Considering you don't even have the most basic understanding of my veiws and beliefs how are you going to back that up.
Do you love America?
- Thread starter desi
- Start date
Considering you don't even have the most basic understanding of my veiws and beliefs how are you going to back that up.
over simplifing something is not trying to make things clear.
This shows the level of your assininity. Keeping things simple makes them clearer, moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I challenge you to disprove your marxism.
You can answer this yourself. Explain how fascism is a right wing ideology??? Honestly!! You can even use your "spectrum" as a model.
Keeping things simple makes things clear as long as all info is explained. such as explain EVERYTHING that effects somethings position something you don't do.over simplifing something is not trying to make things clear.
This shows the level of your assininity. Keeping things simple makes them clearer, moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I challenge you to disprove your marxism.
* a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[5] of workers by the owners of the means of production not me
* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production. not me
* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations. not me
* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable. me
* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change. not me
* a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state). not me
burden of proof is on the accuser.
Last edited:
You can answer this yourself. Explain how fascism is a right wing ideology??? Honestly!! You can even use your "spectrum" as a model.
Econmically it is right wing as it supports private ownership and corporate power is protected
Socially it is right wing as fascism is against civil rights. The government gets involved in social choices like abortion and the like.
It is also way the fuck on the Authortarian side of the authortarian-anarchy axis
Quick comment: right wingers are not against civil rights, never have been, Right wingers believe in natural rights given by their creator. This most immediately means a belief in civil rights. The civil rights of which you refer to is that of equal outcome or a distorted view of allowing clear immoral and unethical acts to exist. This is a marxist idea.
Also abortion is a civil right for whom? Certainly not the baby. Don't go womens rights on me on this one. The woman who aborts, except in obvious medical cases, has had several rights prior to aborting. Perhaps, how the government should be involved on this is less clear. This is one aspect of things that I am still working out. Needless to say, government involvement here is still more indicative of authority than freedom. Yet, at what point does this immorality of the people become a concern for the society as a whole. I admit this is a vexing issue with me. I am, as always open to interpretation.
Aside from that, most right wingers abhor abortion because it tends to desensitize life. Has that not been evident in America? It also tends to glorify instant gratification. Has our desire to move fast and furious not been evident in this country?
One last thing, authoritarian falls way to the left of linear politics, left not right.
Also check your premises on the conditions of private property and corporate power, there less emphasis on the individual than you might think. I mean I wonder what Mussolini or Hitler would have done if a corporation decided to assist a sworn enemy or refuse such things as eugenics? Somewhat the results of such actions don't seem right wing to me.
Of course, you could still argue that there is a fine line between business and patriotism. But then patriotism can also be very rigid as well. Hence the fine line.
how authoritarian a ideology is has nothing to do with where it falls on the left-right axis hence its on its own axis.
Nice straw man. I said abortion was a social choice not a civil right.
the right wing has always been against civil rights. The parties that support civil rights are left wing when it comes to the social aspects of left-right politics.
What is it with you and atributing things i don't believe to me? I believe that civil rights are equal chances to gain.
and you have clearly shown a far right view on social issues which is probably why you have such a distorted view of politics.
I haven't bothered to read through all of this because it's 13 pages but I have to ask after reading this recent discussion, when you talk about right-left have you established the difference between what should be and what is? And decided on which will be used for the argument?
said abortion was a social choice not a civil right.
So then society decides if a baby can live. That is new to me. If that has been the argument all along, no wonder the left is so insanely wrong on this.
The parties that support civil rights are left wing when it comes to the social aspects
So which is it a social chocie or a civil rights, your earlier post inferred they were the same. Then you tell me they are seperate, now you are telling me they are the same. Civil rights directly affect social aspects. Whatever civil rights means it has a direct impact on social aspects. Which is it, of course yours is to clarify. Remember?
What is it with you and atributing things i don't believe to me? I believe that civil rights are equal chances to gain.
This is exactly where you have been led astray. I will be careful here, because I do not want to be accused of not explaining (which incidently I have done so with greater frequency than you). Civil rights as it is meant by most its advocates is not about equal chance. It is about equal outcome. As I mentioned in the other post, it is about outcome and distorted morals and ethics.
Equal chance is implied in natural rights. But even further, rights do not come from society. Rights comes from your creator, whomever that is for you.
With that in mind, if rights delineate from society, then you are correct. Right wingers are against civil rights. But if rights delineate naturally from your creator, then you are way off. Right wingers believe in equal opportunity, pursuit of life, liberty and property. These rights are endowed naturally from our creator.
Don't confuse philosophy with the hatred or ill advised actions of a few. I think I know where you are going with this.
BTW- Societal given rights is a marxist idea. All one has to do is change a word and champion rights for the people.
Tell me tough guy, what is the difference between equal chances to gain and equal opportunity? Nothing. It is the same thing and that is an axiom among right wingers. Thus, by that definition you are completely wrong. Right wingers believe in civil rights as defined by the above. But that is not what civil rights means to most leftists. I have already explained it in two seperate posts.
i'm done there is no point in arguing with you anything i say you will twist to prove your bs ideas.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Your posts.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
radicand, wiped the floor clean with you in this debate.:thumbsup:
??? no he didn't. he made continuous asserations going against the consensus and the expert views with no proof. also made accusations against me with no proof. but considering your track record is understandable how you could come to that conclusion.
Hmm... not true. The right-wing Republican Party was founded to combat slavery (a cause championed by the left-wing Democrats). Republicans also ran Reconstruction and drafted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Republican President Rutherford Hayes blocked the passage of a Democratic bill that would have repealed laws enforcing the 14th and 15th Amendments. Both Rutherford Hayes and Chester Arthur vetoed the Chinese Exclusion Act. And it was Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, that sent the Army to enforce desegregation in the 1950s.
the republican party started out as the left wing party. the 2 main parties have switched in their right left status.
Americans bickering like spoilt kids over the same ideal.
Sorry guys. Best country in the world? You have to grow up first.
Yeah baby!!!!!
And thank you, I thought the same as the debate moved on. I don't think dude is stupid. I just think he has not fully thought it all through. I grant that he did make some interesting points.
Then prove it by answering the above question: Explain the difference between equal chances and equal opportunity.
BTW- I did not twist anything around. I don't need consensus, nor do I need "experts" to confirm my thoughts. Once again, it's called individual initiative. Again, marxist are against such things. That is why you need consensus and "experts" to back you up. Are you getting it yet? In short, you cannot think for yourself. You just proved it with your crybaby response to BR.
Oh give me the home, where the........