Political Evolution

I was looking for some older NBA prediction threads because of Lamrock's thread out of curiosity and a few other things came up while looking for them. (I still love that huge gap in the search.)

And it's always fun to read what your wrote eight years ago because what's better than cringing at yourself.

Old benji has some solid logic, still better than a lot of dopes around here, but he's got some faulty premises.

And I started reading some of these threads, and then jumped into others I could find. And it reminded me of a thread a couple weeks or so ago on another location.

Basically people were sharing their political evolution (hey, that's the name of the thread!) which is interesting in a sort of self-centered way.

Which brings me back to old benji. He's got that one key flaw. Well, two.

Early benji was pretty anarchistic/marxist. Then old benji, whose posts you can find, got trapped into that "least evil" idea and filtered wilsonian self-determination desires into wilsonian/neo-con action. Leading to a reluctant Republican period that lasted for all of one election cycle.

Was it 9/11?

It had to be. Hating Democrats always makes sense, I can forgive a lesser benji for thinking Republicans or even voting matters in a false binary system.

Actually, I can't. But he's so adorable.

Thinking the state can act to liberate people in another nations is the Objectivist delusion. How can. Old benji, you're an Objectivist, why did you, I can't, get out of this house. What a dope.

The only pass I can give old benji is that most people weren't fighting for self-determination until the failed arab spring. old benji, no, I was wrong. You can't "help" with force.

At least I found a post saying Bush should have been impeached back then. Thank you old benji.

TL;DR: How have you "evolved"? anarchist/marxist sympathies -> reluctant Republican -> libertarian -> vicious voluntaryist.

And of course, in the end modern benji is perfect. And that's what's most important right?

Although I still think the Iraq re-invasion is legally justified because of the stupidity of such situations. How proper the removing of tyrants is? It's one of the things I struggle with still.

This is too much about my endless internal debates now, the point is for you to share your own boring internal debates if they're general ideologies or on specific issues.

But wait. I can provide another for those. I've gone from pro-abortion to anti-abortion to fuck I can't know, science save me.

But wait. I can provide another for those. I've gone from pro-abortion to anti-abortion to fuck I can't know, science save me.

The foetus is harvesting the mother's organs without her consent. The woman has the right to remove it or otherwise prevent it from doing so, just as she would if it were an adult human.

The science is irrelevant.

That's not the point of the "science save me" statement. It's probably halfway there already.

And I'm not sure how much you know about babies, I'm an expert, but they do not in fact "harvest" their mothers organs. Let alone do much of anything without her consent.

The organs aren't removed, but the foetus certainly makes considerable use of them.

If the woman doesn't want to be there, its very presence there is without her consent, as is anything it does as a result of its being there. This is particularly clear in cases where pregnancy is not intended by the woman (rape, contraception failure, etc.).

Look, make an abortion thread if you want to argue about abortion, but you can't be as dense on this as you are with technology. Abortion is a clear dispute among competing rights, unless you want to start defining who is and isn't a human based on arbitrary and easily abused definitions.

Beyond that the entire disagreement is because of definitions on what defines dependency and thus debt. Some people think dependency begins instantly, others think it's later, others think children are property and can be used or disposed of as they please, others think child abuse and filicide are wrong, on and on.

The science comment was because we're increasingly gaining capabilities, such as birth control and Plan B to go with pre-existing personal judgement and hopefully this continues to eliminate the necessity of the murder of an inconvenient human/eviction of a trespasser and theif. Not to mention the benefits it brings to a political landscape where the only "choice" allowed is women (and only women) forcing to make others pay for their personal choice on this matter.

you can't be as dense on this as you are with technology.

Huh?

Abortion is a clear dispute among competing rights.

Is it a clear dispute between competing rights if I wander into your home - you left the front door open - and start eating your food, then refuse to leave?

And here come the asinine abortion-associated analogies.

Is it a clear dispute between competing rights if I wander into your home - you left the front door open - and start eating your food, then refuse to leave?

That's one hungry rapist.

Oz then (Early High School)

PATRIOTISM! MURICA! EAGLES!! 9/11! George W. Bush POTUS GOT US THROUGH!

Let me put it this way, my high school class ring we bought 2nd year, one side is a flag and an eagle.

Oz later (Late high school)

I've been betrayed by the country I once loved. Religion is stupid and basing any political beliefs/actions on religion is stupid. Fuck Dub-Ya and his war on an abstract idea that we can never win! (ok i still believe the latter half of that sentence). GO GO MAGIC DEMOCRATS! John Kerry could fix things!! Isolationist/socialist/communist/cynical left winger! Everyone in Washington needs to go, but especially those asshole republicans.

