectual writing is far more pervasive.

I will hear lots of bilge; someone will be mouthing Krugman's latest sniffing and mocking and then that same nabob will be absolutely clueless that other economists stature such as Mankiw, Cochrane, Taylor, Murphy or Cowin have shown Krugman to be more than uncivil and wrong, but also routinely dishonest in his characterizations of his opponents opinions and his own writings.

Nothing Sowell writes is uncivil, snide, demeaning, or crazy - yet the left rarely reads him. On the other hand, Krugman (and to a lessor extent Delong) are unable to express good faith or civility towards those they oppose.

So why should any of us plow through that (I read both for awhile...till the bile factor overwhelmed)? If you can't trust someone to even present the background honestly, you are wasting your time.

But if you tell folks to read Krugman (et. al.), then I would tell them to read his peer critics...( and if you are not familiar with his peer critics then it would seem that the left has been successful in it's campaign to pretend there is not point in looking for credible opposition).

By the way, if you are comparing his economic writing to that of ordinary libertarian opinion writing by lay folk then it is false equivalence.

 

[imagep]

From a outsiders point of view (I am neither left or right) The chanting is equal between the left and right on this site. I understand your bias since you lean left, but reality is reality and ones leanings doesnt make you more of an ass than any other leaning. Perhaps you are blinded by your own bias? Shall we go over what Liberals have to say about "Teabaggers"? Or should we reminisce about George w Bush being president and him being Hitler? Man those were the days.... Or we could talk about Walker that should be fun. Palin?

It has always seemed to me that there are slightly more liberals than conservatives on DP, but that the conservatives, particularly the tea party and libertarian types, seem to be less likely to modify their position, and far more likely to be insulting.

Both the right and the left tend to seek confirmation bias and tend to link only to bias publications.

 

[joG]

It has always seemed to me that there are slightly more liberals than conservatives on DP, but that the conservatives, particularly the tea party and libertarian types, seem to be less likely to modify their position, and far more likely to be insulting.

Both the right and the left tend to seek confirmation bias and tend to link only to bias publications.

Talking about insulting. ... From what you say you must be one of those conservative types.

 

[imagep]

This is so reminiscent of the supply and demand argument. Isn't it obvious that both sides are necessary, to support economic maintenance and growth? Snip off the extremes and you end up closer to a realistic and sustainable capitalistic framework that benefits most.

Exactly.

And welcome to DP!!!

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Perhaps the simplicity of your question made me expect something snarky. The vast majority of the time when anyone references my lean, it's over some kind of cold war mentality. I don't think that socialism needs to be shackled by Marx. He was good for his day, but any ideology needs to grow over time and I'm sure that he and I would disagree about a few things. I don't see right and wrong as subjective at all. Letting children starve is wrong. I don't see how that's subjective at all. Not in any real way. Maybe you can make purely academic arguments, but when it comes to how we make decisions in our lives, we shouldn't let children starve.

Yes, a lot of people see socialism as bad. A lot of people see religious liberty as bad, too. Just because an opinion is popular doesn't make it correct. Good ideas are good of their own merits, and the more we learn about the world around us and about ourselves, the more we will be able to tell the bad ideas from the good ones.

Now, your point about "dogmatic"... is it dogmatic that no one should think that the sun revolves around the Earth? Or is it simply true? I don't think that right and wrong are subjective at all. I think that knowledge can show us very easily what is right and what is wrong.

Of course we shouldnt let children starve. I agree but the logistics of stopping all children from starving becomes to big of a task for one person. It then takes team work to achieve the goal of feeding all of the starving children. Thats where things breakdown. And its also why there are starving children in the first place. You and I see feeding starving children as very high priority. Not counting nut jobs everyone shares this concern for children. But starving isnt the only problem that some kids face. Some kids are sexually exploited. I would put a higher value in ending sexual exploitation of children over feeding the starving children. Not that it would lesson my resolve to make sure that starving children eat. But its clear that the level of importance will be subjective depending on many factors for different people. Of course you are still right starving children will always be objectively wrong.

I dont like socialism, I dont support it I dont think that its a solution. I dont really have any respect for Marx or any modern socialist philosophers. Im not telling you this to provoke you.
I have read a lot of your posts, many I have agreed with. I value just about everyones opinion especially when it challenges my own opinions. I dont feel threatened by socialists or libertarians. I would rather be able to discuss matters with someone and learn from then instead of having conflict. I dont look at a ideology and think the individual or group has zero to contribute because I dont like maybe even most of what that ideology promotes. Its because we have to all live together no matter what I dislike about some ideology. We are all at the table and there isnt anything that we can do to change that dynamic.

