Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:37 pm

Moon-Crane wrote: to modernise networking capacity.


I've always like the British use of S's instead of Z's!
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:51 pm

Dorset Girl wrote: The USA has civil war, slavery and the treatment of native Americans as some examples of that. Britain has Empire (i.e. stealing countries!!), slavery and war in it's story too.


The American civil war, I would think, would be a positive to you. After all, it led to the emancipation of slaves. Yes America is guilty of the evil of slavery. As you say, every country has 'bad' in its history. BUT (you knew it was coming), America also got rid of slavery, evolved into a multi-racial country practicing civil rights, and is today the most ethnically and racially diverse country in the world. Again, part of it's greatness. Now, as for the 'native' Americans, it is true that we could have behaved better in many circumstances. But it is also true that they could have as well. Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures? Why did they kill and scalp my Anglo ancestors? Why did each tribe have 'braves' and warriors that killed other tribes people? Its a two-way street with the big picture in our favor but you wouldn't know that by reading/listening to liberal media/academia.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:10 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Now, as for the 'native' Americans, it is true that we could have behaved better in many circumstances. But it is also true that they could have as well. Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures? Why did they kill and scalp my Anglo ancestors? Why did each tribe have 'braves' and warriors that killed other tribes people? Its a two-way street with the big picture in our favor but you wouldn't know that by reading/listening to liberal media/academia.


Okay - I have just spent quite a while reading about the Native Americans because, I have to admit, my knowledge of the history was very limited. Now, don't tell me this is off-topic anyone, because personally I find the topic title too huge to handle all at once, so I've bitten off a little section okay? :)

I've looked at a number of different websites, and tried to see things from 'both sides' of the argument. However, there is very little I could find to support the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers. Whether this is due to the media / academics having a biased view, or due to the fact that actually the views represented are accurate, I don't know.


Here's a summary of what I found, please correct me if any of it is inaccurate:

Between the late C15th (when’ first contact’ was made between Europeans and Native Americans) and the end of the C18th, there were numerous encounters, some of which resulted in peaceful co-existence but the majority of which resulted in violent conflicts, often over resources such as food and fuel. As I understand it, a vast amount of Native Americans died due to the introduction of European diseases such as Smallpox, measles and chickenpox, to which they had no natural immunity. Although some people argue that this was deliberate ‘germ warfare’, I don’t know whether or not that was the case, so I’m not saying that these deaths were deliberate – but it can’t be denied that they happened, and that this was a direct, negative result of European settlement.

In the C19th, the US was expanding westwards, and Native Americans were relocated in vast quantities. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, which enabled removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans further to the west. From what I’ve read, this was supposed to be voluntary, but that in reality, great pressure was placed on them to move and force was used in a lot of cases.

There are even instances such as President Jackson ordering the killing of as many bison as possible to eliminate the Plain Indian’s main food source.

There were huge efforts made to ‘integrate’ the Native Americans into the ‘new’ culture, but there was no compromise involved – apparently the children were sent to boarding schools largely run by missionaries, were forbidden form speaking their own language and had Christianity forced upon them. According to Amnesty International, physical, sexual and mental abuse was rife in these schools too.

So, have things changed in the last hundred years, or are there lasting scars? This is from Wikipedia:

Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, slavery, and poverty have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems suffered disproportionately include alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.


JT, you asked three specific questions, and I'm still not sure I can answer them fully, but at least I now know a bit more about the history.

Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures?
What I can't get past here is - it was their land! What right did Europeans have to effectively 'steal' it and use it for their own purposes? In modern-day Britain, and I'm sure in the USA too, authorities can 'compulsorily purchase' land in order to access resources such as oil, but fair recompense is given to the original owners, it's not just stolen from them.

Why did they kill and scalp my Anglo ancestors?
By the sounds of it, from self-defence! EDIT: And also, 'official declarations' of war would surely have been an alien concept to them, as would the difference between 'civilian' and 'military', hence when they retaliated, they were seen as savages and slaughtering people for no immediately obvious reason.


Why did each tribe have 'braves' and warriors that killed other tribes people?

Because that was their system of government / control. It was part of their culture and history, and who were we to waltz in with our 'civilised' ideas and tell them that was wrong? We'd had no previous contact with them before, why should they have immediately accepted our ideals as their own?

