[DanDaMan]

I agree very much with hannigaholic. You can't simply say as dan the man more freddom equals more right wing. That makes absolutely no sense. For example most american right wingers are more opposed to gay rights an belive more strongly in censorship on television than most left wingers. hence they are more against behavourial freedom than the left, while at the same time being more against goverment intervention in the economy than the people on the left. So you need a two way scale like hannigaholic proposes, with economy on one and behaviour on the other.

"Right wingers" are actually to the LEFT of modern Liberals when it comes to allowing deviant sexual behavior.
In fact, Iran, a religious theocracy, is leftist/fascist on my scale.
In practice, the only thing modern Liberalism are liberal about is sex and drugs.
Drugs and alcohol, for instance, are vices that the Left allows because men under the influence of vice are easier to manipulate and control. This is why everything but hard liquor is expensive and hard to find in Cuba.
Moral Rightist's want to limit vice so men keep their wits and freedom.


What keeps classic Republicans to the right of Liberals and leftists is that we know smaller government means more individual freedom. This can be proven by the fact the left wants total control of our health care. They want to decide what medicines we get via bureaucrats.

Watch this video and learn...
[youtube]DioQooFIcgE[/youtube]

[DanDaMan]

Well, let's first define the accepted Left... Stalin and communism.

A DDM. Tell me something. Tell me why in God's name you think Stalin was a leftist?

Because he ran a totalitarian state that executed rivals. Care to prove me wrong?

You might have missed it, but the understanding of Left-Right used by every political scientist, and is common knowledge, and is defined in any dictionary you could possibly find, is wrong, and is a twisted mythology.

Correct!
The dictionary follows political dogma and not the scientific method.
Ergo those believing the political dogma are zealots of faith and not true science.

[Ombrageux]

I forget which British conservative had that bon mot about the United States of America having gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual interlude of civilization. They have brought the careful cultivation of the weak mind to magnificently advanced stage, one which leads the other peoples of the Earth to be quite astonished at what can be accomplished with a little effort.

[DanDaMan]

I forget which British conservative had that bon mot about the United States of America having gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual interlude of civilization. They have brought the careful cultivation of the weak mind to magnificently advanced stage

I agree.
Modern Liberalism taught in American schools is the foundation for the leftist movement in America today.
We have an entire generation that cannot judge and discriminate the best of anything.
All we have is a generation that sees everything as failure and nothing as the best.

[anticlimacus]

By definition "restrictions" move you further left away from individual freedom. So what you are trying to say is flawed.

Not necessarily. First one needs to define "freedom" before this conclusion is made. For arguments sake we'll define it as "the ability to do as one pleases." Second, since human beings are essentially social and conditioned by their social existence restrictions are a part of human life. Thus, and third, "deregulation" is just as artificial as "regulation"--using those words loosely to include both economic and non-economic relations. Moreover, lowering restrictions will benefit some more than others, thus providing more "freedom" for some rather than others.

In sum, DanDaMan, the problem with your claim here is your assumptions about freedom and human nature. If you assume that human beings are essentially isolated individuals, then you might be able to theorize a situation in which "restrictions move you further...away from individual freedom"--but that, again, is only if you assume individual freedom as ground zero. This is, after all, what the classical social contract liberals did 300 years ago. Philosophy, anthropology, sociology, archeology, and political science has moved far beyond the classical liberals DanDaMan, and I think it is safe to say the assumption that humans are essentially individualistic is in every way false. Humans are and always have been fundamentally social, and social existence needs to be the starting point.

[Wolfman]

Which results in half-assing every single political position imaginable.

I don't think so. The Constitution is full of compromises because people have different desires and views on good government. One of them (Bicameralism) is something you support, so I don't think you really believe that.

Yeah that's what I do. I think it's more appropriately called third way (or third position in the case of non-liberal streams therein) rather than centrism.

On a standard Left-Right dichotomy however, you'll come out in the middle. And there's really a third axis anyways, even without a 'Third Way' option.

Correct!

That was sarcasm genius.

