Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I want people to challenge their assumptions. I want them to question the very beliefs they've been taught to base their entire political ideology on.
Which is funny because I don't think I've come across anyone as blindly partisan as you.
Someone who's entire political position is based on assumptions would view it that way, yes.
We see in others that which we know to be in ourselves Joph. If you hold your positions and argue them because you simply
know they are right, then you will tend to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so for equally assumptive reasons.
Quote:
I mean, shit, I criticise the Democrats from time to time. Smash accuses Obama of making a shitty VP pick with Biden and loading bills with pay-offs to the medical industry. I'm not saying folks constantly ***** about the Democrats because most often we agree (or at least give them the benefit of the doubt) but at least we occassionally wander off the ranch and down the street a spell.
That's because Conservatives largely do not base their political positions on the people, but on the ideas themselves. They very fact that you place such great weight in whether one criticizes their own politicians shows how important that is to you. It's not to us though Joph. But what's funny is that because it's important to *you* you insist that I must do it, or I'm somehow blindly partisan.
Let me put this another way with an example: Whether or not I agree that Republicans should have cut spending does not mean I believe that Republican spending policy is worse than Democrat spending policy. Yet, that's often how it's characterized. Liberals seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get Conservatives to "admit" their leaders are doing it wrong, and then jump up and down proclaiming themselves the winner when it happens.
The current liberal tactic seems to be to hold Conservatives up to perfection, and if they don't match up, insist that this proves that their political philosophy is wrong. Remember my apples and oranges example above? If all you do is point out flaws in the oranges, you can make it look like oranges are a bad choice, and get people to select apples instead. But shouldn't we be comparing the two?
A whole lot of my arguments on this board are purely about trying to get people to compare the two sides directly. My unwillingness to provide the forum equivalent of a sound bite in opposition to any given action by a Republican politician is irrelevant unless the same comparison is made to Democrats. Yet, when I insist that we do this, it's generally ignored and replaced with increased cries for me to "admit your guy isn't perfect so we can win!!!".
I'm sorry. I just find the entire approach silly. If you want to call me a partisan hack because I don't go along with that ploy, than by all means go ahead. For me, it's about attempting to focus on the real issues instead of the fabricated illusion that most people seem to place so much weight on.
Quote:
But you're the most "circle the wagons" partisan hack I know. Everything is either perfectly justifiable with the right mental contortions or else is actually the fault of the Democrats/Liberal Media/... well, no "etc", just one of those two.
It's not circling the wagons to want to discuss the issues instead of the irrelevancies that usually drive most political arguments. And yeah. I'm going to point out when the argument is framed incorrectly (and unfairly) from the start by how it's presented in whatever media is involved. You don't see this because you agree with it. Trust me. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see how often you're forced to argue against a set of premises that are blatantly skewed.
Quote:
The idea that you'd be an advocate of questioning one's beliefs is laughable.
Perhaps you should question your assumption about that. Just this once... ;)