Look back at the history of any inhabited continent, and you will see similar systems - not necessarily with the same names (e.g. tribes, braves, warriors) but with the same principles.


:( That took a long time. I'm tired now.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:38 am

Dorset Girl wrote:
Okay - I have just spent quite a while reading about the Native Americans


There is your first mistake in terms of finding out the truth. My comment about media/academia does not come out of a vacuum. The vast majority of the stuff you read about the 'Native Americans' is biased liberal propaganda.



Dorset Girl wrote:I've looked at a number of different websites, and tried to see things from 'both sides' of the argument. However, there is very little I could find to support the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers.


See my comments above.


Dorset Girl wrote:Whether this is due to the media / academics having a biased view, or due to the fact that actually the views represented are accurate, I don't know.


So you feel confident enough to argue the points? I would suggest to anyone not to believe everything they read and hear. Especially in a corrupt (in terms of liberal bias- and they know it) media and academia.


Dorset Girl wrote: As I understand it, a vast amount of Native Americans died due to the introduction of European diseases such as Smallpox, measles and chickenpox, to which they had no natural immunity. Although some people argue that this was deliberate ‘germ warfare’, I don’t know whether or not that was the case, so I’m not saying that these deaths were deliberate – but it can’t be denied that they happened, and that this was a direct, negative result of European settlement.


So? Are you seriously suggesting that the Europeans had a choice in being carriers of Euro germs? Natural but unfortunate consequence of interaction between long-time geographically separated populations. Even if they knowingly, deliberately spread germs (as liberal propagandists contend) through blankets and what not, the violent conflict on both sides was often brutal. Why are you emphasizing only the Euro-on-indian violence and not the scalping, dismembering, and massacring the Indians perpetrated on the Europeans?

Dorset Girl wrote:In the C19th, the US was expanding westwards, and Native Americans were relocated in vast quantities. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, which enabled removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans further to the west. From what I’ve read, this was supposed to be voluntary, but that in reality, great pressure was placed on them to move and force was used in a lot of cases.


Our behavior was not always ideal. There are cases where Indians were willing to assimilate but were still moved. That was regrettable behavior. But don't loose site of the big picture. Age old guilt should only go so far.

Dorset Girl wrote:There are even instances such as President Jackson ordering the killing of as many bison as possible to eliminate the Plain Indian’s main food source.


One thing imho about liberals is an inability to accept reality and human nature. War is hell. Especially so in 1830 or so. Libs have somehow successfully constructed a modern-day paradigm whereby the horrible natural truths about human nature and war are artificially softened - to our ultimate harm. We can't interrogate evil, dumb, culturally inferior terrorists at Guantanamo Bay; We can't accidentally kill one single civilian even when the evil, dumb, culturally inferior terrorists intentionally hide their warriors among women and children; we can't common sensically wire tap suspected terrorists in the United States; and on and on.
And another thing - kind of humorous, at least to me. Why did the 'Native Americans' have to invade a pristine natural environment of Buffalo and other fauna and flora, and kill, eat, and displace them? I thought liberals
say we can't eat anything that has a face. I thought the Indians were the superior culture that lived at one with nature.


Dorset Girl wrote:There were huge efforts made to ‘integrate’ the Native Americans into the ‘new’ culture, but there was no compromise involved – apparently the children were sent to boarding schools largely run by missionaries, were forbidden form speaking their own language and had Christianity forced upon them. According to Amnesty International, physical, sexual and mental abuse was rife in these schools too.


To the extent some of these more extreme items are true - and there have been many exaggerations by the lib propagandists, I will say again that we made mistakes. Again don't miss the big picture, however. Everyone was better off with having assimilation mostly happen Indian to Euro and not vice versa. Euro culture was superior in advancement to that of the 'native' populations. Its my belief that liberals are confused in their application of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is better viewed as a tool anthropologists use to appropriately and effectively study 'foreign' cultures. Its an academic mind-set that allows them to properly study cultural phenomena. The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different", "multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation", "We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".

Dorset Girl wrote:So, have things changed in the last hundred years, or are there lasting scars?


I still have lasting scars from when Caesar invaded the northern lands and massacred my Celtic/Germanic ancestors.


Dorset Girl wrote:Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, slavery, and poverty have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems suffered disproportionately include alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.


Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality.


Dorset Girl wrote:What I can't get past here is - it was their land!