Oz goes to college in the land of liberals (undergrad)

But...i agree with capital punishment and dont think the SAT should be given in ebonics! This is where my shift started to be more moderate. OBAMA'S THE CHANGE WE NEED! (so i was vulnerable to commercials, shut up)

Oz meets a religious S/O and starts re-evaluating

Hm. Religion isnt necessarily bad, its only bad when people use it to justify hate. Maybe I need to start looking at each issue and deciding where I stand instead of basing on party platforms.

tl;dr
Patriotic Repubyouth----->Isolationist cynic liberal ----->leans left but moving towards the middle ----->looks left but approaches every issue with my own belief system that doesnt usually exist.

Issues I've changed on
Abortion-I used to be completely pro-choice but after thinking about it. Im really not pro-life or pro-choice. I dont think abortions shoudl be used as BC, adoption should be used first, and all that stuff. But i dont think abortions should be illegal because making things illegal doesnt keep them from happening, just makes it less safe.

Religion-I used to want to ban all religion but honestly, after i went through some shit in college, i can see the comfort in it. Im still not religious, but I get it

ADA-Yes i like this law, but no its not perfect and needs to be reformed. I do NOT think people would do the right thing without guidance, but the legislation needs to make more sense. Too many friends being fucked by it. 50% of college grads with disabilities are unemployed due to fear of lawsuit mostly.

i agree with capital punishment

Why?

To actually be on-topic for a change, the only real positional "evolution" I've gone through is from 'ban all drugs' to 'legalise all drugs' (unless we include 'koberulz' to 'kobeistremendoustowatch(attimes)butnotparticularlyallthattalentedallthingsconsidered'. The latter is far to long for a username though). I pay far more attention to American law and politics than to Australian, simply due to the larger amount of information available on the former, but the American stuff is mostly completely irrelevant so I can't care all that much about too much of it. I've never really been someone you could pigeonhole into any particular label.

The whole political debate in regards of the US probably boils down to a simple fact.

This fact is most definitely perceived from the point of being a European so-called intellectual. But I would claim the fact to be true.

Americans and the backwards politics that you divulge in makes the Chinese seem evolved in terms of individual rights and a libertarian society. It's hard to intellectually comprehend how the right to free abortion, evolution and socialized medicine still is a question amongst you people. Boggles the mind how you haven't evolved further.

Most of American, European, Asian, etc. political spheres are backwards because they reject individual liberty and voluntary interaction in the name of violently enforced subservience to the state. It's just a more bureaucratic, dishonest and formally designed version of feudalism that slightly de-emphasizes the role of land.

I've never really been someone you could pigeonhole into any particular label.

I'm sure you can always go down the post-modernist rejection of labelization and it's just circular reasoning and blah blah blah but from everything you've ever posted here and on your blog that I've seen you're just a generic libertarian.

leans left but moving towards the middle ----->looks left but approaches every issue with my own belief system that doesnt usually exist.

What do you mean by "left"?

the Chinese seem evolved in terms of individual rights and a libertarian society.

lolwat.

post-modernist

http://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_ ... And_Beyond

I'm sure you can always go down the post-modernist rejection of labelization and it's just circular reasoning and blah blah blah but from everything you've ever posted here and on your blog that I've seen you're just a generic libertarian.

For the most part, and if you were to insist on labeling me that'd probably be the way to go, but then libertarians come out and say that AGW is a myth, drunk driving laws are bad, defamation laws are bad, etc, and it's not even like I respectfully disagree, I just think they're completely fucking crazy. My official position on healthcare is 'all options suck, I don't really have an opinion'.

For the most part, and if you were to insist on labeling me that'd probably be the way to go, but then libertarians come out and say that AGW is a myth, drunk driving laws are bad, defamation laws are bad, etc, and it's not even like I respectfully disagree, I just think they're completely fucking crazy. My official position on healthcare is 'all options suck, I don't really have an opinion'.

But then Kobe Bryant fans come out and say he's better than Jordan, that they're more talented than LeBron James, etc.

Besides, what's wrong with opposing unnecessary laws like drunk driving?

What do you mean by "left"?

This shit needs to change left.

I guess I don't see how that's characteristic of the "left" especially any of the self-described "left"?

I mean sure that stems back to its origins as a term for the Jacobins but it's a pretty vague and generic descriptor of all groups.

Libertarians think "this shit needs to change" so do, radical environmentalists, marxist "anarchists", the American Third Position and neo-nazi's. (But I repeat myself.) And in regards to who is in the White House the dumb Mitt Romney supporters (but I repeat myself) fit such a definition.

*wanders away muttering about the inherent incoherence in poli sci's definitions of left and right and the dishonest self-serving usage of it*

lol that definition of left is based on high school government in SC. No one thinks of the children.

So what am i?

Would have to answer a bunch of questions to say for sure.

I really should find out if there's a fancy name for incoherent desire to use violence to make some people do certain things they won't do without the threat or use of force. I mean, sure, the usual self-declared "moderate" is technically accurate, but it sounds sensible and cloaks the insanity hiding underneath. I don't think anything has drifted over into the near most lesser field though.

radical environmentalists

Bitch please.
Eco-terrorists sound cooler.

So what am i?