New information should alter one's beliefs. Again, on the whole, learning more leads people to liberal positions. Let's run a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose you knew everything. Literally everything. Do you think that you would hold conflicting opinions? Do you think that you would simply be able to accurately judge what was best in every scenario because you knew all the possible variables? If so, then you understand that reality, that the facts don't give rise to multiple conclusions. They only really give rise to one. As you yourself said, you used to hold the conservative view about homosexuality, and now that you know more, you hold the liberal one. This same thing will happen on nearly every single topic. Rely on those fact checkers. They won't steer you wrong.

I wouldnt call my previous view of homosexuality as being conservative, it was sexual bigotry at its worst. It had nothing to do with a conservative point of view. I am not a reformed conservative because I was never one to start out with.

Anyways I havent been denying that there are truths. There is the right way and the wrong way. But there are somethings that are subjective (not everything). And some things we think are right but in reality they are wrong. I was wrong about homosexuality. But I thought that I was right until I proved wrong. Its because no one knows everything and that means that we are wrong more than we like to admit. You and I are wrong about many things as we speak. Perhaps we will be able to learn what we are wrong about. Hopefully before its too late on any of those subjects where we are wrong.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I describe myself with a political lean because that label is the closest that approximates the positions I take (though I argue a great deal with other socialists on many points). That you don't find a label that can be used as a shorthand doesn't make either of us more or less prone to bias. Knowing more information does.

oh I know I have my biases, I try to understand those biases and not let them get carried away but I fail just like any other human. You nailed it though more information makes the world a better place. But we have to also try to understand that information.

I never obtained a lean because every lean that I learned about has its restrictive structure. I used to say I was a Independent but I finally admitted that what I considered independent wasnt the reality of what that lean actually means. I thought I could use it to mean that my lean was independent of all the other leans. Not that I was moderate or center or a hiding republican or the tea party stealing yet another lean.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It has always seemed to me that there are slightly more liberals than conservatives on DP, but that the conservatives, particularly the tea party and libertarian types, seem to be less likely to modify their position, and far more likely to be insulting.

Both the right and the left tend to seek confirmation bias and tend to link only to bias publications.

I dont agree at all since I have seen both side get nasty. I have been called names by just as many on the left as on the right. Sometimes in the same thread I get accused of being left and right. They are so used to assuming that if anyone disagrees with you that you are their usual opposite. Sometimes I dont think some posters actually read posts they just automatically parrot some hyper partisan position.

 

[Paschendale]

Of course we shouldnt let children starve. I agree but the logistics of stopping all children from starving becomes to big of a task for one person. It then takes team work to achieve the goal of feeding all of the starving children. Thats where things breakdown. And its also why there are starving children in the first place.

You think that teamwork is inherently detrimental to solving problems? That's the hallmark of representative and democratic government. You would prefer a monarchy? I don't get your point here.

You and I see feeding starving children as very high priority. Not counting nut jobs everyone shares this concern for children. But starving isnt the only problem that some kids face. Some kids are sexually exploited. I would put a higher value in ending sexual exploitation of children over feeding the starving children. Not that it would lesson my resolve to make sure that starving children eat. But its clear that the level of importance will be subjective depending on many factors for different people. Of course you are still right starving children will always be objectively wrong.

Why does solving one problem mean not solving another? That makes no sense. The "level of importance" doesn't matter. What problems you have the means to solve is really the only deciding factor. I don't know a way to stop or even diminish the sexual exploitation of children. I do know ways to stop or at least vastly lessen starvation. Again, I don't get your point.

I dont like socialism, I dont support it I dont think that its a solution. I dont really have any respect for Marx or any modern socialist philosophers. Im not telling you this to provoke you.

I'd like to hear what about you disagree with. I think that a more egalitarian system is both necessary and inevitable in this century.

I have read a lot of your posts, many I have agreed with.

Thanks.

I value just about everyones opinion especially when it challenges my own opinions. I dont feel threatened by socialists or libertarians. I would rather be able to discuss matters with someone and learn from then instead of having conflict. I dont look at a ideology and think the individual or group has zero to contribute because I dont like maybe even most of what that ideology promotes. Its because we have to all live together no matter what I dislike about some ideology. We are all at the table and there isnt anything that we can do to change that dynamic.

Again, not sure what your point is. A bad idea is bad on its own, not because of where it originates. The lean or political orientation of an idea doesn't make it bad. But the concentration of bad ideas and a lack of good ideas in a political ideology makes that ideology bad.

