What is the best political direction?

[dimreepr]

Quote

 

I don't want to discuss "that". It's not about atheism. It's about the rise of a global far right movement, which includes hawks, authoritarians, extreme nationalists, science deniers, anti-vaxxers and white supremacists. Every one of those groups tries to block legislation that would mitigate climate change, reduce harmful emissions, help developing nations and expand reproductive freedom. The only point about religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, that's relevant to this subject is that they have been very strong proponents of population growth. 

My question to you above was not about religion, either. It was about political direction. I understand forward and backward

 

@Peterkin

I'm guessing you're understanding of "forward and backward" is, forward = good and backward = bad; my point is one leads to the other and the most productive part of the political pendulums swing is in the change of direction.

George Orwell had a lot to say on the subject, as did most religion's. It doesn't matter where we learn the lesson, just that we're open to be taught.

[Peterkin]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing you're understanding of "forward and backward" is, forward = good and backward = bad;

Not good or bad, simply the direction of time. There have been what I consider to be better and worse periods in the history of every civilization. My personal standard of better and worse is based on several factors, including individual happiness, collective tolerance, legal fairness and intellectual enlightenment. In the modern European civilization - counted roughly from the dissolution of the Roman Empire to the present - there have been some very dark times. I count the Middle Ages (c900-1400AD) as the least happy, least tolerant, least just and least enlightened period of European history.  Forward from there was the Renaissance, overlapping the period of rapacious imperialism, followed by the romantic/industrial age and the modern era with its world wars and world economics. Progress (according to my value system) has been uneven during those periods, with many regressions and digressions and regional anomalies - but there has been much progress.

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

my point is one leads to the other and the most productive part of the political pendulums swing is in the change of direction.

What is the pendulum producing?

I know I'm missing the point, as usual: you make it so easy!

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It doesn't matter where we learn the lesson, just that we're open to be taught.

What is the lesson about?  

Edited September 29, 2021 by Peterkin
left out words

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What is the pendulum producing?

Well, in America it produced a constitution, in Russia it produced communism, in Rome it produced a religion.

That they were later corrupted doesn't = backwards...

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What is the lesson about?

Intellectual enlightenment.

[Peterkin]

So, you mean that the coming dark age will produce something wonderful that will thereafter be corrupted? You may well be right. 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the most productive part of the political pendulums swing is in the change of direction.

A very perceptive observation, except I would not make it such an absolute statement, ie suggest

A particularly productive part of the political pendulums swing is in the change of direction.

+1

Quote

What is the best political direction?

I vote contemptuous.

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, you mean that the coming dark age will produce something wonderful that will thereafter be corrupted? You may well be right. 

No, I mean you're proving my point; the pendulum doesn't change direction because of fear, it does so because of need.

It's fear that corrupts that need; for instance what dark age?

We can only speculate about what happens tomorrow.

We can only deal with what happens today.

We can only learn from what happened yesterday. 

At this point in time, we could do with communism/religion/constitution, to fulfill our need's today and reduce the fear of tomorrow, without Napoleon whispering in our ears. 

18 hours ago, studiot said:

A particularly productive part of the political pendulums swing is in the change of direction.

Indeed +1

Some great changes/amendments happen when the swing approaches the middle. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We can only speculate about what happens tomorrow.

We can only deal with what happens today.

We can only learn from what happened yesterday. 

You speak with the tongue of oracle. I am unworthy to gainsay an oracle.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You speak with the tongue of oracle. I am not worthy to gainsay an oracle.

But you could ask why?

Besides, I didn't vote for you...

[Peterkin]

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But you could ask why?

I have done - to little avail, merely proving the point I had missed.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I have done, to little avail.

You can't play catch...

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

You can't play catch...

I'm too pretty

[Peterkin]

I like Borgen. It comes with subtitles.

[beecee]

I typed in "what is the best political direction" and got this.........."Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".

It's rather funny, that I, personally, probably have some of all those 14 charecterisations...what does that make me? I reasoned that this would put me as moderate or centralist. So I decided to check further as to what defines a centralist and came up with this..."Centrism is a political outlook or position that involves acceptance and/or support of a balance of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right."

Yet I campaigned strongly for Australia's first Labor Prime Minister in 23 years in 1972....so I obviously did not oppose a shift of society to the left as defined in the above. 😛So what am I?

Reminds me of a time in the late sixities when I was a union delegate and worked for a chemical company. We were after better wages and conditions, and to support that, meant a prolonged five week strike. Finally we achieved much of our goal, and a recommendation was made for a return to work with the new found conditions. On that day I was confronted by one of my members and called a rotten little commie bastard for having cost him 5 weeks wages. On the same day that afternoon, after the return to work, I was confronted by another member and called a lousy f&^%$#* bosses stooge for supporting a recommendation to return to work. I went home that day, content that I had done a reasonable job. 😊

Edited September 30, 2021 by beecee

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

"You speak with the tongue of oracle. I am unworthy to gainsay an oracle."

I like your style. Intelligent and gentle replies.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I like Borgen. It comes with subtitles.

When you read dimreepr's posts, you badly need the Universal Translator from Star Trek...

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I mean you're proving my point; the pendulum doesn't change direction because of fear, it does so because of need.

It's fear that corrupts that need; for instance what dark age?

Fear does have a bearing on results. The two main political parties in Australia are the left of centre Labor party, and the right of centre Liberal/National coalition party. We had the Liberal party coalition in power for 23 years, mainly due to the fear that a Labor party was pro-communist, and the general "red under every bed" politics of fear that the Liberals were pushing, and which society swallowed.

It was fear that prevented change...much needed change that came in 1972...change that is now universaly accepted by the general populace, but which the Liberals still do there best to dismantle.eg: our universal health care system.

Edited September 30, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You speak with the tongue of oracle. I am unworthy to gainsay an oracle.

There's nothing special about an oracle, they don't see the future, they just read the past, apply it today and form a hypothesis about what 'might' happen tomorrow; it's basic science anyone can do it. 

But you're right gainsay is no sort of argument, neither is ridicule. 

14 hours ago, beecee said:

It's rather funny, that I, personally, probably have some of all those 14 charecterisations...what does that make me? I reasoned that this would put me as moderate or centralist. So I decided to check further as to what defines a centralist and came up with this..."Centrism is a political outlook or position that involves acceptance and/or support of a balance of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right."

It takes one to know one...

In order to maintain the center we need both sides 'to be in true opposition' not a slavish adherence to the party line; good people exist on every part of the spectrum.

14 hours ago, Sensei said:

When you read dimreepr's posts, you badly need the Universal Translator from Star Trek...

On occasion you do, I admit; perhaps you can help with that, write me a program that can tell, when my friend with a JD pays a visit and stops my computer posting the rambling's of drunken friend's. 

 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 It takes one to know one...

In order to maintain the center we need both sides 'to be in true opposition' not a slavish adherence to the party line;

But true opposition, or sometimes opposition for opposition's sake, is more often then not, simply a slavish adherence to the party line. Something I never have been.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

good people exist on every part of the spectrum.

Yes, as do bad people.

Edited October 1, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

But true opposition, or sometimes opposition for opposition's sake, is more often then not, simply a slavish adherence to the party line. Something I never have been.

Yes, as do bad people.

True opposition is about filtering out bad ideas and recognising good ideas, whatever end of the table one sits. 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Something I never have been.

You've never had a bad idea???

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

True opposition is about filtering out bad ideas and recognising good ideas, whatever end of the table one sits. 

That does nothing to invalidate the possibility that many simply hold  a slavish adherence to the party line.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You've never had a bad idea???

As usual you in an effort to appear philosophical, have read me wrong. "I don't have a slavish adherence to any party line" was what I was answering.

Edited October 2, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

That does nothing to invalidate the possibility that many simply hold  a slavish adherence to the party line.

Of course they do, otherwise the pendulum would never swing and we'd be living in an ideal world.

10 hours ago, beecee said:

As usual you in an effort to appear philosophical, have read me wrong. "I don't have a slavish adherence to any party line" was what I was answering.

That's all in your mind, not mine; as usual I just asked a question.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course they do, otherwise the pendulum would never swing and we'd be living in an ideal world.

I'm not sure what you are reading or how you are applying your interpretation, but I suggest you read it again. Tell me of your ideal world? I've hear similar before and while possibly ideal, certainly not realistic.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's all in your mind, not mine; as usual I just asked a question.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to comment on your cryptic style, but again, no I do not adhere slavishly [your word] to any  particular doctrine or party line. I base it all on their merits in benefiting mankind the best. What about yourself?

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm not sure what you are reading or how you are applying your interpretation, but I suggest you read it again.

May I suggest you do the same.

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Tell me of your ideal world? I've hear similar before and while possibly ideal, certainly not realistic.

The point of a balanced parliament is to filter ideas, both good and bad, a slavish adherence to the party line unbalanced that process allowing ideas to go through unscrutinised, the more extreme the imbalance the more likely the idea's are bad.

You keep saying I'm not realistic, despite the examples of previous societies that have achieved it; in this case I have cited the original American constitution and I offer the many subsequent amendments as proof; the fact that an amendment is no longer possible, is not proof that the idea is "certainly not realistic".

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to comment on your cryptic style

That maybe so but it's not a reason to dismiss my arguments, it's just a good excuse to not answer my question's.

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

no I do not adhere slavishly [your word] to any  particular doctrine or party line. I base it all on their merits in benefiting mankind the best. What about yourself?

Yet you defend scientists with all the zeal of a priest.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

May I suggest you do the same.

I do.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The point of a balanced parliament is to filter ideas, both good and bad, a slavish adherence to the party line unbalanced that process allowing ideas to go through unscrutinised, the more extreme the imbalance the more likely the idea's are bad.

But that slavish adherence to the party line does exist, is all I am saying.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You keep saying I'm not realistic, despite the examples of previous societies that have achieved it; in this case I have cited the original American constitution and I offer the many subsequent amendments as proof; the fact that an amendment is no longer possible, is not proof that the idea is "certainly not realistic".

Certainly on some issues you are not realistic, but they have already been discussed, and some do not exist to the extent that your idealistic world demands. But that is off topic here.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That maybe so but it's not a reason to dismiss my arguments, it's just a good excuse to not answer my question's.

I didn't dismiss your argument, I simply corrected you on one point and said, "Fear does have a bearing on results"...then gave a true to life example. And what questions would you like answered that I havn't already answered?

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yet you defend scientists with all the zeal of a priest.

No, the facts are I generally defend science as opposed to scientists...As I have said many times, there are good and bad in every discioline. If I defend that with religious zeal, perhaps you can show me aspects where that defence should not apply. Plus that defence is generally applicable when some with unscientific religious or supernatural faith attempt to unjustly deride science. 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/science

"Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them".

Question; why should I not defend with zeal the above definition?

[John Cuthber]

"What is the best political direction?"
Neither- if you go too far.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

"What is the best political direction?"
Neither- if you go too far.

Are there only two possible choices? If so, what are they?

That's an earnest question. I'm not asking for a compass point, or a hand-signal.* I'm asking whether political direction is chosen with some ideal situation or accomplishment as its ultimate destination. And if there are only two, what are those ultimate destinations?  

* I never understood exactly what was meant by the pendulum, TBH, but everyone else seemed to know.