Right VS LEFT

[Paschendale]

Moderator's Warning:

Try and at least stay close to the topic, which is not other posters.

Does that topic include the near-universal acceptance of copious amounts of pre-marital sex? Because I like that topic.

 

[Xerographica]

Political ideology isn't black or white...or in this case...red or blue. It's a spectrum...or continuum. Here are a couple of my political ideology charts...

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I agree it's an over-simplification. It deals, it seems, with the one-dimensional political scale and doesn't really seem to deal with the libertarian/authoritarian (which can be attributes of either leftist or right-wing leans) at all. This is shown by, for example, how it says the left wants to interfere with social lives and the right does not. Well... that's not necessarily true. Either side can want either of those things, depending on their libertarian/authoritarian lean. I'm a progressive liberal and I am in support of absolutely no interference with people's personal lives at all (assuming consent of all parties). And there are lots and lots of liberals who feel that way. It's an area which liberalism alone has no stance on, which is where the second axis of the political graph comes into play.

But, then again, our current political media is over-simplified. And in that sense, I suppose it's accurate of the social political mood we currently find ourselves in.

 

[Catawba]

Could it be that brain structure determines liberal/conservative tendencies?

New research seems to point to that possibility:

"A new study suggests individuals who call themselves liberals are more likely to have brains that have a larger anterior cingulate cortex while conservatives have larger amygdalas.

According to what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with some reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat."


"Kanai said his study was prompted by reports from others showing greater anterior cingulate cortex response to conflicting information among liberals.

“That was the first neuroscientific evidence for biological differences between liberals and conservatives,” he explained.

Prior research has suggested that conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences."

Liberal, Conservative Related to Different Brain Structures | Psych Central News

 

[Paschendale]

I remember reading on Cracked at one point that the strongest indicator for a person being conservative was simply a strong dislike of being told what to do. The credentials of the authority or the merit of the idea don't even factor into it.

 

[rathi]

Could it be that brain structure determines liberal/conservative tendencies?

New research seems to point to that possibility:

"A new study suggests individuals who call themselves liberals are more likely to have brains that have a larger anterior cingulate cortex while conservatives have larger amygdalas.

According to what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with some reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat."


"Kanai said his study was prompted by reports from others showing greater anterior cingulate cortex response to conflicting information among liberals.

“That was the first neuroscientific evidence for biological differences between liberals and conservatives,” he explained.

Prior research has suggested that conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences."

Liberal, Conservative Related to Different Brain Structures | Psych Central News

No. Those sorts of studies are an insult to the scientific method. You can't take a completely subjective political definition, correlate it with some random brain functions and pretend you have causal relationship. You'd think the idiots would understand the irony of engaging in confirmation bias.

 

[Red Flag]

Political ideology isn't black or white...or in this case...red or blue. It's a spectrum...or continuum. Here are a couple of my political ideology charts...

Again, those are very flawed for the same reason.

Let's take, for instance, 'family values'

Let's take two strong conservatives. Both abhor homosexuality and interracial relations. Both believe children should be reared in strong religious environments and taught 'traditional values'. Both believe America is strongest as a White Christian,

Here's the difference: One believes that the gov't should only recognize heterosexual marriages between persons of the same race, that religious schools should be able to receive the same funding as any other school, and that we should have caps on immigration from various regions of the world and enforce strict segregation.

The other believes that the State should stay out of marriage, which is a holy union that belongs to God and the Church (but only the marriages HIS church performs are real marriages), the government should butt out of education entirely and let the market handle it, and that it should be up to businesses and communities to decide whom to let in.

Both are far right, but there's a key difference: the first, being an authoritarian, believes in 'big government', while the second is a more libertarian, advocating 'small government', individual action and market-based solutions to the ills he perceives.

Oh, and a third man is a 'true' conservative, advocating the restoration of the glorious English Empire.

All three are conservatives by definition- they favour the status quo or the status quo ante. The first two are both clearly strong social conservatives. The diffference is authoritarianism versus libertarianism, which exists on a separate and distinct scale from social (or, for that matter fiscal, which is a third axis) conservatism or 'liberalism'.

