Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)

[chadn737]

Well, actually, I am , in some small way, qualified to make that "diagnosis".

It's a while ago, but I studied pharmacology.

That field includes psychopharmacology.

To do that you need to be able to distinguish those who need treatment from those who do not.

There's a fairly broad set of conditions that "tick the box".

In essence there are a collection of conditions all referred to as psychoses.

Their distinguishing feature is that the subject believes something which normal people wouldn't. believe.

So, for example if you believe that you are the queen, then most people would accept that you were not rational because all the evidence says that you are not.

.

If you think that another beer won't do any harm, even when it's plan that it will, then that's a psychosis too.

 

It's not a subtle test, but it often doesn't need to be.

If someone continues to proclaim that immigration is bad, even when the evidence makes it clear that it isn't, then they are in the same position as someone who thinks that they are the queen.

They are insane.

 

It's not a matter of a position I disagree with, it's a matter of a position which the evidence (stuff like that report and the fact that (in the other thread I cited, nobody was able to find Left wing Looneys") disagrees with.

 

Who is sane or not is largely defined by the opinion of society.

Society has already cast its vote on people who believe in dragons; they are nuts.

And the right seems to have rather more than its fair share (or prove me wrong).

 

1) Your last two posts both made arguments that were not at all based upon actual psychology, but were rather based on policy and are which are also not based upon any actual psychological measure or definition of "insanity". Its just you calling them insane.

 

2) Thats quite the stretch to call one self qualified to diagnose somebody as "insane". Regardless, the reasoning here is based on a host of fallacious arguments. Consider the fact that the OECD report on immigration and its economic benefits is primarily premised on the benefits of educated, high earning immigrants and also points out that immigrants who earn less than the average native born citizen do contribute less than native born citizens. However, last time I checked, the political right opposed illegal immigration, not legal immigration, which would entail most high skill and high earning labor, with the later entailing the low-skill and low-wage labor. That's a classic strawman. To attack an argument not representative of your opponents argument is a straw man fallacy. Based on what you have told me about psychosis, wouldn't attacking non-existent demons (i.e. straw man arguments) also be a form of psychosis? If after all, you believe that data a position against a singular form of immigration...illegal immigration....is equivalent to ALL immigration contrary to the evidence and the specific arguments of those you disagree with...then how is that any different than believe that one is a "Queen" contrary to all other evidence?

 

3) You are taking VERY complex data with lots of caveats. For instance, the data you provide also points out that its results refer to aggregate GDP and not net GDP of the nation. Rational and sane people can look at the same data, its strengths and weaknesses and rationally arrive at different conclusions based on that data. Calling people who rationally disagree with you over the interpretation of the evidence "insane" is...insane! In fact, its the sort of behavior tha smack of the intolerance of difference, ambiquity, and uncertainty that the previously discussed psychological studies portray of "right-wing authoritarianism."

You seem to have your own strict definition for what is or is not insane:

 

"in·san·i·ty noun \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\

: severe mental illness : the condition of being insane

: something that is very foolish or unreasonable

 

plural in·san·i·ties

 

1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)

2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity

 

I think posters have done a good job in this thread illustrating why political conservatism is "something that is very foolish or unreasonable".

 

You are equivocating between two different meanings. There is "insanity" as an actual mental/medical disorder....the first definition....and then there is insanity as it is often used in common language as a pseudonym for "foolish or unreasonable". Given that this entire thread is based upon psychological studies, the obvious presumption is that one is referring to the former, i.e. insanity as a medical condition and not as a pseudonym for something a person thinks is foolish. The first is a serious accusation and also ammendable to scientific investigation. The second is completely subjective to a person's own prejudices and non-scientific. I hear a lot of people on the political right call those on the Left insanse. That doesn't prove anything. If people want to go around bitching about the other sides politics, then have at it. The moment however you start trying to abuse science by labeling those you disagree with as "insanse" and trying to prove as much using psychology....the nature of the debate has changed. 1) Now you actually have to contend with real data, real science, and not your own prejudices. 2) You've just crossed into the territory of propganda used throughout human history to dehumanize the opposition. Its the same sort of thing that was done in the World Wars to dehumanize the Germans and Japanese, same sort of dehuminization that led to even worse atrocities. I find that profoundly disturbing and something to be fought tooth and nail. I am profoundly distrubed that on a science forum of all places.