I wouldnt call my previous view of homosexuality as being conservative, it was sexual bigotry at its worst. It had nothing to do with a conservative point of view. I am not a reformed conservative because I was never one to start out with.

Again, shorthand. It's a view held much more by conservatives than liberals. My point stands, though, that some views stem from ignorance and some views stem from knowledge. The latter are objectively better.

Anyways I havent been denying that there are truths. There is the right way and the wrong way. But there are somethings that are subjective (not everything). And some things we think are right but in reality they are wrong. I was wrong about homosexuality. But I thought that I was right until I proved wrong. Its because no one knows everything and that means that we are wrong more than we like to admit. You and I are wrong about many things as we speak. Perhaps we will be able to learn what we are wrong about. Hopefully before its too late on any of those subjects where we are wrong.

Again, I'm not really sure I get your point. An idea is wrong or right regardless of whether you think it is. Opinion doesn't determine reality. And the way you make sure that your positions are right and not wrong is through knowledge and education.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You think that teamwork is inherently detrimental to solving problems? That's the hallmark of representative and democratic government. You would prefer a monarchy? I don't get your point here.

I think that all kids should not starve. I dont have the resources to stop that starvation on my own. It takes teamwork to achieve the goal. The problem is that our team doesnt agree on a method. Some extremely dont agree meanwhile not enough gets done. That isnt calling for a monarchy it is recognizing limitations in the real world.

Why does solving one problem mean not solving another? That makes no sense. The "level of importance" doesn't matter. What problems you have the means to solve is really the only deciding factor. I don't know a way to stop or even diminish the sexual exploitation of children. I do know ways to stop or at least vastly lessen starvation. Again, I don't get your point.

Because the problem are vast and complicated it is impossible to fix them all at once. Choices have to be made as to what is more important and must be done first.

People disagree with methods and importance making the need to make a wrong a right subjective. ANd there is a difference between moral rights and wrongs and and things in nature like the laws of physics. One can be subjective depending on the beliefs and opinions of the observer (though I agree that certain rights and wrongs are innate I dont have the evidence that they are). Ether way the importance of the rights and wrongs is entirely subjective. But there are laws in nature that are not and cannot be subjective.

I'd like to hear what about you disagree with. I think that a more egalitarian system is both necessary and inevitable in this century.

All people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Most people will agree with that. But in socialism there are too many assumptions that are made about the best way of doing that. And socialists are very intolerant of any other ideas that dont adhere at least mostly with socialism. It must be some form of socialism and there is no room for anything else. And then they go on about how bad everything else is. If America was to scrape our current traditional systems, why not create something that isnt rejected by many people whether they are right or wrong for rejecting it? Why cant we mine the good things from everything available (much like the people who wrote the Constitution did?)

But socialism asserts itself as the only morally objective solution while totally ignoring the fact that there will never be a consensuses of a population that agrees. There will always be people on the right no matter how much the left wants them to disappear or convert. Socialism is on the left and always has been and always will be. There is nothing equal about forcing people to lean your direction because you are intolerant of anything on the right. Socialism aims to dictate and oppress the right. I cant support something that is oppressive to human nature. There are biological causes for leaning left or right so we cannot expect to make everyone lean one direction.

Again, not sure what your point is. A bad idea is bad on its own, not because of where it originates. The lean or political orientation of an idea doesn't make it bad. But the concentration of bad ideas and a lack of good ideas in a political ideology makes that ideology bad.



Again, shorthand. It's a view held much more by conservatives than liberals. My point stands, though, that some views stem from ignorance and some views stem from knowledge. The latter are objectively better.



Again, I'm not really sure I get your point. An idea is wrong or right regardless of whether you think it is. Opinion doesn't determine reality. And the way you make sure that your positions are right and not wrong is through knowledge and education.

Why is your opinion of right and wrong objective and not subjective? Think about it, as you say reality is reality no matter our opinions. Are you actually right on everything? No you cannot be right about everything because you dont know everything. So something that you think is right is wrong. What is it? That doubt is subjectivity. i was convinced that I was objectively right about homosexuality up until I learned that I was wrong. Am I completely right now? I dont really know. I think I am its my opinion that I am right. But is there objective evidence that I am right? Who gets to decide such things are right or wrong?

Our fellow animals eat one another to survive. We eat other animals. Baby animals are ate by other animals. IS that wrong? Should we also stop other young animals starvation? Dont forget that reality dictates that we are indeed animals. According to your opinion then it is wrong that all young animals starve. There really is nothing that divides us on this matter.