Things the left poo-poo'ed...

[Missourian]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

 

[Pogo]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

 

[Missourian]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

 

[Lesh]

Whatr exactly does "losing the gun battle" look like. I posit that it simply means we end up with sensible gun regs and a ban on assault rifles. If that's "losing" we all win. I am by the way...a gun owner.

What gun do you own?

I've got 2 12 ga pumps, a .22 bolt action Springfield knock off (old training rifle) and a CVA .50 cal black powder I built

the 12's are a really smooth action Winchester and a Remington 870

Very nice. My dad taught me to shoot a bolt action .22 ... A Stevens model 15.

I have a traditions .32 black powder kit sitting on the shelf...lots of work to get them just right.

Yup. Spent a lot of hours on mine

 

[Missourian]

Whatr exactly does "losing the gun battle" look like. I posit that it simply means we end up with sensible gun regs and a ban on assault rifles. If that's "losing" we all win. I am by the way...a gun owner.

What gun do you own?

I've got 2 12 ga pumps, a .22 bolt action Springfield knock off (old training rifle) and a CVA .50 cal black powder I built

the 12's are a really smooth action Winchester and a Remington 870

Very nice. My dad taught me to shoot a bolt action .22 ... A Stevens model 15.

I have a traditions .32 black powder kit sitting on the shelf...lots of work to get them just right.

Yup. Spent a lot of hours on mine

You should post a pic down in General Discussion. It is always enjoyable to see a craftsman's work that changes utilitarian tools into handcrafted works or art.

 

[berg80]

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology

A wrongheaded notion disproven by the passionate differences within the Dem party revealed by the presidential primary process. There is no monolithic ideology to which Dems dogmatically adhere.

 

[Pogo]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

 

[berg80]

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

I'm guessing he gets it but he's too invested in the thread to admit his egregiously false assumptions.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I'm afraid that the numbers being given to not add up to the hysteria we're seeing.

 

[Missourian]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

Uh...I never appended a label on you. You assumed the label on your own...hence the guitar lesson analogy. It was you that took it upon yourself to don the mantle...which obliquely underscores my point.

 

[Pogo]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

For an example --- you brought up unions. If I had charged into some thread accusing you of being anti-union, without bothering to explore it with you first, simply on the basis of your "tribe", I would have done you a disservice by pre-dismissing your right to your own opinion. Of course you know me, I would never do that. For other examples I get spat on continuously for stuff like abortion or climate change (two topics I've never posted or opined on) out of the same intellectual sloth; or demands to 'defend' some politician who's a thousand miles away from being relevant to me, simply because the accuser can't be bothered to inquire or see nuance. I even get accused of having a political party, again for the same failure to think.

Of course this is where I immediately challenge the accuser to cite the evidence, knowing that none exists. Matter of fact we have one erudite poster ( Cecilie1200 ) who has me on Ignore as a way of running away from exactly that challenge, which was about her accusation that I ever used Generalization Fallacies. She can't prove it so she ran away.

This is where such sweeping generalization and Composition fallacies lead. Pretty soon you've got idiot topics about cities "run by a political party", you've got horror stories of some assault attributed to political parties or left-right "sides" where none are mentioned or involved, you've got a bottomless dustbin of shit. That's where all this tribalism bullshit leads and there's nothing useful about it.

 

[Pogo]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

Uh...I never appended a label on you. You assumed the label on your own...hence the guitar lesson analogy. It was you that took it upon yourself to don the mantle...which obliquely underscores my point.

I've never assumed a label, for myself or anyone else.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Add your own...

Individual Liberty

.

 

[Missourian]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

For an example --- you brought up unions. If I had charged into some thread accusing you of being anti-union, without bothering to explore it with you first, simply on the basis of your "tribe", I would have done you a disservice by pre-dismissing your right to your own opinion. Of course you know me, I would never do that. For other examples I get spat on continuously for stuff like abortion or climate change (two topics I've never posted or opined on) out of the same intellectual sloth; or demands to 'defend' some politician who's a thousand miles away from being relevant to me, simply because the accuser can't be bothered to inquire or see nuance. I even get accused of having a political party, again for the same failure to think.

Of course this is where I immediately challenge the accuser to cite the evidence, knowing that none exists.