[Ten oz]

However, last time I checked, the political right opposed illegal immigration, not legal immigration, which would entail most high skill and high earning labor, with the later entailing the low-skill and low-wage labor. That's a classic strawman. To attack an argument not representative of your opponents argument is a straw man fallacy. Based on what you have told me about psychosis, wouldn't attacking non-existent demons (i.e. straw man arguments) also be a form of psychosis? If after all, you believe that data a position against a singular form of immigration...illegal immigration....is equivalent to ALL immigration contrary to the evidence and the specific arguments of those you disagree with...then how is that any different than believe that one is a "Queen" contrary to all other evidence?

 

I think you are quibbling over semantics here. Illegal Immigrants by definition are already in the U.S..What do you think it would cost in terms of law enforcement, courts, labor production loss, and etc to local and detain tens of millions of "illegal immigrants" and deport them? It is completely impractical. Yet anything sort of that by default is supporting the status qou which currently has tens of millions of illegal immigrants living in the States but not pay full taxes, unable to start businesses, purchase various types of insurance, and etc.

 

Of course we control who is and isn't "illegal". Simply choosing pass a bill allowing for their continued presence in this country to be legal would eliminate the whole "illegal" thing. Allowing the millions here to be legal would immediately allow for millions of more payroll taxes. It would also allow communities with high portions of "illegal immigrants" in their communities to see more productive participation from those residents. People who are "illegal" have a much harder time securing loans, starting businesses, purchasing property, and etc.

[chadn737]

I think you are quibbling over semantics here. Illegal Immigrants by definition are already in the U.S..What do you think it would cost in terms of law enforcement, courts, labor production loss, and etc to local and detain tens of millions of "illegal immigrants" and deport them? It is completely impractical. Yet anything sort of that by default is supporting the status qou which currently has tens of millions of illegal immigrants living in the States but not pay full taxes, unable to start businesses, purchase various types of insurance, and etc.

 

Of course we control who is and isn't "illegal". Simply choosing pass a bill allowing for their continued presence in this country to be legal would eliminate the whole "illegal" thing. Allowing the millions here to be legal would immediately allow for millions of more payroll taxes. It would also allow communities with high portions of "illegal immigrants" in their communities to see more productive participation from those residents. People who are "illegal" have a much harder time securing loans, starting businesses, purchasing property, and etc.

 

Great....but that is irrelevant to discussions of pyschology....making it a continuation of a red herring as I have pointed out previously.

 

I don't care if you disagree with the political right. The issue of immigration is complex and not subject to simple generalizations. Rational people can disagree over the same evidence, in particular subtle evidence without being "insane". This is not only fallacious reasoning, but its also, as pointed out many times, classic propganda techniques. The references to "insanity" are classic means of dehumanizing your opposition.

 

Ironically, the assumption that those who disagree with you possess some sort of mental deficiency is the sort of behavior characteristic of those who are uncomfortable with ambiquity, differenes of opinion, rigidity of beliefs, etc...the very traits being used to label people as "insane".

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2014 by chadn737

[John Cuthber]

 

1) Your last two posts both made arguments that were not at all based upon actual psychology, but were rather based on policy and are which are also not based upon any actual psychological measure or definition of "insanity". Its just you calling them insane.

 

2) Thats quite the stretch to call one self qualified to diagnose somebody as "insane". Regardless, the reasoning here is based on a host of fallacious arguments. Consider the fact that the OECD report on immigration and its economic benefits is primarily premised on the benefits of educated, high earning immigrants and also points out that immigrants who earn less than the average native born citizen do contribute less than native born citizens. However, last time I checked, the political right opposed illegal immigration, not legal immigration, which would entail most high skill and high earning labor, with the later entailing the low-skill and low-wage labor. That's a classic strawman. To attack an argument not representative of your opponents argument is a straw man fallacy. Based on what you have told me about psychosis, wouldn't attacking non-existent demons (i.e. straw man arguments) also be a form of psychosis? If after all, you believe that data a position against a singular form of immigration...illegal immigration....is equivalent to ALL immigration contrary to the evidence and the specific arguments of those you disagree with...then how is that any different than believe that one is a "Queen" contrary to all other evidence?

 

3) You are taking VERY complex data with lots of caveats. For instance, the data you provide also points out that its results refer to aggregate GDP and not net GDP of the nation. Rational and sane people can look at the same data, its strengths and weaknesses and rationally arrive at different conclusions based on that data. Calling people who rationally disagree with you over the interpretation of the evidence "insane" is...insane! In fact, its the sort of behavior tha smack of the intolerance of difference, ambiquity, and uncertainty that the previously discussed psychological studies portray of "right-wing authoritarianism."

