Conservative. Liberal. Democrat. Republican. Left Wing. Right Wing.

[ThatDude30]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, I agree with the death penalty,
I agree with most people being able to own guns
I agree with having a large powerful military
I agree with the reality that kids are better off in two parent homes
I agree with a strong private sector!

But, yet the republican party has gone so far to the right these days I am seen as a hard core leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am afraid that the republican party is heading so far right that it isn't just conservative anymore but a full fledged fascist party. One that hates anyone that isn't christian and utra-religious...One that hates investing in our own country and one that hates American citizens for choosing to live differently.

One that would love to throw people off of roof tops.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Do you believe that Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to self-organize and impose rules upon themselves so long as they don't force the same on other Individuals and other groups of Individuals?

Do you believe that Individuals and groups of Individuals should be held accountable for crimes they commit?

Do you believe that Individuals should be free to exchange in trade without restriction and that they should be honest in their dealings?

Do you believe that you have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit?

Do you believe that he fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise?

Do you believe that you should not initiate aggression against other people?

Do you believe that you should not steal or destroy others property?

Do you believe that you have the right to defend your life, freedom and property?

Do you believe that you are of Divine origin and that your spiritual nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material?

Yea or Nay will suffice in response to each herein.


Now. Let's place those questions aside. You'd mentioned some other things...

First, there is no universal agreement on all of the issues. And there never will be. This is okay. One need only try to derive ideologically consistent positions on the many issues as best they can by applying logically core principles. This was the reason I asked you the previous questions. Those are good questions and reserving time to offer/decide your position on them is a great means of defining any core priciples with which you'll eventually need to define and make applicable when deriving consistent positions on any the issues as you educate yourself on them.

This can and will take time as you study the issues themselves and learn to filter out the logical fallacies. It requires a great deal of critical thinking on your part and nobody can do it except for you. Though, help is likely available in places where civil debate/discussion by wise people is routine.

Second. And this is important. Calling people names. All of thse things that you were called or labeled with were likely nothing more than amusing attempts at ad-hominem at your expense. It happens. Fukem.

When that tends to happen, it's reflective of 1 - someone's inability to understand the issue they're debating (most often the case), or 2 - an easy escape from making any such attempt, or 3 - a lack of any real interest in having functional discussion/debate inthe first place. Learn to avoid those people. In my short time here, I've read heaps of threads where some self-proclaimed ass kicker was bragginig about whipping up on some other person philosophically. Both from the left and the right. claims like these are generally laughable. Go through their postings and you'll quickly find that they lack an understanding of the issue themselves if you've taken the time to study and weed out the logical fallicies within any said issues.

Calling someone a name or giving them a label in such a regard only serves to demonstrate that they aren't actually interested in resolving differences. Resolving differences, however, is truly the point of civic engagement. And that's what you want to always strive toward, In short, be thoughtful and avoid seeking a "solution" that only addresses a superficial symptom of an unseen root cause issue. Remember that.

 

[Mousterian]

The Republican Party has fractured into several camps, none of them good for the nation. The Dems have lost their way, and it will take a veritable Messiah to give them a coherent voice.
Our politics have not been so headless since LBJ.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Most people aren't purists, but, instead, tend to vote for the "lesser of two evils." A small, but growing, number of people feel that both major parties are the same bullshit and identify as independent or third party.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Republican Party has fractured into several camps, none of them good for the nation. The Dems have lost their way, and it will take a veritable Messiah to give them a coherent voice.
Our politics have not been so headless since LBJ.

You had a messiah and he made things worse.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

The Political Compass

It's a fairly long test, so I think the results are accurate.

 

[Tehon]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

It's called independent. No one can put you in a box, those that are in one seem to do it to themselves, for whatever reason.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Above all else, we are Individuals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

You might be called "center", it depends, or you can split things up. When you find people who are hard core one thing, you kind of know they aren't actually using their brain, just accepting and defining themselves within someone else's parameters.

 

[SmokeALib]

Above all else, we are Individuals.

