Please Comment: Principles of Reflective Centrism

[Mathbud1]

Even there we run into a conundrum in the national conversation when we talk about outcome unless we are basing it on a specific principle.

The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks and some people are not benefitted, but national policy should always serve the greater good--that which benefits most and can benefit call--while not violating the individual's rights.

The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure.

So how do we get around that to evaluate outcome?

A good starting point to to lose the "good guy"--"bad guy" attitude, acknowledge your biases, and let issues and values frame the debate instead of ideology.

In my experience (35 years in Mississippi) 95% of white conservatives are overt racists whose daddys were in the Klan. It's a rather harsh judgement, but it also appears to be true. Similarly most white liberals in Mississippi are either rebelling against their daddy and older brother in the Klan, or are northerners bent on "saving" the benighted southerners. Again, a bit harsh but true.

I love your generalizations. You cut off any prospect of real discussion by the way you pigeonhole everyone into your ideological classifications.

So pick a topic and state a position. Don't whine about what other people in your segmented universe do. State your values and propose a plan of action. Defend it on the basis of logic, facts, and how the world actually works.

So, if "The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks", what do you propose to do about it? Or since you stated "The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure." do we live in the best of possible worlds where the disadvantaged should just stop whining and accept their proper place, because you think no plan will improve their lot?

Do you seriously believe that 95% of white conservatives are racist because you spent some time in Mississippi? And then you complain about Foxfyre's generalizations?

 

[oldfart]

It is funny, the far left thinks they are centrists.

While the extremists should have a voice they shouldn't be the one and only voice.

You bring up a curious point. Some groups have a large segment which self-identifies as "extremist" in terms of ideas (while often pointedly eschewing violent means). I find this in libertarian circles (remember Goldwater's famous remark!) and some on the Left. I place myself in this category, I am extremist in some of my core beliefs in the sense that I recognize that 90%+ of the population is not going to agree.

What I share with "radical" libertarians and other extremists is a conviction that just because a policy is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good policy. Consensus merely means that a large number of people join in a bad decision, it does not make the decision a good decision. This is the basic objection to "centrism", the idea that the "center" somehow must be the best course. If you believe that, please explain lemmings.

Often "extremists" are called "anti-democratic" and sometimes "anti-intellectual", both of which I think are bad raps. Democracy is a process, and someone can be dedicated to democratic process and have faith that eventually the best reasoning will win out, while holding seriously minority views. Nothing says the majority must be right. I just hope they can be persuaded.

So I like a good presentation of a position whether I agree with it or not. If someone can argue well, they likely can be persuaded as well. I shudder at the people who cannot be persuaded because they know the "right answer" even if I agree with them.

I have avoided examples because often as soon as one is given, a process "fire, ready, aim" often sets in where people give a knee-jerk reaction based on their world view (often without reading the entire post), assigning the author to one of the pre-determined pigeonholes, and blasing away with the birdshot. Not only is this not conducive to developing a good discussion, I find it incredibly boring. If I want to see that kind of behavior I can always watch six year olds at the park.

So extremists of the world, fire away! Just try to aim first.

 

[oldfart]

Even there we run into a conundrum in the national conversation when we talk about outcome unless we are basing it on a specific principle.

The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks and some people are not benefitted, but national policy should always serve the greater good--that which benefits most and can benefit call--while not violating the individual's rights.

The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure.

So how do we get around that to evaluate outcome?

A good starting point to to lose the "good guy"--"bad guy" attitude, acknowledge your biases, and let issues and values frame the debate instead of ideology.

In my experience (35 years in Mississippi) 95% of white conservatives are overt racists whose daddys were in the Klan. It's a rather harsh judgement, but it also appears to be true. Similarly most white liberals in Mississippi are either rebelling against their daddy and older brother in the Klan, or are northerners bent on "saving" the benighted southerners. Again, a bit harsh but true.

I love your generalizations. You cut off any prospect of real discussion by the way you pigeonhole everyone into your ideological classifications.

So pick a topic and state a position. Don't whine about what other people in your segmented universe do. State your values and propose a plan of action. Defend it on the basis of logic, facts, and how the world actually works.

So, if "The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks", what do you propose to do about it? Or since you stated "The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure." do we live in the best of possible worlds where the disadvantaged should just stop whining and accept their proper place, because you think no plan will improve their lot?

