From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 03:35:14 BST
[Platt]
Since when have I said or implied that "all reality can be captured by the
cultural dichotomy." Let's see your evidence.
[Arlo]
Correct me. Name a few things that are not "conservative" party platform tenants
that you argree with.
[Platt]
Furthermore, you ought to back up your implication that one who engages in
"critical thinking" cannot possibly be a liberal or a conservative
(despite tons of evidence on this site to the contrary) but must be some
sort of a wishy-washy fence sitter.
[Arlo]
I base my evidence on the extremity of overlap, and the degree different
standards are applied to criticism of the opponent versus support of one's own.
For example, I have yet to see you purport any stance that is not lock, stop and
barrel in line with the party. On gun control, they are right. Are abortion,
they are right. On eduction, they are right. On welfare, they are right. On the
environment, they are right. On finance, they are right. These are such
multiple and divergent issues I find it hard to believe (although I'll admit
its not impossible) that someone who, reasoning on their own, would just happen
to match up with "conservative party platforms" on every single imaginable
issue.
Secondly, your inability to draw any critical examination of "your party", to
dismissing any challenge as "liberal conspiracy", while at the same time
slandering the opposition with such things as "liberals love censorship". Not
only do you agree with them exactly on every issue, but they are flawless and
immune to the same "villainy" you attribute to the opposition.
Thirdly, and this is supposition based on history, the same act produces two
polar responses based on the party in which it originates. When republicans
challenge a court nominee it is "civic", when democrats do it is
"obstructionist". If this were Clinton who nominated his personal lawyer to the
supreme court, the republican cry of "nespotism" would ring loudly. But,
since it is "their guy" doing the same thing, the cries are only of support.
When Bush is criticized for his inaction after the hurricane, the party act was
enraging that such an event would be "politicized", but then immediately begin
blaming "liberalism" and the democratic officials.
These things all combine to make me strongly believe that your issues are
decided for you by the Party. You can tell me over and over again how wrong I
am, but I think these three things alone make it fairly evident otherwise.
Finally, its not that critical thinking can't, or won't, lead to either
"liberal" or "conservative" platforms. It might. Which is why I have no qualm
about supporting gun ownership (although I break with mainstream NRA thinking
on military and assault weapons and ammunition) regardless of it being a
"conservative" platform. And I side with "conservatives" on the matter of
abortion, but also side with "liberals" on the social welfare needed to serve
those children. In short, it shouldn't matter to you or to me or to anyone what
"party" endorses an idea we find to be arguble on the merits of higher Quality.
But combine someone who just happens to endorse every conceivable party issue,
refuses to levy any critical examination of his party or its people, and adopts
completely different responses to similar acts based on "whose party" they
originate from, who believes only "news" from sources faithful to the party,
and yes, Platt, I'd say that evidences a lack of critical discerning.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 05:04:30 BST