Can we cut back on labels?

[mattskramer]

It seems as though people want quick and simple solutions. In political discussions, people leap to tiresome rhetoric and cute fallacious clichés. They are quickly reduced to labels that don’t provide a clear image of their positions. They even give themselves labels that don’t give a complete picture. Let me give you two examples having to do with the old abortion debate: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

In general, the conservatives identify themselves as pro-life. It would be more appropriate for them to identify themselves and anti-abortion (or at least explain that they support more legislation to make many instances of abortion illegal) – but that takes too much time, space, and thought – doesn’t it? See, the conservatives are willing to err on the side of life when the issue is when life occurs for the fetus. Yet, they are pro-death when the issue concerns capital punishment. I know what some of you are thinking: the fetus is innocent but capital punishment is for criminals. Yet, what if some of the people on death row are actually innocent of their crimes? Shouldn’t the pro-life people oppose capital punishment if there is a chance that some people may be innocent? Let us err on the side of life for these people too.

Now let’s talk about the pro-choice groups. The NOW organizations, liberals, and others often identify themselves as pro-choice. That label seems only to apply for pregnant women considering abortion. Wouldn’t it be better for them to explain that they think that, in most cases, they think that women should be allowed to have abortions? Liberals, for the most part, do not support choice when it comes to education. They don’t think that parents should be allowed to choose what school to have their child attend. Also, concerning firearms, liberals typically don’t support the notion that women should be allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Well, anyway, that is my rant. I know that it takes time, thought, and communication, but I think that it would be nice if people would, just to a small degree, try to drop silly and constricting if not fallacious and erroneous labels.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Labels are what drives politics. If those from the extreme right couldn't call anyone to the left of them librulls and the extreme left couldn't call everyone to the right of them nazis, then fox news would have to go off the air.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Labels are what drives politics. If those from the extreme right couldn't call anyone to the left of them librulls and the extreme left couldn't call everyone to the right of them nazis, <b>then fox news would have to go off the air</b>.

No great loss that. But labels are convenient for those unable to string more than two or three words together to form a sentence and are utterly incapable of cogent argument.

 

[pegwinn]

Labels are more often used in the attack than in personal description of oneself.

Purely for academic demonstration: You are not pro choice. You are for abortion, or you are against personal responsibility. Yet, you are also a bleeding heart liberal that cares more for convicted killers, than unborn children.

See what I mean?

 

[jillian]

Labels are more often used in the attack than in personal description of oneself.

Purely for academic demonstration: You are not pro choice. You are for abortion, or you are against personal responsibility. Yet, you are also a bleeding heart liberal that cares more for convicted killers, than unborn children.

See what I mean?

Let's do a different "academic demonstration". You are not pro life. You are pro birth and do nothing to enhance life after. It also isn't about life because you guys also opposed RU-486. It isn't about personal responsibility, it's about "punishing the harlots"...while the men get a pass.

And you care nothing about the rights of living people or their quality of life. You call yourself "pro-life" but think the answer to any diplomatic issue is a daisy cutter bomb.

So much for being pro life.

 

[Annie]

Let's do a different "academic demonstration". You are not pro life. You are pro birth and do nothing to enhance life after. It also isn't about life because you guys also opposed RU-486. It isn't about personal responsibility, it's about "punishing the harlots"...while the men get a pass.

And you care nothing about the rights of living people or their quality of life. You call yourself "pro-life" but think the answer to any diplomatic issue is a daisy cutter bomb.

So much for being pro life.

Jillian, pretty big generalization there. What do you know about Pegg's kids? Hmmm? I know a bit, only a bit.

 

[pegwinn]

Let's do a different "academic demonstration". You are not pro life. You are pro birth and do nothing to enhance life after. It also isn't about life because you guys also opposed RU-486. It isn't about personal responsibility, it's about "punishing the harlots"...while the men get a pass.

And you care nothing about the rights of living people or their quality of life. You call yourself "pro-life" but think the answer to any diplomatic issue is a daisy cutter bomb.

So much for being pro life.

LOL. I provided an example which was in line with the thread topic. The best discussion you could come up with was to turn it around and make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

I've seen some of your other posts,

you're slippin m'dear..............

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Labels are more often used in the attack than in personal description of oneself.

Purely for academic demonstration: You are not pro choice. You are for abortion, or you are against personal responsibility. Yet, you are also a bleeding heart liberal that cares more for convicted killers, than unborn children.