[pellejo]

dandaman you makes absolutely no sense. When i point out that right wingers are more agaisnt freedom on certain areas the left wingers you just say that in reality they are left. look i can use the same logic: For me beeing lef is all about freedom democrasy, powerfull unions, socialized health care, public funde universities and so on. Stalin was againstmost ofthese things therefore stalin was a rightist. dictatorship is inheretly right wing since it doens't respect the will of the people and fighting for imoowment of the people is what being leftwing is all about.

[Wolfman]

He's a mindless troll. My guess is that he is actually an 12 year old.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
By definition "restrictions" move you further left away from individual freedom. So what you are trying to say is flawed.

Not necessarily. First one needs to define "freedom" before this conclusion is made. For arguments sake we'll define it as "the ability to do as one pleases." Second, since human beings are essentially social and conditioned by their social existence restrictions are a part of human life. Thus, and third, "deregulation" is just as artificial as "regulation"--using those words loosely to include both economic and non-economic relations. Moreover, lowering restrictions will benefit some more than others, thus providing more "freedom" for some rather than others.

In sum, DanDaMan, the problem with your claim here is your assumptions about freedom and human nature. If you assume that human beings are essentially isolated individuals, then you might be able to theorize a situation in which "restrictions move you further...away from individual freedom"--but that, again, is only if you assume individual freedom as ground zero. This is, after all, what the classical social contract liberals did 300 years ago. Philosophy, anthropology, sociology, archeology, and political science has moved far beyond the classical liberals DanDaMan, and I think it is safe to say the assumption that humans are essentially individualistic is in every way false. Humans are and always have been fundamentally social, and social existence needs to be the starting point.

A) "Freedom" need not be defined because "restrictions" by definition impede freedoms.
B) The rest of your post is BS and has nothing to do with my scientific method for a linear political spectrum of Left to Right.

dandaman you makes absolutely no sense. When i point out that right wingers are more agaisnt freedom on certain areas the left wingers you just say that in reality they are left. look i can use the same logic: For me beeing lef is all about freedom democrasy, powerfull unions, socialized health care, public funde universities and so on. Stalin was againstmost ofthese things therefore stalin was a rightist. dictatorship is inheretly right wing since it doens't respect the will of the people and fighting for imoowment of the people is what being leftwing is all about.

Republican tyranny only impedes those wanting vice and sexual deviancy accepted as mainstream.
Aside from that... true Republicans are for a democratic REPUBLIC that is blind to "social justice" (which really means special interest groups). This is the opposite of the democratic social justice that sees people as unequal and punishes unequally.
So now explain to me how "your" democracy is for more freedoms when it inherently has more special interest groups to protect?

[Lightman]

Dan, could you perhaps tell us what you think the scientific method is, without referring to a reference text?

[DanDaMan]

Dan, could you perhaps tell us what you think the scientific method is, without referring to a reference text?

It would be a straight line linear Left to Right chart of OPPOSITES that, when analyzed, does not start getting perverted into a horseshoe or circle.
This is the true scientific method. If you start with something that bends you are being influenced by dogma.

[Wolfman]

does not start getting perverted into a horseshoe or circle.

Onion, thank you.

[anticlimacus]

DanDaMan

It would be a straight line linear Left to Right chart of OPPOSITES that, when analyzed, does not start getting perverted into a horseshoe or circle.

So this is your understanding of a "scientific method"...I think the key thing that you are missing here is METHOD. The "scientific method" is a way of thinking about things so as to avoid as much bias as possible. You can have any straight line you want, that doesn't make it a scientific method; that just gives you a straight line with contrived opposites. It's how you obtain the information that makes something "scientific". Just because you say "scientific method" doesn't mean that you are actually being scientific. You are making baseless claims in the name of science...kinda like Glenn Beck

[DanDaMan]

This video shows how a straight line best describes politics....
[youtube]BfIbgncqdxo[/youtube]

It also explains why you cannot separate economic from personal freedom.