What was 'their' land? I guess a good deal of my answer was implied in my post "Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures". Lots of land. Sparsely populated. What legal, ethical, or practical reasons would one conclude that the whole damn place - from the tip of present day South America to the North pole should have been considered the sole property of a backward and scattered people?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:12 pm

Ooh, that's a nice long post! I'll answer it a bit at a time if that's okay.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:
Okay - I have just spent quite a while reading about the Native Americans

There is your first mistake in terms of finding out the truth. My comment about media/academia does not come out of a vacuum. The vast majority of the stuff you read about the 'Native Americans' is biased liberal propaganda.

Dorset Girl wrote:I've looked at a number of different websites, and tried to see things from 'both sides' of the argument. However, there is very little I could find to support the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers.

See my comments above.

Dorset Girl wrote:Whether this is due to the media / academics having a biased view, or due to the fact that actually the views represented are accurate, I don't know.

So you feel confident enough to argue the points? I would suggest to anyone not to believe everything they read and hear. Especially in a corrupt (in terms of liberal bias- and they know it) media and academia.


So how, then, am I supposed to find out what really happened? Do modern American citizens just 'know' these things? If that's the case, why aren't academics producing papers on it? My reading included recent articles from academic journals such as The Journal of American Studies, Development Studies, etc. I am lucky enough to have access to these as I work for a University. The articles within them are written by highly respected Professors and Doctors, and PhD students.

Are you telling me that a) The average PhD holder would be naive enough to think that if he/she overlooked the 'truth', they wouldn't be faulted by other academics? The articles in those journals are analysed in even more detail than us lot on FO analyse 'Frasier'! :lol: and b) That some Academic, somewhere, wouldn't have seen the money-making opportunity for research which contradicts that which has already been done? I've been in a University environment for ten years, and from what I've seen of Academics, I can't for one moment believe that is the case. They are always looking for niches / gaps in the research, and opportunities to contradict one another. If there was something worthy of study from the angle you're talking about, it would have been done.

There's always the possibility that it has been done, and I haven't found it, but if so, it must be in a pretty obscure journal.

I'm not for one moment pretending that I know 'everything' just because I've spent a few hours reading about it. Of course I don't. As to feeling confident about arguing the case - no, I don't feel particularly confident about it either, but how else am I going to learn, other than through debate and reading? I can't transport myself back in time and live in America whilst all this was happening, nor can anyone else. We all have to consider what we hear - whether that's from word of mouth, journals, historical documents, whatever... and try and weigh up the points to find the facts.

Would you have preferred that I didn't bother trying to find anything out, and therefore the debate stopped? If this is the case, then perhaps we should both stop posting on this thread. At least I haven't tried to present ideas from a point of total ignorance. :(

Also, I really tried to find articles looking at both sides of the argument, I didn't just assume that the first thing I read was right. If you can point me to some other reading material, I'd be grateful. :)
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:21 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote: As I understand it, a vast amount of Native Americans died due to the introduction of European diseases such as Smallpox, measles and chickenpox, to which they had no natural immunity. Although some people argue that this was deliberate ‘germ warfare’, I don’t know whether or not that was the case, so I’m not saying that these deaths were deliberate – but it can’t be denied that they happened, and that this was a direct, negative result of European settlement.


So? Are you seriously suggesting that the Europeans had a choice in being carriers of Euro germs? Natural but unfortunate consequence of interaction between long-time geographically separated populations. Even if they knowingly, deliberately spread germs (as liberal propagandists contend) through blankets and what not, the violent conflict on both sides was often brutal. Why are you emphasizing only the Euro-on-indian violence and not the scalping, dismembering, and massacring the Indians perpetrated on the Europeans?


No, I'm not suggesting that they had a choice in being germ carriers, which is why I said in my post that "I don't know whether or not that was the case", rather than jumping on the 'germ warfare' bandwagon.

Also, perhaps you have read every word of my post as being a criticism, whereas that particular part of it was a summary of the literature I'd found. I'm not 'anti-American' in general - I believe there are good and bad things to come out of every country, America included. I'm not just automatically slating everything American.