This is where such sweeping generalization and Composition fallacies lead. Pretty soon you've got idiot topics about cities "run by a political party", you've got horror stories of some assault attributed to political parties or left-right "sides" where none are mentioned or involved, you've got a bottomless dustbin of shit. That's where all this tribalism bullshit leads and there's nothing useful about it.

The problem with this angle of attack is that I never accused you personally...nor anyone else. I said "the left". You donned the mantle of the left of your own volition...which almost proves my point in and of itself.

You must consider yourself the left...or I couldn't possibly be addressing you.

/thread

You can have The Last Word...I believe my point has been sufficiently made.

 

[Pogo]

If I did that I'd be guilty of the same fallacy you just did.

I don't believe in lumping people into labels. People are individuals with free will. Dehumanizing them is just counterproductive, useless and stupid. That's where "tribes" comes from. This shit does nothing to help.

It is productive and it does help.

It plants the seeds of doubt in an ideology. It forces people to question their infallibility. If, in their smug superiority, they were convinced of the righteousness of their cause but were wrong...it makes them wonder if the wisdom of their tribe is actually wisdom at all. Perhaps the pragmatism of the conservative that was proven useful here may prove equally useful when extend to other facets of life.

IMO, that is extremely helpful.

Here's why that's not valid, and it's excruciatingly simple.

You're presupposing that people of Tribe X "ARE" the ideology. And they ain't. By trying to shoehorn whoever you've labeled INTO whatever ideology you imagine, you've shut your ears from their voices AND you've appended ideologies to them that they don't hold and may never have even thought about. If I had a dime for every time that shit was hung on me here I could buy the Taj Mahal.

It's effectively going and as noted at the outset, that's useless. People are individuals and there's no way around that.

Not at all. I think individuals are capable of discerning at whom the message is directed.

What you're describing is like what Ricky Gervais said... seeing a flier for guitar lessons and furiously yelling "I don't want any fucking guitar lessons!!!"...if it's obviously not meant for you...just walk away.

That's not analogous at all. "Guitar lessons" would be an OFFER.

The analogy would be more like declaring as a fact that "you want guitar lessons and if you don't show up for them you've cheated me". You're taking the voice of choice away from the other party. That's useless.

It comes down to this ---- no one gets to dick-tate to someone else, what their ideology is. Only that person can do that.

Which is why the OP wasn't directed at individuals...but at the left as a whole.

I am a pro-union Republican...does that mean criticism of the Republican party for being anti-union is suddenly verboten?

That's complete and utter foolishness.

There is no "the left" or "the right", without individuals. You're imagining an abstract that can't be abstracted.

For the second line, such criticism would also be invalid, unless it can be shown to be universal among, in this case, "Republicans". As long as it cannot, it can't work. See also "Nixon" above.

Let me get this straight... there is no leftist ideology nor conservative ideology unless everyone agrees universally on every point. In that case why do we have a left and a right at all, since they can't possibly exist? I cannot ignore them...because they aren't really there at all. So the question becomes...why are you defending that which cannot exist?

You had it, up to the last line.

I'm not defending that which does not exist. YOU are.

Here's where I think this concept goes off the tracks:
We use "left" and "right" after the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly, royalists on the right, populists on the left, by analogy. That's (semi-)valid as adjectives, in order to describe a "leftist ideology" or a "far-right philosophy". The pitfall comes when we anthropomorphize that into a NOUN --- "the left" and "the right" as people, which is an impossible application.

Thus the use as a human collective noun by definition degrades into a Sweeping Generalization Fallacy, which is, to return to the beginning, useless.

IMO you are describing a distinction without a difference...the left is the ideology...and the left is ALSO the individuals that subscribe to that ideology. You may not agree with that connotation...but your acquiescence is not required to make the concept valid and nearly universally accepted.

By definition there are no individuals who subscribe to that ideology, left OR right. Simply because, to do so would require surrendering all free will. That is not a human. It's a programmed robot. If we have a distinction without a difference here, it's the sweeping generalization's insistence that a "majority", or even a "plurality", means "unanimity", It does not.

I added to that post...but I cut it out and will add it here instead...