Nothing constructive in any of that rant, just you stating things as if you were the source of Truth itself; no reason, and no facts; a waste of my time.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Since you are proving your tolerance by putting me on your ignore list, I'll speak to the rest of the posters. I was trying to be polite to Foxfyre who started with an obviously intentional incendiary post. Rather than call names, I attempted some regional humor which JimBowie obviously could not recognize. Then I invited Foxfyre to retreat from an unsupportable position and channeling the discussion to specifics. Apparently this is to Jim Bowie a "rant".

Perhaps he will at some future point learn a bit more about argumentation and read the balance of a post, not just the opening he objects to. Then he might realize you cannot answer with fact or logic a simple assertion that people who disagree with you are wrong.

 

[oldfart]

Even there we run into a conundrum in the national conversation when we talk about outcome unless we are basing it on a specific principle.

The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks and some people are not benefitted, but national policy should always serve the greater good--that which benefits most and can benefit call--while not violating the individual's rights.

The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure.

So how do we get around that to evaluate outcome?

A good starting point to to lose the "good guy"--"bad guy" attitude, acknowledge your biases, and let issues and values frame the debate instead of ideology.

In my experience (35 years in Mississippi) 95% of white conservatives are overt racists whose daddys were in the Klan. It's a rather harsh judgement, but it also appears to be true. Similarly most white liberals in Mississippi are either rebelling against their daddy and older brother in the Klan, or are northerners bent on "saving" the benighted southerners. Again, a bit harsh but true.

I love your generalizations. You cut off any prospect of real discussion by the way you pigeonhole everyone into your ideological classifications.

So pick a topic and state a position. Don't whine about what other people in your segmented universe do. State your values and propose a plan of action. Defend it on the basis of logic, facts, and how the world actually works.

So, if "The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks", what do you propose to do about it? Or since you stated "The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure." do we live in the best of possible worlds where the disadvantaged should just stop whining and accept their proper place, because you think no plan will improve their lot?

Do you seriously believe that 95% of white conservatives are racist because you spent some time in Mississippi? And then you complain about Foxfyre's generalizations?

OK, I admit to using a rhetorical device called hyperbole; but it only works when there is a large element of truth in it. I spent 40 years in Mississippi and was careful to comment only on those I had met in Mississippi. Yes, I believe a large majority of white conservatives in Mississippi are one step removed from the Klan. My comments about white liberals in Mississippi, which you seem very comfortable with ("all them carpetbaggers") should have been equally objectionable. So if I bash white Southern liberals and impugn their motives, I must be right, but if I simultaneously bash white Southern conservatives I must be wrong?

I pride myself on careful writing. I did complain about Foxfyre's generalizations, and I made what I thought many would regard as equally objectionable generalizations. That is called satire. I'm sorry you failed to be able to identify it.

So let make my secondary rant more explicit. I would hope readers would be able to discern and appreciate rhetorical devices such as satire and hyperbole which often reinforce each other. Reply to what I write, not your edited version of what you think I wrote.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What centre parties end up doing is to try to appeal both to those to the right and left of them by carefully tailoring what they say according to the audience. The two I am familiar with - the Liberal Democrats in the UK and Center Partiet in Sweden I hold in contempt. No wise consideration of each issue on its merits, just grubby and dishonest scrabbling around for votes.

You are talking political tactics, and I am trying to talk about general axioms that define a perspective that sees all benign and rational voices as necessary to a greater national dialogue about our country and its policies, not political advocacy itself.

 

[dblack]

A so-called "anti-ideology" is still an ideology. There is no way to to be free of ideology because we all see facts through our own worldview. It's unavoidable. So to say that you reject ideology is to say that your ideology is one that rejects all ideology. It's nonsense. Everybody thinks they're a centrist, but in reality there is no such thing.

But in contrast to all the ideologies I know of, this system of thought acknowledges it is not plausible to devise a system that embraces every situation from every possible point of view. The intention is to have a system of thought that embraces *humility* as an operating principle and says we should entertain all reasonable benevolent points of view, even if they are in complete disagreement on specific policies or vary on different issues.

Right now both conservatives and liberals seem inclined to denigrate any opposition thought, and if you don't fit into established pigeonholes God help you. You will catch hell from both sides.