 

You are equivocating between two different meanings. There is "insanity" as an actual mental/medical disorder....the first definition....and then there is insanity as it is often used in common language as a pseudonym for "foolish or unreasonable". Given that this entire thread is based upon psychological studies, the obvious presumption is that one is referring to the former, i.e. insanity as a medical condition and not as a pseudonym for something a person thinks is foolish. The first is a serious accusation and also ammendable to scientific investigation. The second is completely subjective to a person's own prejudices and non-scientific. I hear a lot of people on the political right call those on the Left insanse. That doesn't prove anything. If people want to go around bitching about the other sides politics, then have at it. The moment however you start trying to abuse science by labeling those you disagree with as "insanse" and trying to prove as much using psychology....the nature of the debate has changed. 1) Now you actually have to contend with real data, real science, and not your own prejudices. 2) You've just crossed into the territory of propganda used throughout human history to dehumanize the opposition. Its the same sort of thing that was done in the World Wars to dehumanize the Germans and Japanese, same sort of dehuminization that led to even worse atrocities. I find that profoundly disturbing and something to be fought tooth and nail. I am profoundly distrubed that on a science forum of all places.

Do you understand that insanity was a perfectly well recognised concept before anyone invented psychology?

For what it is worth, the correct field of expertise for deciding if someone is actually insane or not is psychiatry, rather than psychology.

It hardly matters.

We are not looking at some subtle trait here.

What we are looking at is a wilful ignorance of the data.

 

 

Are you seriously saying that you need to be a psychologist to tell if someone who believes in dragons has "bats in the belfry"?

 

Incidentally, only humans can be sane or insane, so it's hardly "dehumanising" to call someone insane.

Edited December 12, 2014 by John Cuthber

[chadn737]

Do you understand that insanity was a perfectly well recognised concept before anyone invented psychology?

For what it is worth, the correct field of expertise for deciding if someone is actually insane or not is psychiatry, rather than psychology.

It hardly matters.

We are not looking at some subtle trait here.

What we are looking at is a wilful ignorance of the data.

 

 

Are you seriously saying that you need to be a psychologist to tell if someone who believes in dragons has "bats in the belfry"?

 

Incidentally, only humans can be sane or insane, so it's hardly "dehumanising" to call someone insane.

 

 

I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions. As I pointed out, a lot of your arguments misrepresent theirs and amount to making strawmen of them....upon which you call them "insane"? Pointing to complex social/economic/political issues and claiming that half the nation is in "willful ignorance" that you disagree with is far from actual scientific evidence of such a claim. That is neither logical nor scientific and I expect more of a scientific claim coming from a scientist.

 

This is nothing more than an attempt to "dehumanize" people of who differing views....its classic propaganda of the worst kind.

[John Cuthber]

"I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions."

I'm not

I'm calling them insane because they ignore evidence (and that is science, and I did cite it).

Incidentally, you keep ignoring this fact and saying it's just my belief.

Pointing out that the one thing it can not possibly be is "dehumanising" isn't dehumanising or propaganda.

Saying it twice, even though I explained that it's wrong, without explaining how attributing a clearly human trait to someone is dehumanising, is a case in point.

You ignored the evidence.

Why?

 

So, if, for example a group of people are documented as saying that they oppose teaching thinking and if the population in general believe that teaching kids to think is a good thing then, by the general rough definition of "insane" that group are insane.

That's still true even if they are correct in their belief- unless thy can show overwhelming evidence for it.

 

Insanity is a decision made, in effect, by society.

Edited December 12, 2014 by John Cuthber

[chadn737]

"I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions."

I'm not

I'm calling them insane because they ignore evidence (and that is science, and I did cite it).

Incidentally, you keep ignoring this fact and saying it's just my belief.

Pointing out that the one thing it can not possibly be is "dehumanising" isn't dehumanising.

 

1) They ignore evidence and you misrepresent their positions and create strawmen.....which is the same as "ignoring evidence".

 

2) A discussion of immigration is off-topic in a thread about psychological studies of the political right. You are introducing a red herring. If 'ignoring evidence" is a form of insanity, so is the use of fallacies.