P.S. - I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion or that that opinion is not somewhat acceptable. What I am saying is in common parlance the left ideology is currently synonymous with the individuals who adhere to that ideology. What I am not saying is that your are wrong to point out that that type of thinking can be counter productive. What I am saying is these posts would be more persuasive if they were aimed at individuals closer to your own ideology when they use "the right" to denote individuals. Otherwise it comes across as thread derailing obfuscation.

To put it another way here --- unless we're speaking of something eminently quantifiable like mathematics --- it's invalid and counterproductive to speak in absolutes. Humans are not absolutes. It isn't valid to expect me, or you, or anyone, to "defend" some ideology we never brought up, simply because the accuser chose to append a label on us and therefore by some weird and fallacious osmosis, we now "own" some ideology we may in fact have never even considered let alone adopted.

People are not ideologies. The latter is an abstract.

For an example --- you brought up unions. If I had charged into some thread accusing you of being anti-union, without bothering to explore it with you first, simply on the basis of your "tribe", I would have done you a disservice by pre-dismissing your right to your own opinion. Of course you know me, I would never do that. For other examples I get spat on continuously for stuff like abortion or climate change (two topics I've never posted or opined on) out of the same intellectual sloth; or demands to 'defend' some politician who's a thousand miles away from being relevant to me, simply because the accuser can't be bothered to inquire or see nuance. I even get accused of having a political party, again for the same failure to think.

Of course this is where I immediately challenge the accuser to cite the evidence, knowing that none exists.

This is where such sweeping generalization and Composition fallacies lead. Pretty soon you've got idiot topics about cities "run by a political party", you've got horror stories of some assault attributed to political parties or left-right "sides" where none are mentioned or involved, you've got a bottomless dustbin of shit. That's where all this tribalism bullshit leads and there's nothing useful about it.

The problem with this angle of attack is that I never accused you personally...nor anyone else. I said "the left". You donned the mantle of the left of your own volition...which almost proves my point in and of itself.

You must consider yourself the left...or I couldn't possibly be addressing you.

/thread

You can have The Last Word...I believe my point has been sufficiently made.

Once again --- as above --- I donned nothing. I argued against your illogic. Pointing out the flaws in bad logic requires no donning. I said nothing about "the left", whatever you imagine it to be --- I said everything about the folly of such divisive tribalist rhetoric. I explained why it's fallacious and useless. And I don't think I got refuted.

Again -- as above -- quote where I "donned". You can't do it. The only reason "the left" is here at all is because that's what you chose to put in your title.

Arguing the bad logic of a bad point is the main thing I do here. You should know that by now.

 

[Missourian]

Pogo Good discussion as always. It's so nice to have a debate that doesn't devolve into "yer stupid", "no your (sic) stupid".

 

[Pogo]

Pogo Good discussion as always. It's so nice to have a debate that doesn't devolve into "yer stupid", "no your (sic) stupid".

That's exactly why I was happy to see you return my friend.

 

[miketx]

...that the current circumstances proved them wrong about.

Prepping.

Guns.

Hunting.

City living.

Individualism.

Masculinity.

The Midwest.

Add your own...

How 'bout....

Sweeping generalization fallacies


/thread

Crease head.

 

[miketx]

You got it wrong at almost every turn

This is not a "Dem Hoax"

You know that isn't true, right?

From left leaning Snopes:

"Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax."

Did President Trump Refer to the Coronavirus as a 'Hoax'?

Trump's commentary on the new coronavirus came before the virus began killing patients in the U.S.

www.snopes.com

Snopes is considered conservative to start with, do you want a video put together of his 6 weeks lying through his teeth about the virus. The mans a pig and you can't polish up a pig. He thought that he could lie his way out of the virus problem but for the first time in office found out he couldn't , so he switched gears but during everyone of this pigs lies , he was told by every person on his staff the complete oposite. He went with the lies because he has a captive group following him that he has lied to none stop since the first day he was in office. They were selected by him for their hate and lack of intelligence.

Snopes is conservative? ROTHFLMFAO!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Speaking of poo poo, there is still a shortage of T.P. for some reason.

Because you can only fit so much stuff into a truck, and there are a lot of things that need to be resupplied at any given store. Then, of course, there's the fact that a lot of us have been unable to buy TP for a while, so it gets snapped up really quickly.