That is why I am saying this is not an ideology; it does not get into the details; they are all negotiable and vary from time to time and situation to situation. there are only a few bare basic principles of tolerance of dissent, respect for traditional forms of existing institutions, while at the same timing challenging us all to try and improve our society for the sake of our progeny.

Thanks for the reasonable comment.

You seem to be conflating ideology with methodology. Ideology isn't about implementation, it's squarely focused on basic principles.

I bolded what I consider the most important statement above, and it immediately leads to the question of which points of view are reasonably benevolent, and which aren't. That's the question ideology attempts to answer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A so-called "anti-ideology" is still an ideology. There is no way to to be free of ideology because we all see facts through our own worldview. It's unavoidable. So to say that you reject ideology is to say that your ideology is one that rejects all ideology. It's nonsense. Everybody thinks they're a centrist, but in reality there is no such thing.

But in contrast to all the ideologies I know of, this system of thought acknowledges it is not plausible to devise a system that embraces every situation from every possible point of view. The intention is to have a system of thought that embraces *humility* as an operating principle and says we should entertain all reasonable benevolent points of view, even if they are in complete disagreement on specific policies or vary on different issues.

Right now both conservatives and liberals seem inclined to denigrate any opposition thought, and if you don't fit into established pigeonholes God help you. You will catch hell from both sides.

That is why I am saying this is not an ideology; it does not get into the details; they are all negotiable and vary from time to time and situation to situation. there are only a few bare basic principles of tolerance of dissent, respect for traditional forms of existing institutions, while at the same timing challenging us all to try and improve our society for the sake of our progeny.

Thanks for the reasonable comment.

You seem to be conflating ideology with methodology. Ideology isn't about implementation, it's squarely focused on basic principles.

I bolded what I consider the most important statement above, and it immediately leads to the question of which points of view are reasonably benevolent, and which aren't. That's the question ideology attempts to answer.

Those who discuss issues using reason and fact are rational, and those who are discussing things with the aim of improving the greater good and their own communities interests are benevolent. Anyone that advocates silencing or punishing another rational and benevolent voice are not benevolent and those who fail to use reason or fact are not rational.

A liberal, conservative, neocon, socialist, etc can be benevolent and rational. They may be wrong on some key points but often ones perspective on those points changes as one grows older.

A Nazi, communist, racist, or Jacobin perspective is built on the dehumanization of categories of human beings. Identity Politics ideology is borderline but many of its advocates do mean well.

So I am not interested in having a discussion with the latter four groups but will with the first four. I am not imposing such on anyone else, but I have no use for people that try to censor God's human Creation.

 

[Bombur]

The key is outcome and not ideological positions that are meant to serve an outcome but don't.

Even there we run into a conundrum in the national conversation when we talk about outcome unless we are basing it on a specific principle.

The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks and some people are not benefitted, but national policy should always serve the greater good--that which benefits most and can benefit call--while not violating the individual's rights.

The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure.

So how do we get around that to evaluate outcome?

The idea of individual rights are often embraced by both sides and rejected by both sides when they feel like it. The term "right" is often overused as politicians make appeals to ideology as opposed to outcome.

For example there can be an ideology that more freedom in the economy leads to a better outcome. The centrist doesn't focus on freedom but outcome. The ideologue tends to focus on freedom and ignore outcome or assume outcome.

On the flip side someone can look at the poor in this country and assume this is a poor outcome that can be fixed by program X. Program X passes and 2 years later they look and see that there are poor people so they should pass program Y. A little while later they have a whole alphabet of programs and people are still poor.

An outcome approach has to be able to have legitimate expectations for outcome. It is not an easy approach to take.

 

[hangover]

Right/left, haves/have nots, Romans/Jews, conservatives/liberals, Christians/Muslims, it's all dogma. "My God is better than your god." Most people are like sheep that would rather be herded. It's easier to follow, than to figure out what is reality. Most feel comfortable being part of the herd. And that herd is usually the one they grew up with. Very few that grew up Christian join the herd of Muslims. To most, being an outsider is scary, so they don't leave the herd they're in.

