2020 Election

Discussion in 'Politics' started by WritersPanic, Jan 1, 2019.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    VG

    What false statement?

    Why is a book that in large parts involves an analysis of PFI be off topic in a debate about PFI? Its was just some suggested reading from something I know and have read.

    And just because Monbiot has a degree in zoology does not rule out him been a political activist and writer. I mean what qualifications do you think people have to have before they can debate political issues, what is you degree?

    So your argument is that Tony Blair must be a leftie because he had neoliberal policies like many right wingers because neoliberalism is a lefty ideology which is followed by right wingers ….

    How is that a rational argument?

    I mean in its simplest terms neoliberalism is – free market capitalism - and I don’t think I know of any lefties who would say they are free market capitalists.

    Anyway we have gone off topic but I hope we can get back to it soon
     
    stormountainman likes this.
  2. stormountainman

    stormountainman Soy Un Truckero

    Do you really expect that …………………….&...…………... to understand any of that?
     
    Flagme15 likes this.
  3. newbie-one

    newbie-one one with the newbiverse

    If you think that your political opponents are school children and that you're their self-appointed school teacher holding the right to censor their opinions, or force them to meet requirements of debate that you oppose on them, then yes, I'm opposed to "education". You have simply renamed censorship "education" to disguise what is obviously an abuse of power.
    You're free to call someone out for the deficiencies of their arguments. That doesn't mean that opposing views should be censored. If someone is in control of judging what has held up to rational scrutiny, and what ideas are "dangerous", they can censor anything. Essentially all ideas are "dangerous", it's a question of to whom, what, and what degree they are dangerous.

    If by "highlight deficient ideas", you mean present your opposing views, I have no objection. Censoring someone else's opinions can not be reasonably construed as "highlighting".
    If you begin with the premise that you are entitled to impose any rule you wish on public debate, what counter argument is there? I don't share your premise.

    I've already said
    I think somebody should be able to declare a thing once, and if they just keep repeating it without defending it, then it's reasonable to remove the repeats in-so-far-as they are just flooding the forum.
    Saying "Obama puts gerbils up his butt" is not the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater. Shouting fire means there is an immediate risk to life and safety. It is also presumably done when in fact there is no fire, with malicious intent knowing full well there is no fire. No one is going to be trampled in a stampede to escape Obama's butthole.
     
    onceburned and 6-eyed shaman like this.
  4. newbie-one

    newbie-one one with the newbiverse

    A vauge, general commentary about history is not a rebuttal of my reply.
    You keep repeating yourself. For what reason?
    You made a bold declaration, which I questioned. I think because you can't defend that statement, you are resorting to disingenuous debate tactics, such as simply repeating yourself.

    You can't defend the assertion that the "right wing are the dominant power in many countries including the US and UK" other than to substitute neoliberal capitalism for the term "right wing" (or to provide a nearly 20 year old personal anecdote), even though you say yourself "first we would have to define what is meant by left and right and I think billions of words have been written on that". If the term "right wing" is vague and undefinable, why use it when what you really meant was neoliberal capitalism?
     
    onceburned and Mallyboppa like this.
  5. newbie-one

    newbie-one one with the newbiverse

    No. Would you argue that a radiator is a car?
     
  6. newbie-one

    newbie-one one with the newbiverse

    You're still only making declarations here, not providing evidence. And are you still using "right wing" as a synonym for neoliberal capitalism?
     
    onceburned and Mallyboppa like this.
  7. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    I've decided this site is no longer worth my time. Let the right wing or whomever take it over. Who the fuck cares?
     
  8. onceburned

    onceburned Banned

    I don't think "the right " want to take anything over. we just want to discuss matters without being bashed, belittled , and marginalized . just cause someone has a different viewpoint then others does not make those actions acceptable
     
    Mallyboppa likes this.
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Newbie

    So you are basically saying you are totally opposed to idea of education

    You seem to be implying that education ends and should end once you leave school, I’m 58 but realise I am ignorant of many things but I like leaning and finding out new ones - new facts - new ideas – new concepts - if that makes me childish, then I am happy to be called a child. To me that is how people grow and adapt their ideas and outlook.