 

3) Saying that somebody "ignores evidence" is not the same as being insane. Some of them do ignore evidence. Many base their position on different types of evidence or possess positions more subtle than the strawman you have made. Many people on the left ignore evidence, like in the case of GMOs...by that logic, much of the left is insane as well. Disagreement over complex issues is NORMAL....calling anyone you disagree with "insane" is dehuminization. Such views of the "other side" is characteristic of people who struggle with ambiquity, differences, changing information, etc....

 

So, if, for example a group of people are documented as saying that they oppose teaching thinking and if the population in general believe that teaching kids to think is a good thing then, by the general rough definition of "insane" that group are insane.

That's still true even if they are correct in their belief- unless thy can show overwhelming evidence for it.

 

Is this ACTUALLY what you think the Right believes and says? Because its so far off-base as to be delusional.

 

 

Insanity is a decision made, in effect, by society.

 

 

You are redefining "insanity".....

Edited December 12, 2014 by chadn737

[John Cuthber]

"calling anyone you disagree with "insane" is dehuminization."

Just as well that nobody did it then, isn't it.

I'm calling people insane if the continue to believe things (like the existence of dragons) even after they have seen the evidence that they are wrong.

It is not off- topic to point out those things where someone beleives fervently in them, and yet the veidence shows those things to be false.

 

 

Would you like, rather than repeating yourself, to actually show either that the Right are not opposed to free immigration or that immigration is not good for the country?

I remind you that I picked the example because other had raised it, and I showed evidence for my point of view.

All you have done so far is say I'm dehumanising them by ascribing a uniquely human trait to them and said that I'm calling them insane because they don't share my views- even though I have pointed out repeatedly that that isn't the case.

[MigL]

" their distinguishing feature is that the subject believes something which normal people wouldn't believe"

 

So you and others like Acme have decided what is 'normal' and sane, or worse yet, society labels a group of people as NOT 'normal' and then slowly starts taking away their rights, until they eventually get sent to gas chambers ( I apologize for the extremism to make a quick point ).

Sounds like the worst kind of discrimination, that against differing thought and opinion, it could certainly never happen !!

 

Oh, wait, yes it did !

 

Attacking an idea is one thing ( and perfectly legitimate, we do it here all the time ), attacking a group of people who hold the same ideas by 'labelling' them, is plain wrong and discriminatory.

Edited December 13, 2014 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

In the real world, society really does deal with people who have lost the plot.

They really do split the world into sane and insane on the basis of what people believe (what other criteria did you think they would use?)

 

It's still not a matter of attacking people because they hold an idea.

it's labelling people because they continue to cling to an idea that they should discard because it's at odds with the evidence.

 

Now, could you please stop with the straw man about calling people insane because they disagree with me.

For the umpteenth time, the people who disagree with reality get called insane.

[MigL]

And what exactly about political reality is sane ???

[Ten oz]

The government is the problem not the solution.

Private business can do things better than the government.

Too much red tag is hurting businesses.

The government needs to step aside and allow business to flourish.

Politicians are nothing but a bunch of empty suits.

 

I would not want a Doctor who hated medicine to operate on me. Conservatives hate government yet want responsibility to run it. It would be insane to give them. By their own words they want to tear down. It is self destructive. As matters of policy they claim to care about spending and deficits yet Presidents Reagan and Bush both increased spending and deficits at mind blowing rates. Despite the small government pleas republicans when in office have grown the government and consolidated power in the administrative branch. The war on drugs was started by Nixon and double down on by Reagan one of the main reasons the United States has the largest prison populations in the world. Nothing small government about that. Bush's war on terrorism gave us the patriot act which increased policing authority and saw the green light of new agencies like Department of Homeland Security. By their own actions Conservatives support policies contrary to their cries. It isn't simply a matter of disagreeing with their political philosophies. Conservatives don't seem to truly have any. They want what they want and what that is changes as they get it. It is an insane way to govern.

[MigL]

I'm gonna be an ass just to prove my point...

 

If I was to say ALL muslims are insane because they believe in jihad and blowing themselves up to get virgins in heaven, I'd be an ignorant idiot, and you, Tenoz, along with JohnC., Acme and others would be the first to jump all over me. The truth is only some act that way because of the way they interpret their beliefs.

 

If I was to say ALL black Americans are insane because they aspire to be gangstas and drug dealers, who support anarchy and riot and loot at every opportunity, I'd also be very wrong, and again I'd hear it from you guys. The truth is only a few of them believe that revenge on 'whitey' can make up for the past wrongings and current disadvantages.

 

I could continue with other groups, but I'd be wrong generalizing about them also.

So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs.