See what I mean?

So being pro-choice automatically makes you liberal? What if that were that persons only liberal cause?

 

[jillian]

LOL. I provided an example which was in line with the thread topic. The best discussion you could come up with was to turn it around and make a pathetic attempt at a personal attack.

I've seen some of your other posts,

you're slippin m'dear..............

Mmmmmmmmmmm....perhaps you're saying that because mine so closely mirrored yours. I'm sorry you don't like having your example turned around on you. Wasn't anything "personal"..... just speaking in the same generalities as you did. Guess it's annoying, huh?

 

[GeeWhiz]

Even those whom identify themselves with a label don't even know what the label they identify themselves with is all about.

For instance there was a study that concluded there are a large number of people that indentify themselves as being Christians but none of them know anything about God.

Another example, how many of you even know what a terrorist is? Cheney thinks the people of Conneticut are terrorists because they voted for Lamont.So why didn't he round up the citizens of Conneticut and send them to Gitmo? Sure that's a lot of people, but don't you know, we are fighting terrorists over there, even though they are over here voting in Conneticut.

 

[pegwinn]

So being pro-choice automatically makes you liberal? What if that were that persons only liberal cause?

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thread up to that point. You and Jillian seem to forget this is a discussion of LABELS.

Matts started it with the opener. I responded with an assertion that labels for used more in the attack and then gave a legitimate example. If you want to know how I personally feel then go and peruse my other posts.

:tongue1:

 

[Rico]

Even those whom identify themselves with a label don't even know what the label they identify themselves with is all about.

For instance there was a study that concluded there are a large number of people that indentify themselves as being Christians but none of them know anything about God.

Another example, how many of you even know what a terrorist is? Cheney thinks the people of Conneticut are terrorists because they voted for Lamont.So why didn't he round up the citizens of Conneticut and send them to Gitmo? Sure that's a lot of people, but don't you know, we are fighting terrorists over there, even though they are over here voting in Conneticut.

Bwhahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! Damn that's a good one.... Dick Chaney thinks Connecticut voters are terrorists? You libs are such cut-ups....

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thread up to that point. You and Jillian seem to forget this is a discussion of LABELS.

Matts started it with the opener. I responded with an assertion that labels for used more in the attack and then gave a legitimate example. If you want to know how I personally feel then go and peruse my other posts.

:tongue1:

I can follow the discussion. I was posing a question to your "acedemic demonstration." Thats what acedemics do. Form questions in response to statements, this eventually forms what is called a discussion.

The point of my post was to invoke the thought that maybe labels should be applied as a whole rather than segments. For example, I am pro-life. Does this make me a conservative? I am also anti-death penalty. Does this make liberal or do they cancel each other out?

 

[Stephanie]

Even those whom identify themselves with a label don't even know what the label they identify themselves with is all about.

For instance there was a study that concluded there are a large number of people that indentify themselves as being Christians but none of them know anything about God.

Another example, how many of you even know what a terrorist is? Cheney thinks the people of Conneticut are terrorists because they voted for Lamont.So why didn't he round up the citizens of Conneticut and send them to Gitmo? Sure that's a lot of people, but don't you know, we are fighting terrorists over there, even though they are over here voting in Conneticut.

Man, that musta hurt to think up that load of crap.......

 

[Said1]

Man, that musta hurt to think up that load of crap.......

Uhhh, duh. Help me take my finger out of the light socket, I thought there was terrorists in there. :happy2:

 

[Stephanie]

Uhhh, duh. Help me take my finger out of the light socket, I thought there was terrorists in there. :happy2:

Yeah there were... Did you know they all lived in Connecticut??

Ya gotta watch out for tem light sockets. It'll give you frizzy hair....

 

[pegwinn]

I can follow the discussion. I was posing a question to your "acedemic demonstration." Thats what acedemics do. Form questions in response to statements, this eventually forms what is called a discussion.

The point of my post was to invoke the thought that maybe labels should be applied as a whole rather than segments. For example, I am pro-life. Does this make me a conservative? I am also anti-death penalty. Does this make liberal or do they cancel each other out?

My apologies, apparently the sarcasm detector was turned on too high. Most labels tend to be item-specific. I am Anti Abortion, but it doesn't logically follow that I am Conservative. It's like a scorecard. Add up all the labels and if you score a certain way you have earned yourself a pigeonhole.