Libertines, for instance, are quite definitely social and fiscal liberals, but they could also be called libertarian insomuch as they don't want the gov't (or any other institution, for that matter) telling people what they may or may not (or must or must not) do.

So, as you can see, there are clearly not less than three distinct axes: fiscal conservatism vs fiscal liberalism, social conservatism versus social liberalism, and authoritarianism versus libertarianism.

Any attempted graph which lacks any of these is incomplete, and any that contain only a single axis will necessarily be so flawed as to be effectively meaningless, as you cannot combine these axes into a single without making unjustified assumptions about what positions will necessarily be found together and making unfounded assertions about a false correlation between libertarianism or authoritarianism and other views where this is clearly room for (and in fact, is to be found) a wide variety of views regarding government's role in these various matters.

 

[Catawba]

I remember reading on Cracked at one point that the strongest indicator for a person being conservative was simply a strong dislike of being told what to do. The credentials of the authority or the merit of the idea don't even factor into it.

I would be surprised since the right seems the most into the authoritative/disciplined style. A couple of examples come to mind: every single Republican congressman accepting the same "no new taxes" pledge; and almost unanimous support for the Iraq war.

 

[Red Flag]

I remember reading on Cracked at one point that the strongest indicator for a person being conservative was simply a strong dislike of being told what to do. The credentials of the authority or the merit of the idea don't even factor into it.

The obvious flaw with such an assertion is that many social conservatives are religious individuals who surrender their conscience and free will to the authority of the church and 'god'. What greater manifestation can there be of the desire to be told what to do than to demand to be told the will and commandments of an infallible deity which is to not be questioned and which can never be wrong?

 

[Red Flag]

I would be surprised since the right seems the most into the authoritative/disciplined style.

What of the authoritarian collectivists? You know, the Stalinist, those who want to ban transfats and ban smoking, those who want to collectivize industry and the means of production and have a centrally governed economy where the government tells you what to make...?

A couple of examples come to mind: every single Republican congressman accepting the same "no new taxes" pledge

How is that authoritarian or authoritative'? Also, you realize those mean two very different things, right?

 

[Catawba]

No. Those sorts of studies are an insult to the scientific method. You can't take a completely subjective political definition, correlate it with some random brain functions and pretend you have causal relationship. You'd think the idiots would understand the irony of engaging in confirmation bias.

Perhaps assigning political definitions is going beyond the results but it seems perfectly feasible at least that some brains are better at coping with conflicting information and some have more anxiety regarding perceived threats.

 

[Catawba]

What of the authoritarian collectivists? You know, the Stalinist, those who want to ban transfats and ban smoking, those who want to collectivize industry and the means of production and have a centrally governed economy where the government tells you what to make...?

I was not aware that being a health nut put one in the Stalinist camp. You should have a discussion with Turtledude who believes all our forefathers of the last 80 years were socialists.

How is that authoritarian or authoritative'? Also, you realize those mean two very different things, right?

You don't see how the GOP party voting as their leadership commands to be an example of being accepting of authoritarian command?

 

[TurtleDude]

I was not aware that being a health nut put one in the Stalinist camp. You should have a discussion with Turtledude who believes all our forefathers of the last 80 years were socialists.



You don't see how the GOP party voting as their leadership commands to be an example of being accepting of authoritarian command?

stop your lying

of course those you consider forefathers are probably all socialists

 

[Paschendale]

The obvious flaw with such an assertion is that many social conservatives are religious individuals who surrender their conscience and free will to the authority of the church and 'god'. What greater manifestation can there be of the desire to be told what to do than to demand to be told the will and commandments of an infallible deity which is to not be questioned and which can never be wrong?

Yeah, that contradiction always confuses me. Many who assert that they want freedom to live how they want, and not to be subject to a "nanny" government, also want to be subject to the whims of an all powerful dictator who they have complete faith in, and essentially want to place ultimate responsibility in the hands of a father figure.

Not really sure how that works.

 

[Red Flag]

I was not aware that being a health nut put one in the Stalinist camp.

Nobody said it did; you're being disingenuous.