It's the centrists that have left their herd. Some from the left, some from the right. They are the ones that have figured out the reality. About 33% of this country has done that now. But because the political system is rigged so that only the GOP and the DNC are excepted parties, the "INDEPENDENTS" must lead this country by voting for the lesser of the two evils. And it is the INDEPENDENTS that are directing the future, by their votes, or by not voting. The INDEPENDENTS are doing a good job of frustrating both evils, to the point of total gridlock.

 

[dblack]

But in contrast to all the ideologies I know of, this system of thought acknowledges it is not plausible to devise a system that embraces every situation from every possible point of view. The intention is to have a system of thought that embraces *humility* as an operating principle and says we should entertain all reasonable benevolent points of view, even if they are in complete disagreement on specific policies or vary on different issues.

Right now both conservatives and liberals seem inclined to denigrate any opposition thought, and if you don't fit into established pigeonholes God help you. You will catch hell from both sides.

That is why I am saying this is not an ideology; it does not get into the details; they are all negotiable and vary from time to time and situation to situation. there are only a few bare basic principles of tolerance of dissent, respect for traditional forms of existing institutions, while at the same timing challenging us all to try and improve our society for the sake of our progeny.

Thanks for the reasonable comment.

You seem to be conflating ideology with methodology. Ideology isn't about implementation, it's squarely focused on basic principles.

I bolded what I consider the most important statement above, and it immediately leads to the question of which points of view are reasonably benevolent, and which aren't. That's the question ideology attempts to answer.

Those who discuss issues using reason and fact are rational, and those who are discussing things with the aim of improving the greater good and their own communities interests are benevolent. Anyone that advocates silencing or punishing another rational and benevolent voice are not benevolent and those who fail to use reason or fact are not rational.

A liberal, conservative, neocon, socialist, etc can be benevolent and rational. They may be wrong on some key points but often ones perspective on those points changes as one grows older.

A Nazi, communist, racist, or Jacobin perspective is built on the dehumanization of categories of human beings. Identity Politics ideology is borderline but many of its advocates do mean well.

So I am not interested in having a discussion with the latter four groups but will with the first four. I am not imposing such on anyone else, but I have no use for people that try to censor God's human Creation.

Wow.. ok. Clearly your superior perspective is above unreasonable ideological bias. You and God.

 

[Mathbud1]

A good starting point to to lose the "good guy"--"bad guy" attitude, acknowledge your biases, and let issues and values frame the debate instead of ideology.

In my experience (35 years in Mississippi) 95% of white conservatives are overt racists whose daddys were in the Klan. It's a rather harsh judgement, but it also appears to be true. Similarly most white liberals in Mississippi are either rebelling against their daddy and older brother in the Klan, or are northerners bent on "saving" the benighted southerners. Again, a bit harsh but true.

I love your generalizations. You cut off any prospect of real discussion by the way you pigeonhole everyone into your ideological classifications.

So pick a topic and state a position. Don't whine about what other people in your segmented universe do. State your values and propose a plan of action. Defend it on the basis of logic, facts, and how the world actually works.

So, if "The conservative will most usually admit that some people fall between the cracks", what do you propose to do about it? Or since you stated "The liberal will most often dismiss the overall track record or even individual rights in favor of pointing to some success stories or some failures and will use that to declare a policy success or failure." do we live in the best of possible worlds where the disadvantaged should just stop whining and accept their proper place, because you think no plan will improve their lot?

Do you seriously believe that 95% of white conservatives are racist because you spent some time in Mississippi? And then you complain about Foxfyre's generalizations?

OK, I admit to using a rhetorical device called hyperbole; but it only works when there is a large element of truth in it. I spent 40 years in Mississippi and was careful to comment only on those I had met in Mississippi. Yes, I believe a large majority of white conservatives in Mississippi are one step removed from the Klan. My comments about white liberals in Mississippi, which you seem very comfortable with ("all them carpetbaggers") should have been equally objectionable. So if I bash white Southern liberals and impugn their motives, I must be right, but if I simultaneously bash white Southern conservatives I must be wrong?

I pride myself on careful writing. I did complain about Foxfyre's generalizations, and I made what I thought many would regard as equally objectionable generalizations. That is called satire. I'm sorry you failed to be able to identify it.

So let make my secondary rant more explicit. I would hope readers would be able to discern and appreciate rhetorical devices such as satire and hyperbole which often reinforce each other. Reply to what I write, not your edited version of what you think I wrote.

