Sisyphus Posted April 20, 2007 Author Posted April 20, 2007 Your point, as I gather, was that not everything can be based on automatic archetypes, that there's no such thing as a position exclusive to "liberals" or "conservatives," that it's possible to advocate the same thing for vastly different reasons. Also, that partisanship obscures all that, putting everybody into de facto camps and destroying rational debate. ...I agree!
Saryctos Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 Your point, as I gather, was that not everything can be based on automatic archetypes, that there's no such thing as a position exclusive to "liberals" or "conservatives," that it's possible to advocate the same thing for vastly different reasons. Also, that partisanship obscures all that, putting everybody into de facto camps and destroying rational debate. ...I agree! Perhaps the problem comes when every argument is only broken into 2 sides. There are many reasons to be for or against any 1 issue, why not categorize based on them?
Pangloss Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 I just thought your reply was eloquent not just for what it said, but for what it didn't say. ("I am only an egg" is a reference to Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", indicating respect.)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now