Not in a leftist utopian society. You are all in one of the same.

 

[Tehon]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

You might be called "center", it depends, or you can split things up. When you find people who are hard core one thing, you kind of know they aren't actually using their brain, just accepting and defining themselves within someone else's parameters.

That's a hasty generalization.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

You might be called "center", it depends, or you can split things up. When you find people who are hard core one thing, you kind of know they aren't actually using their brain, just accepting and defining themselves within someone else's parameters.

That's a hasty generalization.

Is it?

Have you ever found anyone with pre-set ideas that uses their brain? I certainly haven't and there are plenty of examples on this forum to prove it.

 

[Tehon]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

You might be called "center", it depends, or you can split things up. When you find people who are hard core one thing, you kind of know they aren't actually using their brain, just accepting and defining themselves within someone else's parameters.

That's a hasty generalization.

Is it?

Have you ever found anyone with pre-set ideas that uses their brain? I certainly haven't and there are plenty of examples on this forum to prove it.

You can't say how they all came to their ideas. I'm confident in mine currently but that doesn't mean I haven't come to them through careful consideration and learning.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

You might be called "center", it depends, or you can split things up. When you find people who are hard core one thing, you kind of know they aren't actually using their brain, just accepting and defining themselves within someone else's parameters.

That's a hasty generalization.

Is it?

Have you ever found anyone with pre-set ideas that uses their brain? I certainly haven't and there are plenty of examples on this forum to prove it.

You can't say how they all came to their ideas. I'm confident in mine currently but that doesn't mean I haven't come to them through careful consideration and learning.

No, I can't. So I generalize. Is there anything wrong with that?

However those I have spoken to are generally partisan hacks who will argue their case no matter the evidence in front of them. They want their "side" to be right and will push for that and ignore everything else.

 

[Mac1958]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Of course there is: Independent.

There are more Independents and Moderates than there are wingers (as I point out in my sig). We're just not as loud because we haven't convinced ourselves that we and our "side" have all the damn answers. We think the best answers probably include a bit of everything.

Thinking for yourself does require more effort, you don't get to be part of a little tribe, and you take incoming from both wings. But it's intellectually honest.
.

 

[Tehon]

No, I can't. So I generalize. Is there anything wrong with that?

No. Not if you are comfortable being similar to those whom you criticize.

We all generalize to some degree though. I'm not trying to set myself apart. Just call attention to it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I can't. So I generalize. Is there anything wrong with that?

No. Not if you are comfortable being similar to those whom you criticize.

We all generalize to some degree though. I'm not trying to set myself apart. Just call attention to it.

I'm not being similar to those I'm criticizing at all. This isn't something I've just decided is the case. I'm making a generalization and you know it's a generalization, which means MANY of those people in that category will probably fit what I've said and some won't.

Yes, you're trying to set yourself apart from it, however, do you believe that lots of people who have "manufactured opinions" are free thinkers or people who have literally had thoughts put into their brains?

And if you think they're free thinkers, then why can't they make a logical argument to save their life and often resort to insults every time they find themselves in an uncomfortable position where they either insult or confront their wrong views?

 

[Tehon]

No, I can't. So I generalize. Is there anything wrong with that?

No. Not if you are comfortable being similar to those whom you criticize.

We all generalize to some degree though. I'm not trying to set myself apart. Just call attention to it.

I'm not being similar to those I'm criticizing at all. This isn't something I've just decided is the case. I'm making a generalization and you know it's a generalization, which means MANY of those people in that category will probably fit what I've said and some won't.

Yes, you're trying to set yourself apart from it, however, do you believe that lots of people who have "manufactured opinions" are free thinkers or people who have literally had thoughts put into their brains?

And if you think they're free thinkers, then why can't they make a logical argument to save their life and often resort to insults every time they find themselves in an uncomfortable position where they either insult or confront their wrong views?

I have no rebuttal.

Except to say that by being similar I meant in generalizing. We all do it to some extent. And even those with manufactured opinions find some amount of truth in their generalizations.