As for the scalping, dismembering, massacring that you mention - I have discussed this in the last part of my post, when attempting to answer your questions. The emphasis in my post reflects the emphasis I found when reading. I know less about this, because there is less written about it. Is this because of the scale of it? How many Native Americans died, in comparison to European settlers? I honestly don't know the answer to this, I am assuming that their casualty number were much higher. If this is not the case, then perhaps I need to revise my answer.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:10 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:In the C19th, the US was expanding westwards, and Native Americans were relocated in vast quantities. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, which enabled removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans further to the west. From what I’ve read, this was supposed to be voluntary, but that in reality, great pressure was placed on them to move and force was used in a lot of cases.


Our behavior was not always ideal. There are cases where Indians were willing to assimilate but were still moved. That was regrettable behavior. But don't loose site of the big picture. Age old guilt should only go so far.


Absolutely! I'm not saying 'JT, you should personally pay for what happened in your nation's history!' You had no part in it, why should you? But for the purposes of our discussion here, we're talking about whether or not America is 'the greatest nation in the history of the planet', right? So it's relevant to discuss what happened, even though it's not recent history.

Dorset Girl wrote:There are even instances such as President Jackson ordering the killing of as many bison as possible to eliminate the Plain Indian’s main food source.


One thing imho about liberals is an inability to accept reality and human nature. War is hell. Especially so in 1830 or so. Libs have somehow successfully constructed a modern-day paradigm whereby the horrible natural truths about human nature and war are artificially softened - to our ultimate harm. We can't interrogate evil, dumb, culturally inferior terrorists at Guantanamo Bay; We can't accidentally kill one single civilian even when the evil, dumb, culturally inferior terrorists intentionally hide their warriors among women and children; we can't common sensically wire tap suspected terrorists in the United States; and on and on.
And another thing - kind of humorous, at least to me. Why did the 'Native Americans' have to invade a pristine natural environment of Buffalo and other fauna and flora, and kill, eat, and displace them? I thought liberals
say we can't eat anything that has a face.
I thought the Indians were the superior culture that lived at one with nature.

Huh? Do they?! I thought it was vegetarians that said that! :lol:

You criticised me in an earlier post for trying to argue points that I wasn't confident about - well, I'm not confident in debating the whole modern-day Terrorism issue, so I'm not going to pass comment on this part of your post at the moment.

However - 'Why did the 'Native Americans' have to invade a pristine natural environment of Buffalo and other fauna and flora, and kill, eat, and displace them?' IMO, this is a different debate - this comes under whether humans have the right to kill and eat animals. The difference in human terms is that the Native Americans were using their own land, whereas the European settlers were taking land and resources from humans who were already there.

Another point is that - am I right in saying that the Native Americans had no system of land ownership? Even if this is the case, I still feel it was wrong to take over the area in which they lived. They had no system of ownership because those methods of management did not exist in their culture at the time, I don't see that as a fault on their part, just part of their circumstances. They had had no need of ownership systems before the Europeans came along.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:28 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:There were huge efforts made to ‘integrate’ the Native Americans into the ‘new’ culture, but there was no compromise involved – apparently the children were sent to boarding schools largely run by missionaries, were forbidden form speaking their own language and had Christianity forced upon them. According to Amnesty International, physical, sexual and mental abuse was rife in these schools too.


To the extent some of these more extreme items are true - and there have been many exaggerations by the lib propagandists, I will say again that we made mistakes. Again don't miss the big picture, however. Everyone was better off with having assimilation mostly happen Indian to Euro and not vice versa.

No - if everyone was better off, then there would have been no wars, massacres, displacement, scalping etc. for us to be talking about. Why does assimilation have to happen at all? Why should a native population sit back and accept that invaders are taking over their land, controlling them and making their old, accepted way of life impossible to continue with?

In the 'big picture' you mention a few times, yes - it is easier to assimilate a smaller group into a larger group than vice-versa, but IMO the word 'everyone' is the wrong one to use - 'the majority' may have been better.


Euro culture was superior in advancement to that of the 'native' populations. Its my belief that liberals are confused in their application of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is better viewed as a tool anthropologists use to appropriately and effectively study 'foreign' cultures. Its an academic mind-set that allows them to properly study cultural phenomena. The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different", "multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation", "We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".