    So you have no counter argument – you just seem to agree that you reject the principles of education - of development - of growth - of change. You seem to be saying that if ideas run counter to what you want them to be although you have no counter argument you are just going to reject those ideas BUT demand the right to spread the ideas you cannot defend from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

    You are basically saying you would never contemplate debating honestly you don’t care about gaining knowledge or insight you only wish to spread propaganda.
     
    MeAgain likes this.
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Newbie

    Ok you seem rather confused and contradictory and more interested in trying to score cheap ‘points’ than in honest debate.

    At one moment you seem to say that you are fine with getting rid of dishonest debaters then you snarl that its ‘censorship’ and ‘an abuse of power’.

    You also don’t seem be putting up counter arguments just not accepting any opposing argument to your own, as you say – ‘I don't share your premise’ – but without putting up any counter premise

    For example you seem to accept free market capitalism is a right wing ideology you seem to agree that the UK and US are in the main dominated by this ideology but you reject the promise that the UK and US are dominated by the right wing ideas. You seem to have no counter argument.

    Your argument seems to be that you want people to be able to say whatever they want without any comeback – but that is not debate to which your reply seems to be that you don’t care, but this is a debating form to which your reply seems to be that you don’t care. Well my reply to that is then don’t post here.

    And if you are unwilling to debate in an honest way we don’t want you here.
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Once

    Then why do you constantly refuse to discuss matters in any honest, rational or reasonable way
     
    scratcho and Flagme15 like this.
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Now can we get back to talk of the election
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Sorry claiming that you would debate honestly or could debate honestly but refuse to do so or show any indication of doing so is not debate.
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    To repeat

    If people genuinely wish to debate they are welcome but if not and only post in Politics to spread lies and culture war propaganda they are not welcome and their posts may be deleted and if they persist in trying to be disruptive then other measures might need to be taken
     
    Tishomingo likes this.
  15. Bilby

    Bilby Freerangertarian Staff Member

    You mean these newspapers are owned by News Corp that is headed by Rupert Murdoch who owns a only a small percentage of shares?
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Bilby

    OK I’m happy to accept control if that will make you happy - but the point is that the newspapers are controlled by those that are unlikely to promote a left wing/socialist agenda and don’t. just as Fox News doesn’t.

    Are you disputing that?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2020 at 6:03 AM
  17. Flagme15

    Flagme15 Members

    I hope you decide to stay. You're one of the more intelligent ones on this site.
     
    stormountainman and Balbus like this.
  18. sara2001

    sara2001 Members

    politics is like a sport for everybody, its really exciting expecially on election day, and this year more than ever is exciting :tongueout:
     
    WritersPanic likes this.
  19. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Just a side note on censorship as some people seem to be upset by it.

    Free speech, as expounded by this site, is the right to express and listen to opinions without fear of punishment by a regulating governmental body. As such, this site grants that right to individuals who choose to use this site by trying to provide a public arena for them, free from national governmental interference..

    But, it does not mean that those individuals are not subject to censorship by the site and its working personal. Censorship in this context is not an evil thing. Censorship is properly applied by the moderators as the site is a social organization that is made up of a society of individuals who proscribe to certain ideas, etc. As such the site has a right, and indeed, finds it necessity to censor certain postings or individuals to protect itself and others, and guarantee that the site will be able to continue to exist and provide a free speech area. When individuals post on the site they are agreeing to join that society and benefit from whatever the site has to offer; but by posting they also assume a responsibility to respect the other individuals and allow them to also receive maximum benefit from the site.

    Now, to restate: the site is the middleman in this exchange of ideas between the society of individuals using the site and as such has every right to censor the use of the site so as to protect the very purpose of its existence which is free speech.

    Moderators censor, they do not withhold free speech as a national governmental agency would.

    Please read this brief site titled Censorship and Free Speech, which addresses the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution and how it relates to the internet.
     
    stormountainman and sara2001 like this.
  20. sara2001

    sara2001 Members

    ^i agree to that.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice