Defining the Left and Right

[blackstar212]

I believe in compassion and the goodness inherent in man. That is why i choose freedom and the open market. You choose bondage.

Here is your world.

 

You rope off the water and own the water source which you promptly use to exploit others. The others rope off the fruit trees and vegetables etc, there is nothing free in that. It has a price.

 

My world is different and truly free. We all walk to the water source and get water we gather our fruit and vegetables and everyone enjoys.

 

Mine is a world of peace and freedom.

[Brian]

Left is more tribal and understand that we are whole as a species not individualistic that is a characteristic of the right.

 

The right believes might makes right and individual rights out weigh the group. The right will use society as something to exploit to make themselves have more.

 

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine', and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

 

— Rousseau 1754

 

 

I do not think there is a left country. Some have implemented more left ideals and are half way successful. Denmark, Canada is ok. They have universal healthcare which IMO is a human right. Iceland is not too bad but all of them have work to do.

 

The societies of the entire left have been overrun by the individualists. There are some successful tribes left in the world. I wonder how long before they are ran off their land in the name of making a corporation more profit?

 

The world is vast right wing and that is why our current world has so many problems. We need harmony and compassion as a species and that should be our very first implementation.

 

 

Humans. We are nature and yet we do not feed our elderly to the wild animals we care for them same as for our infants we care for them.

 

My world is factual and follows the true nature of humans a societal animal. It sounds as though you embrace a Spartan view of how the world should work?

 

If a baby shows any defect throw it over the cliff. The elderly the handicapped just send them to a death chamber we cannot have them "draining" the rest of society.

 

Your world is bleak and awful. There is some harmony and compassion already in the human animal, I want more. I also believe that one day this will come. Your ideas of might makes right will vanquish into oblivion. One day it will be true.

 

 

Abortion God aborts about 10% to 20% of babies. I would personally not talk my daughter into having an abortion. I would try to talk her out of it. Though with her being in her 20's it would be ultimately her decision.

 

Physician-assisted suicide. I am not sure. I do not have a problem with someone wanting to commit suicide but I am not sure that another should become involved due to the possibility that a potential patient could be coerced when they are merely curious.

 

 

I recognize the multiple manifestations of the one Infinite Source of all manifestation.

 

Miscarriage = abortion

 

 

Is this a rhetorical question? I think you know my answer.

Just trying to make some sense of this and better understand your political ideations.

 

The only substantive distinction you've provided so far is one I completely agree on -- liberals focus more on the collective and conservatives more on the individual. I think there are a number of other substantive distinctions but you, instead, seem to spin off into "I am for kindness and goodness and happiness, and anyone who disagrees with my methods or questions whether my approaches lead to the stated objectives is obviously a hate-filled, bigoted, knuckle-dragging, troglodytic Neanderthal who likes bombing strangers, throwing babies off cliffs and stuffing old people in gas chambers."

 

I think you haven't examined your own beliefs very well yet and you react badly when someone points out inconsistencies, internal conflicts and false dichotomies in your posts.

[Brian]

 

 

 

 

[blackstar212]

Just trying to make some sense of this and better understand your political ideations.

 

The only substantive distinction you've provided so far is one I completely agree on -- liberals focus more on the collective and conservatives more on the individual. I think there are a number of other substantive distinctions but you, instead, seem to spin off into "I am for kindness and goodness and happiness, and anyone who disagrees with my methods or questions whether my approaches lead to the stated objectives is obviously a hate-filled, bigoted, knuckle-dragging, troglodytic Neanderthal who likes bombing strangers, throwing babies off cliffs and stuffing old people in gas chambers."

 

I think you haven't examined your own beliefs very well yet and you react badly when someone points out inconsistencies, internal conflicts and false dichotomies in your posts.

You would be mistaken.

 

I responded to this.

Show me anywhere in nature where weakness is not exploited.

 

Show me a weak or old animal that does not get preyed upon. Throughout all of history and throughout all of nature, if you are not worthy then you lose.

 

Your ideals about how the world "should be" are delusional because they do not see reality as it really is. Constant change and flux.

 

If one does not advance technologically they will be taken advantage of.

 

This is evolution.

 

How else could anything evolve?

 

He is the one who stated it not me. Old or weak animals that get preyed upon. We are animals and mostly do not do this however Spartans did.

 

You misrepresent what I think. I responded to one post and never stated that anyone who disagrees with me is hate filled etc etc etc. that is a strawman representation.

[blackstar212]

Lets see.

 

Person a I am for peace and love and harmony.

 

Person b I disagree

 

What conclusion must be made?

[Brian]

Let's see...

 

Person A: I'm for peace and love and harmony.

 

Person B: Me, too, but the methods you propose are irrational and have historically proven to result in just the opposite of what you say you are for so maybe you should rethink the approach.

 

Person A: You must be for war and hate and discord.

 

 

Sound about right?

[blackstar212]

Let's see...

 

Person A: I'm for peace and love and harmony.

 

Person B: Me, too, but the methods you propose are irrational and have historically proven to result in just the opposite of what you say you are for so maybe you should rethink the approach.

 

Person A: You must be for war and hate and discord.

 

 

Sound about right?

makes no sense. There is no method to peace love and harmony there is only peace love and harmony.

[Brian]

makes no sense. There is no method to peace love and harmony there is only peace love and harmony.

Sweet! Since we all are for peace and love and harmony then we must already have it, right? Nothing to be done, nothing to complain about, right?

[Brian]

Sweet! Since we all are for peace and love and harmony then we must already have it, right? Nothing to be done, nothing to complain about, right?

Of course, that also means we are both left-wing liberals, too...

 

Right?

[blackstar212]

Sweet! Since we all are for peace and love and harmony then we must already have it, right? Nothing to be done, nothing to complain about, right?

but why is the right for bombing and killing innocents? Why do they call them collateral damage?

[blackstar212]

Of course, that also means we are both left-wing liberals, too...

 

Right?

not sure what you mean. Obama Clinton bushes and trump are slaughtering people they are not peace lovers but war mongers.

[Brian]

but why is the right for bombing and killing innocents? Why do they call them collateral damage?

"The right"isn't, except in your mind. You've decided that you are "left" and -- apparently -- anyone who doesn't live on The Big Rock Candy Mountains is "right.". The only thing other than an unactionable "be nice" (which I agree with as a starting point) that you've put forward has been has been "universal healthcare is a right." Setting aside for the moment that this concept carried to fruition leads to totalitarianism and slavery (we can do a thread on it if you wish), it is not within the US government's authority without a Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider the Convention of States? Ohio has already applied, BTW.

[Brian]

not sure what you mean. Obama Clinton bushes and trump are slaughtering people they are not peace lovers but war mongers.

Your basically defined "the left" as those people who are for love and peace and harmony and everyone else is "the right" who are for bombing and exploiting and slaughtering people and throwing babies off cliffs (but not tearing them apart with metal tools -- that's OK).

 

I'm for peace and love and harmony and against the rest of that stuff so I am firmly part of "the left."

Edited February 14, 2017 by Brian

[blackstar212]

Your basically defined "the left" as those people who are for love and peace and harmony and everyone else is "the right" who are for bombing and exploiting and slaughtering people and throwing babies off cliffs (but not tearing them apart with metal tools -- that's OK).

 

I'm for peace and love and harmony and against the rest of that stuff so I am firmly part of "the left."

if you are against obama Clinton Bush and trump because they bomb then you are good and left I think you are trying to trick me Edited February 14, 2017 by blackstar212

[Brian]

Now we're getting somewhere!

 

So good=left and bad=right?

 

Do you think "right" equals mentally ill or evil?

Edited February 14, 2017 by Brian

[blackstar212]

Now we're getting somewhere!

 

So good=left and bad=right?

 

Do you think "right" equals mentally ill or evil?

right I think is sociopath. That is why they want to fence things off and then charge people for what they fenced off.right is abhorrent to the nature of man Edited February 14, 2017 by blackstar212

[Brian]

right I think is sociopath. That is why they want to fence things off and then charge people for what they fenced off.right is abhorrent to the nature of man

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

Now, don't you feel better for getting that out in the open? You believe anyone who doesn't share your political ideology is not just mentally ill but a full-blown sociopath.

EDIT: Oh, I see you doubling-down while I was typing. Not just sociopaths but abhorrent and unnatural.

 

Should probably be eliminated for the good of the collective, don't you think?

 

You know, the leader of BLM in Toronto recently made similar statements about white people, curiously enough.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Brian

[Marblehead]

When marching one always starts off with the left foot.

 

(Navy folks never have been able to understand that.)

[windwalker]

 

seems to echo many of the comments here. 

[blackstar212]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

Now, don't you feel better for getting that out in the open? You believe anyone who doesn't share your political ideology is not just mentally ill but a full-blown sociopath.

EDIT: Oh, I see you doubling-down while I was typing. Not just sociopaths but abhorrent and unnatural.

 

Should probably be eliminated for the good of the collective, don't you think?

 

You know, the leader of BLM in Toronto recently made similar statements about white people, curiously enough.

lol that would be counter to peace love and harmony. The ills of the world sadly are brought upon us by the individualists. You must conquer this through education and peace not violence and elimination. When someone does that then they are on the right.

[blackstar212]

"The right"isn't, except in your mind. You've decided that you are "left" and -- apparently -- anyone who doesn't live on The Big Rock Candy Mountains is "right.". The only thing other than an unactionable "be nice" (which I agree with as a starting point) that you've put forward has been has been "universal healthcare is a right." Setting aside for the moment that this concept carried to fruition leads to totalitarianism and slavery (we can do a thread on it if you wish), it is not within the US government's authority without a Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider the Convention of States? Ohio has already applied, BTW.

 

I notice so much totalitarianism and slavery in Canada Denmark Japan etc etc.

 

That is false. Also the constitution does call for universal healthcare. We have the right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I declare that life is health and health is life so therefore we must enact a universal system that is compassionate like most of the rest of the world.

 

Our system lacks compassion the wealthy get the best care how awful. Sociopathic-anti-society.

 

If it requires an amendment then so be it and get going forward to compassion.

[Brian]

lol that would be counter to peace love and harmony. The ills of the world sadly are brought upon us by the individualists. You must conquer this through education and peace not violence and elimination. When someone does that then they are on the right.

First and third sentences are completely true. Second and fourth are utter nonsense.

 

You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish but don't expect people to buy what you're selling -- especially after the beliefs you revealed above.

[blackstar212]

 

seems to echo many of the comments here.

I do not agree.

 

You cannot institute violence against your fellow man except in self defense.

 

 

One day collectivism will be the way of the world and man. It will probably be after the individualists set off nuclear bombs and almost wipe human kind out.

 

At that point no one will listen to individualists.

[Brian]

I notice so much totalitarianism and slavery in Canada Denmark Japan etc etc.

 

That is false. Also the constitution does call for universal healthcare. We have the right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I declare that life is health and health is life so therefore we must enact a universal system that is compassionate like most of the rest of the world.

 

Our system lacks compassion the wealthy get the best care how awful. Sociopathic-anti-society.

 

If it requires an amendment then so be it and get going forward to compassion.

Curious how "life" means entitlement to someone else's labor but not actual life.

 

You are free to declare anything you wish but don't get your feelings hurt if people don't take you very seriously.

 

Like I said, I'll be happy to discuss "the right to universal healthcare" in another thread if you choose to start one...

Edited February 15, 2017 by Brian

[blackstar212]

Curious how "life" means entitlement to someone else's labor but not actual life.

 

You are free to declare anything you wish but don't get your feelings hurt if people don't take you very seriously.

 

Like I said, I'll be happy to discuss "the right to universal healthcare" in another thread if you choose to start one...

It does not matter to me if people take me seriously. I have stated my opinion no need to start another thread IMO.

 

Life does not mean entitlement to someone else's labor. There is no labor in giving other humans medical attention. In tribes the doctor is not paid and loves to help the other tribe members. It is called compassion.