Same question benji asked after that rough night in the hotel room.

Tried to formalize a singular question.

The role of a government is to:
A. Protect the rights of the individual against outside aggression.
B. Run society.

With A falling towards the "right" on my spectrum, and B falling on the "left" due to defining the poles as the "interested body" with the individual on the right, the collective on the left.

So this drops communism/fascism, socialism, progressivism and the like on the "left" (because these self-define as on the left and did so on purpose, I let them keep their self-designation) and liberalism, libertarianism and anarchism anchoring the "right", leaving conservatism falling as the "center" due to its inherent role.

Off the two ends you'd fall into a lone man on an island vs. The Borg. No more of that inherently flawed, completely stupid, ignorant of history and simple language commonly taught system where the "extremes meet" and allows the socialists to forever define the left-right spectrum as competing brands of totalitarianism and the self-declared "moderates" to circle jerk to a fallacy assuming their position is between two extremes and thus automatically the best.

It also helps fix the scale so it's listed by the amount of violence necessary. And in this regard, most importantly eliminates the dishonest notion that the only form of human interaction is through "left" politics.

But then Kobe Bryant fans come out and say he's better than Jordan, that they're more talented than LeBron James, etc.

Right, but 'Kobe Bryant fan' is a one-issue label, whereas 'libertarian' covers a number of different things. If you were to ask if I'm a libertarian with regards to, say, drugs, I'd say I am. But the fact that there are areas where I disagree with libertarian positions prevents me, in my mind, from being a libertarian. If you're libertarian on everything except that you believe prohibition is the best policy with regards to all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, it seems silly to call you a libertarian.

The other concern with labeling political views is that if you invest too much in the label, you end up just parroting the opinions of those who have the same label as you, rather than actually thinking for yourself, because people are stupid like that.

Besides, what's wrong with opposing unnecessary laws like drunk driving?

Because they aren't unnecessary.

Are driver's licenses also unnecessary? The entire idea of both laws is to ensure that everyone on the road has some degree of competence. Between the Dunning-Kruger effect and alcohol's ability to impair judgment, it's not really the same case as with speed limits, where the vast majority of people go at a safe speed regardless of what the sign says. You could just ban driving poorly, but that gives you - and others - a much lesser chance of keeping people out of their cars in the first place.

Right, but 'Kobe Bryant fan' is a one-issue label, whereas 'libertarian' covers a number of different things. If you were to ask if I'm a libertarian with regards to, say, drugs, I'd say I am. But the fact that there are areas where I disagree with libertarian positions prevents me, in my mind, from being a libertarian. If you're libertarian on everything except that you believe prohibition is the best policy with regards to all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, it seems silly to call you a libertarian.

Okay, but see, I didn't know you wanted people thrown in jail or murdered for using tobacco or alcohol.

And none of the examples you gave before were "libertarian positions" just examples of positions some libertarians hold. Libertarians do and can make arguments that things like global warming or defamation are violations of the NAP.

you end up just parroting the opinions of those who have the same label as you, rather than actually thinking for yourself

Sounds like a personal problem.

Because they aren't unnecessary.

Are driver's licenses also unnecessary? The entire idea of both laws is to ensure that everyone on the road has some degree of competence. Between the Dunning-Kruger effect and alcohol's ability to impair judgment, it's not really the same case as with speed limits, where the vast majority of people go at a safe speed regardless of what the sign says. You could just ban driving poorly, but that gives you - and others - a much lesser chance of keeping people out of their cars in the first place.

Reckless driving laws already exist. They existed before the drunk driving laws.

Making drunk driving illegal just leads to DUI checkpoints and the current state where they're setup for revenue with judges to rubber stamp immediate warrants allowing car searches for other state-despised substances or objects, on-site blood withdrawals and other unconstitutional shit all to get at anyone who crossed the magically legislated mendoza line in storing liquid courage.

I don't think I've changed on anything. Whether that's good or bad I don't know. If anything I give less fucks about most issues, let alone what's going on overseas or anywhere else. I paid more attention to the video of Julia Gillard falling over in India than I have to anything she's said as a leader, and so do most other people seemingly. Politics are debated by a loud minority then voted on by an uneducated majority, democracy ftw.

I paid more attention to the video of Julia Gillard falling over in India than I have to anything she's said as a leader, and so do most other people seemingly.

I bet you paid tons of attention to this: http://www.news.com.au/national/reveale ... 6492172640

"Brough is a c..t,'' Mr Slipper said in a text on October 10 last year. Soon after, he said: ''Funny how we say that a person is a c..t when many guys like c..ts.''

About five minutes later Mr Slipper began what the Opposition has called "'vile anatomical references''. Referring to women's private parts, he said: ''They look like mussell (sic) removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat. Salty C..ts in brine.''

That day Mr Ashby attempted to get the SMS conversation back to politics, but Mr Slipper persisted.

"Been to thw (sic) fish shop yet to buy the bottle of shell less Mussells (sic)?''