I did respond to what you had written, and not to an edited version. My problem was probably that I responded to only the written words, and missed the meaning behind them. I apologize for that.

The reason I made no mention of the comments you made about liberals was twofold. First, I didn't really see a negative connotation to what you wrote about them. Rebelling against racism is not a negative, and trying to save people you see as misguided may be misguided in itself, but isn't really BAD. Even if you consider them negative comments, neither is as bad as accusations of racism. Second, I have very little experience with liberal personalities. For all I know your comments about liberals could be 100% accurate. I just don't know. Being a white male who is religious myself, I felt qualified to comment on the portion of your post that I saw as applying to myself and my experience.

There is nothing wrong with a little "hyper-bowl" (see Brian Regan's Epitome of Hyperbole,) I just missed it. My bad.

 

[Mathbud1]

It is funny, the far left thinks they are centrists.

While the extremists should have a voice they shouldn't be the one and only voice.

You bring up a curious point. Some groups have a large segment which self-identifies as "extremist" in terms of ideas (while often pointedly eschewing violent means). I find this in libertarian circles (remember Goldwater's famous remark!) and some on the Left. I place myself in this category, I am extremist in some of my core beliefs in the sense that I recognize that 90%+ of the population is not going to agree.

What I share with "radical" libertarians and other extremists is a conviction that just because a policy is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good policy. Consensus merely means that a large number of people join in a bad decision, it does not make the decision a good decision. This is the basic objection to "centrism", the idea that the "center" somehow must be the best course. If you believe that, please explain lemmings.

Often "extremists" are called "anti-democratic" and sometimes "anti-intellectual", both of which I think are bad raps. Democracy is a process, and someone can be dedicated to democratic process and have faith that eventually the best reasoning will win out, while holding seriously minority views. Nothing says the majority must be right. I just hope they can be persuaded.

So I like a good presentation of a position whether I agree with it or not. If someone can argue well, they likely can be persuaded as well. I shudder at the people who cannot be persuaded because they know the "right answer" even if I agree with them.

I have avoided examples because often as soon as one is given, a process "fire, ready, aim" often sets in where people give a knee-jerk reaction based on their world view (often without reading the entire post), assigning the author to one of the pre-determined pigeonholes, and blasing away with the birdshot. Not only is this not conducive to developing a good discussion, I find it incredibly boring. If I want to see that kind of behavior I can always watch six year olds at the park.

So extremists of the world, fire away! Just try to aim first.

I was just thinking a similar thing about the OP before I read this post. Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)

My thought went something like this:

Say there is this thing called "reality"

Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.

Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )

If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.

In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Connery]

Thread cleaned

Zone 1 rules. Please stay on topic.

 

[oldfart]

Do you seriously believe that 95% of white conservatives are racist because you spent some time in Mississippi? And then you complain about Foxfyre's generalizations?

OK, I admit to using a rhetorical device called hyperbole; but it only works when there is a large element of truth in it. I spent 40 years in Mississippi and was careful to comment only on those I had met in Mississippi. Yes, I believe a large majority of white conservatives in Mississippi are one step removed from the Klan. My comments about white liberals in Mississippi, which you seem very comfortable with ("all them carpetbaggers") should have been equally objectionable. So if I bash white Southern liberals and impugn their motives, I must be right, but if I simultaneously bash white Southern conservatives I must be wrong?

I pride myself on careful writing. I did complain about Foxfyre's generalizations, and I made what I thought many would regard as equally objectionable generalizations. That is called satire. I'm sorry you failed to be able to identify it.

So let make my secondary rant more explicit. I would hope readers would be able to discern and appreciate rhetorical devices such as satire and hyperbole which often reinforce each other. Reply to what I write, not your edited version of what you think I wrote.

I did respond to what you had written, and not to an edited version. My problem was probably that I responded to only the written words, and missed the meaning behind them. I apologize for that.

The reason I made no mention of the comments you made about liberals was twofold. First, I didn't really see a negative connotation to what you wrote about them. Rebelling against racism is not a negative, and trying to save people you see as misguided may be misguided in itself, but isn't really BAD. Even if you consider them negative comments, neither is as bad as accusations of racism. Second, I have very little experience with liberal personalities. For all I know your comments about liberals could be 100% accurate. I just don't know. Being a white male who is religious myself, I felt qualified to comment on the portion of your post that I saw as applying to myself and my experience.