So this is your understanding of a "scientific method"...I think the key thing that you are missing here is METHOD. The "scientific method" is a way of thinking about things so as to avoid as much bias as possible. You can have any straight line you want, that doesn't make it a scientific method; that just gives you a straight line with contrived opposites. It's how you obtain the information that makes something "scientific". Just because you say "scientific method" doesn't mean that you are actually being scientific. You are making baseless claims in the name of science...kinda like Glenn Beck

If my method is devoid of "bias" I would argue it is the best method.
Let's face it... when you introduce 'bias" do you still have a straight line between opposites?
No. Everyone here shows us that.
So drop your political dogma and bias and come over to the purest method free of bias!

[anticlimacus]

If my method is devoid of "bias" I would argue it is the best method.
Let's face it... when you introduce 'bias" do you still have a straight line between opposites?
No. Everyone here shows us that.
So drop your political dogma and bias and come over to the purest method free of bias

Sure...IF your "method"--still not sure what your method is--were really devoid of bias. But, do tell, how is your method devoid of bias? And, I should also add, that method can never eliminate bias. Method is supposed to keep bias to a minimum; but you cannot take the human out of the method--and it is human to be biased. At any rate, DanDaMan, I see you making a bunch of claims--I'm scientific, I'm unbiased in my approach--without any support. Once again, sounds like Glenn Beck...I wonder why?

I also have to add something more to the whole "line spectrum" as being a "scientific method". A diagram is NOT A METHOD. A diagram does not give you information. How you obtain the information is what applies to method. The diagram is a tool for interpreting data.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
If my method is devoid of "bias" I would argue it is the best method.
Let's face it... when you introduce 'bias" do you still have a straight line between opposites?
No. Everyone here shows us that.
So drop your political dogma and bias and come over to the purest method free of bias

Sure...IF your "method"--still not sure what your method is--were really devoid of bias. But, do tell, how is your method devoid of bias? And, I should also add, that method can never eliminate bias. Method is supposed to keep bias to a minimum; but you cannot take the human out of the method--and it is human to be biased. At any rate, DanDaMan, I see you making a bunch of claims--I'm scientific, I'm unbiased in my approach--without any support. Once again, sounds like Glenn Beck...I wonder why?

OK. For the sake of argument let's say you cannot remove bias.
Show me another method not perverted into a horseshoe or onion?
If you can, then I would say you have a method that's the equal and and just as straight.

[anticlimacus]

Show me another method not perverted into a horseshoe or onion?
If you can, then I would say you have a method that's the equal and and just as straight

.

While I'm not convinced that the "horseshoe" or "onion" are absolutely dogmatic and therefore unusable, they, and the the straight line, are NOT METHODS. They are tools for interpreting information, and all of them have their problems. For instance the straight line with Liberty on one end and Tyranny on the other is not scientific. Liberty and tyranny depends on context, they are not self-evident words. What is tyranny to a 1st century Stoic is not the same as what is "tyranny" to a 21st century Fox news listener. How you obtain the data and the data you wish to present that you are going to be pacing on a graph, a line, a diagram, requires a method; and where you place different perspectives on your line requires a method. You have said only this: that we need to use a straight line. You have given neither a method nor accomplished anything scientific.

[Lightman]

It would be a straight line linear Left to Right chart of OPPOSITES that, when analyzed, does not start getting perverted into a horseshoe or circle.
This is the true scientific method. If you start with something that bends you are being influenced by dogma.

Ah, there we go. Dandaman doesn't know what the scientific method is. The scientific method is a method that, in the words of some random wikipedian, "must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning". Your idiotic one dimensional political compass is not scientific.

[Cartertonian]

If you start with something that bends you are being influenced by dogma.

Dan, a lot of what you say is so contradictory as to border on the obtuse.

'something that bends', one might suggest, is indicative of something flexible, and things - particularly ideas - that are flexible are the very antithesis of dogma.

You, dear doy, are the one who is utterly rigid and inflexible of thought and who is therefore far more likely to err on the dogmatic side of the debate.

[grassroots1]

Well, let's first define the accepted Left... Stalin and communism. IE totalitarianism.
Then the far right which would be the total opposite of that... Anarchy and the total lack of government. And just to the left and next to that, Libertarianism.

So this is why you're so confused...