Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Kyran · Feb 17, 2004, 04:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
1) I already said that the 'Radical' title in the Berkeley sense is a title given them by outsiders, and that they themselves have a plethora of different and competing (yet fairly extreme) political philosophies. Thus, you're lumping a bunch of scattershot doctrines with a word that doesn't accurately define them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I already said what I mean by the term Radical. It's your opinion that the word doesn't accurately define them. Course, if you knew a better word, you would just say it wouldn't you?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
2) I'm not attempting to replace "radical" with "democratic," I just suggested something for a third axis, so as to differentiate Kyran's spectrum from the ones already out in a way other than his bias.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't need a third axis to "differentiate" my chart. It works perfectly, and nobody has even attempted to put it in action. Science does not validate new Physics by comparing inventions to old laws/rules while avoiding experimentation. We can do this right here in this thread. Why add a 3rd axis if you don't believe in the first 2? Can anyone name a political issue that is not a Personal or Economic freedom problem?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Kyran, you can't really use "Moderate" because, as the lack of a political designation, you can't really pin down a definition of the people's views on the issues pertinent to your scale.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I can't? Moderates are neutral to political issues. Neutrality is having no opinion. Should we exclude people purely because they have no opinion on certain issues? I don't believe so. Tell me why I should exclude moderates. I never said it was a philosophy, so you're arguing with your own imagination.

People do not typically say "Oh wait, I need a philosophy before I can choose what I think about this issue." Let's abstain from boxing people into man-made philosophies when the real interest is in the issues behind them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge, thanks for the thumbs up. It's perfectly alright to notice each bracket has it's variations. Not everyone in them is going to share beliefs 100%. Some beliefs are exclusive to one bracket, while others are shared between entire rows or columns.

People do not seem to understand how to even use the former chart's mechanism. If you read ontheissues.org, the issue of Gun Ownership is excluded because "it doesn't fit the system." Liberals "should" be pro-gun rights, and many aren't. Owning property is economic freedom. Gold ownership was illegal at one point too; the product in question does not matter...it can be guns, gold, pot, nuclear weapons, etc.

Also, let us not forget that people can have conflicting beliefs. Conservatives serve as the perfect example: supporting the right of the individual to own a business, and their right to use force to stop people from destroying or damaging themselves. This manifests in prohibition.

Feb 17, 2004, 04:07 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) 1) I already said that the 'Radical' title in the Berkeley sense is a title given them by outsiders, and that they themselves have a plethora of different and competing (yet fairly extreme) political philosophies. Thus, you're lumping a bunch of scattershot doctrines with a word that doesn't accurately define them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I already said what I mean by the term Radical. It's your opinion that the word doesn't accurately define them. Course, if you knew a better word, you would just say it wouldn't you? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 2) I'm not attempting to replace "radical" with "democratic," I just suggested something for a third axis, so as to differentiate Kyran's spectrum from the ones already out in a way other than his bias.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't need a third axis to "differentiate" my chart. It works perfectly, and nobody has even attempted to put it in action. Science does not validate new Physics by comparing inventions to old laws/rules while avoiding experimentation. We can do this right here in this thread. Why add a 3rd axis if you don't believe in the first 2? Can anyone name a political issue that is not a Personal or Economic freedom problem? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Kyran, you can't really use "Moderate" because, as the lack of a political designation, you can't really pin down a definition of the people's views on the issues pertinent to your scale.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I can't? Moderates are neutral to political issues. Neutrality is having no opinion. Should we exclude people purely because they have no opinion on certain issues? I don't believe so. Tell me why I should exclude moderates. I never said it was a philosophy, so you're arguing with your own imagination. People do not typically say "Oh wait, I need a philosophy before I can choose what I think about this issue." Let's abstain from boxing people into man-made philosophies when the real interest is in the issues behind them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edge, thanks for the thumbs up. It's perfectly alright to notice each bracket has it's variations. Not everyone in them is going to share beliefs 100%. Some beliefs are exclusive to one bracket, while others are shared between entire rows or columns. People do not seem to understand how to even use the former chart's mechanism. If you read ontheissues.org, the issue of Gun Ownership is excluded because "it doesn't fit the system." Liberals "should" be pro-gun rights, and many aren't. Owning property is economic freedom. Gold ownership was illegal at one point too; the product in question does not matter...it can be guns, gold, pot, nuclear weapons, etc. Also, let us not forget that people can have conflicting beliefs. Conservatives serve as the perfect example: supporting the right of the individual to own a business, and their right to use force to stop people from destroying or damaging themselves. This manifests in prohibition.