Several different authoritarian groups were listed, which made clear the obvious flaw with an assertion such as you featured in your post.

You don't see how the GOP party voting as their leadership commands to be an example of being accepting of authoritarian command?

Only if you can show they did so specifically because they were told to and not because they all agreed with idea or all felt it was a good political move.

Of course, we simply show that most Democrats voted for the HCR bill and levy the same charges you just did and it becomes clear you've nothing to contribute but cheap and baseless charges levied toward the GOP in a thread that's not about any political party. This thread was about the difference between Left and Right and has evolved to be about the various axes of the political spectrum and the fallacy of oversimplification in politics.

It wasn't about any political party until, seemingly acting as a political hack, decided to try to turn this into a partisan thread by seeking to continue the same fallacious oversimplification and broadbrushing this thread has been highlighting and criticizing.

There are plenty of threads about the problems with each party and you're definitely welcome to make another. That, however, is not what this thread is about- so if that's you have to contribute, please tell me now so I can add you to the ignore list so I don't waste any more time reading your posts in this thread. eace

 

[Catawba]

stop your lying

of course those you consider forefathers are probably all socialists

It is what you have claimed. That those that support a progressive tax are socialists. Our forefathers of the last 80 years have supported progressive taxes. Thus by your belief system, our forefathers were socialists.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is what you have claimed. That those that support a progressive tax are socialists. Our forefathers of the last 80 years have supported progressive taxes. Thus by your belief system, our forefathers were socialists.

you are confused

there are those who love progressive taxes and there are those who understand that years of that abomination means direct opposition to robbing Peter to pay a plethora of Pauls will cost them elections

 

[Red Flag]

It is what you have claimed. That those that support a progressive tax are socialists. Our forefathers of the last 80 years have supported progressive taxes. Thus by your belief system, our forefathers were socialists.

In common political parlance, methinks most people today would think 'forefathers' referred to beyond the last 80 years- like antebellum or even the Founding Fathers. Given this, while not technically inaccurate, using 'forefathers' today to refer to more recent generations seems to me to be somewhat misleading.

 

[Catawba]

Nobody said it did; you're being disingenuous.

You most certainly did list those that would ban trans fat and smoking as Stalinists.

Several different authoritarian groups were listed, which made clear the obvious flaw with an assertion such as you featured in your post.

Those that would ban trans fat and smoking are the only examples in this country that are real and not the product of an active imagination.

Only if you can show they did so specifically because they were told to and not because they all agreed with idea or all felt it was a good political move.

Yeah, right!

 

[U.S. Socialist.]

It is what you have claimed. That those that support a progressive tax are socialists. Our forefathers of the last 80 years have supported progressive taxes. Thus by your belief system, our forefathers were socialists.

Of course they were. Don't you know Eisenhower was a secret commie?

 

[Catawba]

you are confused

there are those who love progressive taxes and there are those who understand that years of that abomination means direct opposition to robbing Peter to pay a plethora of Pauls will cost them elections

I believe the term you constantly use is Socialist, is it not? Do I need to post the many times you have made this declaration?

 

[Red Flag]

You most certainly did list those that would ban trans fat and smoking as Stalinists.

Either your reading skills are failing you or you are being purposely obtuse and deliberately misreading what was posted

Those that would ban trans fat and smoking are the only examples in this country that are real and not the product of an active imagination.

 

[TurtleDude]

I believe the term you constantly use is Socialist, is it not? Do I need to post the many times you have made this declaration?

socialist tendencies or incremental socialism

 

[Catawba]

In common political parlance, methinks most people today would think 'forefathers' referred to beyond the last 80 years- like antebellum or even the Founding Fathers. Given this, while not technically inaccurate, using 'forefathers' today to refer to more recent generations seems to me to be somewhat misleading.

Anyone that I care to discuss the topic with knows that forefathers means our ancestors, those that came before us.

 

[TurtleDude]

Either your reading skills are failing you or you are being purposely obtuse and deliberately misreading what was posted

maxine the meathead waters is one of the worst POSs in US Congressional history. She justified the Reginald Denny beating by black rioters in the post Rodney King anarchy