If you wanna argue that those beliefs are wrong, that's fine, I'll even agree with a lot of those complaints ( just like I'd agree with a lot of the complaints against the left, they have their faults too ), but labeling them insane is an insult ( to almost half the American people ), and that has been my objection right fro the start of this topic

[John Cuthber]

"So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs."

 

Good question.

If an individual believes that they are Napoleon, is it reasonably to say they are insane?

I think most people would say yes to that. They believe in something that's clearly not true and they continue to believe it, even after the evidence has been pointed out to them

 

 

What if a group of people each think they are Napoleon (again, even after it's been pointed out that they are not, because he's dead)?

Is it reasonable to label the group as insane?

Strictly speaking, no. The group isn't insane, it is composed of individuals who are insane.

But I think most people would still describe the group as insane.

 

It's a distinction that hardly matters if it's a political party.

If they are insane as a group, or individually, then we really shouldn't permit them any political power.

[MigL]

But again you are generalizing.

Not all on the right have those beliefs.

As a matter of fact, there is a significant number on the left who hold Creationism in high esteem, just as an example.

So what's the magic number for painting everyone in the group with the same brush ?

Is it 10%, 30%, 50%+1, or what ?

When does an unfair generalization become unfair ?

And when are you gonna start applying it to Muslims and black Americans, and Immigrants , and homosexuals, and women, and the elderly, etc. etc.

[Ten oz]

I'm gonna be an ass just to prove my point...

 

If I was to say ALL muslims are insane because they believe in jihad and blowing themselves up to get virgins in heaven, I'd be an ignorant idiot, and you, Tenoz, along with JohnC., Acme and others would be the first to jump all over me. The truth is only some act that way because of the way they interpret their beliefs.

Your examples don't work for several reason. First off there are groups of people out there who basically call Muslims insane. Islamic states are often singled out for there mistreatment of women and various other human rights violations. In the western world the idea of terror and terrorism is nearly sunomymous with Muslims. If you were to start a thread asking what people thought about Sharia Law as a form of governing I think many people would call it insane. Including myself and the other posters you mentioned. Conservative ideology as a form of governance is insane and so is Sharia Law as a form of governance.

 

If I was to say ALL black Americans are insane because they aspire to be gangstas and drug dealers, who support anarchy and riot and loot at every opportunity, I'd also be very wrong, and again I'd hear it from you guys. The truth is only a few of them believe that revenge on 'whitey' can make up for the past wrongings and current disadvantages.

Black is not an ideology. What is shared amongst black people is genetic. Amongst black people there is a large dichotomy of opinions and beliefs. Drug dealers and gangster who break the law go to prison in this country. Society does not tolerate drug dealing and gang banging by any group of people black, white, asian, latino, or whatever. Such behavior is treated criminally and perpetrators of those actions are labelled as criminals.

 

 

I could continue with other groups, but I'd be wrong generalizing about them also.

So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs.

If you wanna argue that those beliefs are wrong, that's fine, I'll even agree with a lot of those complaints ( just like I'd agree with a lot of the complaints against the left, they have their faults too ), but labeling them insane is an insult ( to almost half the American people ), and that has been my objection right fro the start of this topic

It is okay to label conservatives because it is a political philosophy. It is different that calling someone insane for thing beyond their control like being tall, a specific race, a female, or etc. One must willfully choose to be a conservative.

[MigL]

Did the part about the beliefs a few Muslims have, or the beliefs a few black Americans have, totally go over your head ?

 

A belief is an opinion they have, just like Conservatism, and painting everyone with the same broad brush is still wrong.

[Ten oz]

Did the part about the beliefs a few Muslims have, or the beliefs a few black Americans have, totally go over your head ?

 

A belief is an opinion they have, just like Conservatism, and painting everyone with the same broad brush is still wrong.

It did not go over my head. I simply wasn't compelled by your examples for the reasons I outlined.

The application of a political philosophy for most people is voting. When it comes to that you can paint with a broad brush. Most all conservative vote the same way. In that regard their personal beliefs are actually more lock step than that of religious people.

[Willie71]

Did the part about the beliefs a few Muslims have, or the beliefs a few black Americans have, totally go over your head ?

 

A belief is an opinion they have, just like Conservatism, and painting everyone with the same broad brush is still wrong.

Being conservative is agreeing on some specific philosophical tenets. Those tenets are clearly not supported by science, and therefore the philosophy is misguided at best, and outright insane in the more extreme forms. There are differences in the way conservatives in general reason, and respond to fear. There are differences in acceptance of differences in others, as well as in rigidity of thinking.