There is nothing wrong with a little "hyper-bowl" (see Brian Regan's Epitome of Hyperbole,) I just missed it. My bad.

You have nothing to apologize for as your comments were appropriate; I took the opportunity of your post to make a point about what I was attempting to do. A good hunk of the Deep South from East Texas to South Carolina really is a different culture than the rest of America. If you have ever lived in the region, we could swap stories for mutual benefit. If not, trust me that race is never far below the surface. Like Robertson, any good white Southerner will tell you how happy their blacks were before all the agitators arrived. They know this because their black friends and employees told them.

 

[oldfart]

I was just thinking a similar thing about the OP before I read this post. Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)

My thought went something like this:

Say there is this thing called "reality"

Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.

Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )

If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.

In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.

There is a lot of recent developments in neural science that support and flesh out what you say about the nature of reality.

First, from before birth our brains struggle to make sense (literally) of the sensory inputs we are bombarded with. It does this by forming what if it were cognitive we would call models of how the universe works, but the process is largely (98%) non-cognitive. There are at least three decision-making processes the brain uses and only one is cognitive. There is a habitual system where learned behavior and responses become automatic (we stop having to think about how to walk, for example) and most of our decisions are habitual, we create rational justifications for our behavior after we have executed our behavior, not before. And there is an emergency response system ("fight or flight") that often is triggered by sounds, smells, and other non-cognitive triggers which are associated with danger.

So to the degree that all of our models of reality coincide, we have a shared reality. But where we don't, we have half the population believing in UFOs, alien abductions, guardian angels, and so forth which the other half deny!

 

[JimBowie1958]

You seem to be conflating ideology with methodology. Ideology isn't about implementation, it's squarely focused on basic principles.

I bolded what I consider the most important statement above, and it immediately leads to the question of which points of view are reasonably benevolent, and which aren't. That's the question ideology attempts to answer.

Those who discuss issues using reason and fact are rational, and those who are discussing things with the aim of improving the greater good and their own communities interests are benevolent. Anyone that advocates silencing or punishing another rational and benevolent voice are not benevolent and those who fail to use reason or fact are not rational.

A liberal, conservative, neocon, socialist, etc can be benevolent and rational. They may be wrong on some key points but often ones perspective on those points changes as one grows older.

A Nazi, communist, racist, or Jacobin perspective is built on the dehumanization of categories of human beings. Identity Politics ideology is borderline but many of its advocates do mean well.

So I am not interested in having a discussion with the latter four groups but will with the first four. I am not imposing such on anyone else, but I have no use for people that try to censor God's human Creation.

Wow.. ok. Clearly your superior perspective is above unreasonable ideological bias. You and God.

OK, beyond the sarcasm, what is so hard about deciding for yourself if a person is being rational or benevolent?

Are you claiming, by inference, that communists, Nazis and racists are as deserving of your consideration as people of various ideologies that want freedom for everyone to one degree or another? The Nazis and commies and racists only want it for their own, not for anyone else.

Am I being pedantic to say so? Then paint me as pedantic. If we stop discriminating against violent and intolerant ideologies then we will eventually lose against them. This is one of the things the old communists and Nazis laughed at us about; time is on their side as they eventually win politically then shut everyone else down.

You have no problem with that?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)

My thought went something like this:

Say there is this thing called "reality"

Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.

Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )

If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.

In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.

Mathbud, I don't think it works that way. No one is entirely correct about everything, and no one is entirely right about everything.

People who specialize in a subject, say plumbing, tend to know their subject better than those who do not. But not even every plumber is right about everything they say in regard to plumbing. Some are out of date, some are ill inclined to short cuts, and yet others are simply dishonest. If you have a plumber that is trying to con you, any personal knowledge related to the topic can help but said dilettante, not as knowledgeable as the expert, can deduce enough to steer clear of a bad buy. But not all plumbers are right about everything to state about plumbing for whatever reason.

So for the broad public's thought on policies in general, some are experts on various subjects, but that does not mean that they are infallible or completely honest.

Do you know anyone who is right about everything they believe to be true?

 

[dblack]

Those who discuss issues using reason and fact are rational, and those who are discussing things with the aim of improving the greater good and their own communities interests are benevolent. Anyone that advocates silencing or punishing another rational and benevolent voice are not benevolent and those who fail to use reason or fact are not rational.