 

If someone varies from these tenets, do we still call them conservatives?

[MigL]

Really Willie ?

 

I like some conservative ideas, yet I don't fit into any of the stereotypes you just mentioned.

I also like a lot of liberal ideas.

And I dislike quite a few from both camps.

I suspect there's an awful lot of people like me.

 

Where do we fit in your world view ?What're you gonna do ? Label us also, and call us confused ?

[John Cuthber]

But again you are generalizing.

Not all on the right have those beliefs.

As a matter of fact, there is a significant number on the left who hold Creationism in high esteem, just as an example.

So what's the magic number for painting everyone in the group with the same brush ?

Is it 10%, 30%, 50%+1, or what ?

When does an unfair generalization become unfair ?

And when are you gonna start applying it to Muslims and black Americans, and Immigrants , and homosexuals, and women, and the elderly, etc. etc.

OK, to start with the last of those things,

Please learn that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy.

That I label some groups as insane, does not mean that I will label all groups as insane, does it?

 

Have you got that now?

I have pointed it out twice.

 

next point.

It is not "generalizing" to say that the Right wing have Right wing beliefs.

It's pretty much tautology.

 

OK, it's fair to say that there must be some characteristic, or group of characteristics that define someone as being "Right wing".

Those characteristics include a set of beliefs.

One of those beliefs is that the Right wing's economic policies are the right thing to do.

(Otherwise, they would vote for someone else).

 

However it is well documented that those beliefs have all the credibility of some sad soul who says he's Napoleon.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about dragons or "trickle-down economics".

 

So, if, for example, black people were to think that we are all going to be eaten by sea eagles, I'd say they were all mad.

However, there is nothing that you can label as "a belief that all black people have which is different from what white people believe, and which is plainly factually wrong"

So, (just in case you missed it the first two times)

There is no reason to say that black people are insane.

[MigL]

Still don't agree with you.

Name calling is name calling and belongs in a schoolyard.

I ( and I know you do also ) expect better in an intelligent discussion.

 

I'll let you guys get back to labeling people.

That's always helped.

[John Cuthber]

Exactly which part do you not agree with?

 

Do you not agree that a slippery slope argument is a fallacy?

 

Do you not agree that the Right wing has common properties that make them Right wing?

 

Do you not agree that I can lump all right wingers together - at least in so far as their political views are concerned- because if I can't then "right wing" is a bit thin on definition?

 

Do you not agree that a group of people who - as the groups defining character- believe in something absurd can be considered insane?

 

Do you not agree that "trickle down" economic policies are discredited to the point of absurdity?

 

If it's just the last of those then all we need to do is look at some financial figures and see who as reality on their side.

 

And, you may have missed it, but labelling isn't just found in playgrounds- it's rather common in doctors' surgeries and in hospitals.

Edited December 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

All points of view deserve to be heard but I see nothing wrong with labeling destructive ones as destructive. Labeling in itself is not a childish thing. We label any number of groups in society. People who willfully commit crimes are labelled criminals for example. If conservatives are not deserving of being labelled insane please provide an explanation that addresses their political beliefs. Simply calling labels unfair does not speak to the sanity/insanity of conservative dogma.

[MigL]

The only part of your post which relates to my objections follows the word 'because' in the 4th line.

 

In case you still don't understand my objections, this has nothing to do with right wing principles. You don't like them, and there's quite a few I don't like.

So ATTACK THOSE PRINCIPLES, not the people by calling them names. Incidentally, this is the same principle the moderators always urge us to use ( attack the idea, not the person ), or are you gonna start calling everyone whose post gets moved to the Speculations Forum insane also. And this applies to you too, Tenoz, remember, an idea can only be right or wrong, only a person can be insane, So you are not labelling the idea, you are labelling the person, and I think that's wrong..

 

I will discuss right versus left ideology with anyone ( remember, I am Canadian, our Conservatives are more left wing than American Democrats), but did not read the book Acme wanted me to, because of the title which slights half the American population.

 

Any time a discussion discends into name calling, it is an attempt to stifle further discussion by taking away the oppositin's right to have an opinion.

That is my opinion, I hope you respect my opinion as much as I do yours, John, and I will not be saying anything further on the matter ( but I'll still check in on further developements in this thread, yes, I'm a masochist ).

Edited December 14, 2014 by MigL