A liberal, conservative, neocon, socialist, etc can be benevolent and rational. They may be wrong on some key points but often ones perspective on those points changes as one grows older.

A Nazi, communist, racist, or Jacobin perspective is built on the dehumanization of categories of human beings. Identity Politics ideology is borderline but many of its advocates do mean well.

So I am not interested in having a discussion with the latter four groups but will with the first four. I am not imposing such on anyone else, but I have no use for people that try to censor God's human Creation.

Wow.. ok. Clearly your superior perspective is above unreasonable ideological bias. You and God.

OK, beyond the sarcasm, what is so hard about deciding for yourself if a person is being rational or benevolent?

Are you claiming, by inference, that communists, Nazis and racists are as deserving of your consideration as people of various ideologies that want freedom for everyone to one degree or another? The Nazis and commies and racists only want it for their own, not for anyone else.

Am I being pedantic to say so? Then paint me as pedantic. If we stop discriminating against violent and intolerant ideologies then we will eventually lose against them. This is one of the things the old communists and Nazis laughed at us about; time is on their side as they eventually win politically then shut everyone else down.

You have no problem with that?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just commenting on the contradiction in what you're claiming. You're judging and rejecting Nazis, racists etc. based on your ideology. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's hypocritical to claim you're somehow above ideology. You're doing the same thing conservatives are doing when they reject socialism because it conflicts with their core values.

Everyone making such critical judgements has an ideology. It's just a question of whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Mathbud1]

Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)

My thought went something like this:

Say there is this thing called "reality"

Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.

Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )

If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.

In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.

Mathbud, I don't think it works that way. No one is entirely correct about everything, and no one is entirely right about everything.

People who specialize in a subject, say plumbing, tend to know their subject better than those who do not. But not even every plumber is right about everything they say in regard to plumbing. Some are out of date, some are ill inclined to short cuts, and yet others are simply dishonest. If you have a plumber that is trying to con you, any personal knowledge related to the topic can help but said dilettante, not as knowledgeable as the expert, can deduce enough to steer clear of a bad buy. But not all plumbers are right about everything to state about plumbing for whatever reason.

So for the broad public's thought on policies in general, some are experts on various subjects, but that does not mean that they are infallible or completely honest.

Do you know anyone who is right about everything they believe to be true?

That is what I meant about degrees of accuracy.

You have the same problem in a specific area that you do in a general one though.

If you have 99 plumbers who only think they know what they are taking about and only 1 who actually knows, the consensus of the 100 is not going to be right.

The point is that consensus is not necessarily any better an actual view of reality than any one person's view, and may actually be considerably worse.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow.. ok. Clearly your superior perspective is above unreasonable ideological bias. You and God.

OK, beyond the sarcasm, what is so hard about deciding for yourself if a person is being rational or benevolent?

Are you claiming, by inference, that communists, Nazis and racists are as deserving of your consideration as people of various ideologies that want freedom for everyone to one degree or another? The Nazis and commies and racists only want it for their own, not for anyone else.

Am I being pedantic to say so? Then paint me as pedantic. If we stop discriminating against violent and intolerant ideologies then we will eventually lose against them. This is one of the things the old communists and Nazis laughed at us about; time is on their side as they eventually win politically then shut everyone else down.

You have no problem with that?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just commenting on the contradiction in what you're claiming. You're judging and rejecting Nazis, racists etc. based on your ideology.

I disagree that recognizing the need for the use of reason and fact (rationalism) and the need for benevolence is anything at all to do with ideology. It more lies in the field of philosophy and theology, but not ideology.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's hypocritical to claim you're somehow above ideology.

Not 'above' ideology but only recognizing its limitations. Reality is too complex for any single set of axioms and their derivative values to completely encompass it.

You're doing the same thing conservatives are doing when they reject socialism because it conflicts with their core values.

No, socialism has specific policies that are built on its axioms and perceived truths, what I am suggesting is a set of principles that looks not so much to create its own policies so much as it listens to other ideologies/philosophies and uses a democratic legislative process (or Republic) to work out where what goes and how.

Everyone making such critical judgements has an ideology. It's just a question of whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

There ae many reasons to make critical judgment aside from ideology.