I think that first sentence is perhaps one of the main reasons why debates such as this often turn into 'anti-Americanism', rather than remaining balanced. Do you not think that it sounds arrogant to say that European culture is / was superior? It is only superior if you accept that the Western models of development are the best, and perhaps the only, way that countries should progress. Modern-day USA, Britain and many other nations are very consumer-oriented, surely that can't be denied? Is that necessarily a 'good' thing, that all countries should aspire to? My opinion is that it's not. It's far from a perfect model.

Dorset Girl wrote:So, have things changed in the last hundred years, or are there lasting scars?


I still have lasting scars from when Caesar invaded the northern lands and massacred my Celtic/Germanic ancestors.

Good - so we agree. Past historical events have a long-lasting effect, and cannot just be written off.


Dorset Girl wrote:Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, slavery, and poverty have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems suffered disproportionately include alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.


Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality.

I have no idea what that sentence means! Please could you untechnobabble it for me and put it in words that a person of my limited capabilities can understand? :lol: :wink:


Dorset Girl wrote:What I can't get past here is - it was their land!


What was 'their' land? I guess a good deal of my answer was implied in my post "Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures". Lots of land. Sparsely populated. What legal, ethical, or practical reasons would one conclude that the whole damn place - from the tip of present day South America to the North pole should have been considered the sole property of a backward and scattered people?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there. I find the word 'backward' quite offensive though. As I said above, they are only 'backward' if we take the Western development model as the right and true path, and that implies it's flawless, or pretty much, anyway.


As an aside, I have never tried to categorise myself as left-wing, right-wing or anything else. I wouldn't know how to go about it. As I am arguing against you at present, no doubt you would say I was 'left-wing' - but we are only looking at particular issues here, so this doesn't necessarily fully represent my overall views on the world as a whole! How can I find out which 'category' I fit into? I need some kind of 'quiz' or something! :lol:
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:04 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:As an aside, I have never tried to categorise myself as left-wing, right-wing or anything else. I wouldn't know how to go about it. As I am arguing against you at present, no doubt you would say I was 'left-wing' - but we are only looking at particular issues here, so this doesn't necessarily fully represent my overall views on the world as a whole! How can I find out which 'category' I fit into? I need some kind of 'quiz' or something! :lol:


Apologies that this is my fifth post in a row on this thread... :shock: but I found a quiz which seemed quite comprehensive - here.

I answered the questions honestly, and here are my results, which don't mean a lot to me, but still...

Image
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm

Maybe JT could validate his corner by referencing all the 'proper', 'valid', areas of research that he's learned from. The 'correct' view of analysing these events of the past? Unfortunately, we obviously have no way of getting first hand accounts from anyone involved. Thus, JT is implying there is a wealth of data, from another source outside of 'normal' circles, to access, if the regular stuff is all wrong. JT must have learned from somewhere to 'feel confident' in his own views of arguing the case.

To say all research, education, history is based on some mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view, is as mystifying to me than any extreme conspiracy theorist's views of any affairs that i ever take time out to read. You can take into account your belief of the perspective that an author/academic is coming from when digesting the information, but to simply dismiss it, or accept it, simply for being published by somebody who is perceived as a 'left' or 'right' thinking person, is a bit restrictive, in my eyes.

As an aside - not specifically here - all i seem to find, in arguments against any particular way of life, or rules and regulations that certain elements of the media don't agree with, is that it's all part of a 'lefty-liberal-namby-pamby-politically-correct' agenda against the people. What the fuck does that mean in real life? - i'm sure it makes for a lovely soundbite for riling up the 'average disgruntled person', but it is a total nothingness of a sentence. Why does any argument become a valid rebuttal by reeling out that turn of phrase? It wouldn't bother me, except that i hear it spouted several times a day if i happen to be listening to a talk station. It's very lazy, if nothing else. It's as silly as if all right-wing leaners were portrayed as Corporate-worshipping, insider-trading, shit-on-the-workers-to-maximise-shareholder-profit, war-mongering, death-penalty-loving, capitalist whores who'd be happy to destroy the planet down the line to make that extra dollar now. It's simply not true, but can again make for some striking headlines.

Btw, DG, my graph from that site, from a year or so ago, came out similar-ish. It was just into the left, green side, but halfway more further down towards the Libertarian edge. (if that makes sense :lol: i'll see if i've still got it saved somewhere).

Use that little tidbit in whatever way you wish - anybody.

I think, in reality, that issues are too complex to label anybody as simple as left or right, conservative or liberal, etc. It's another lazy tool for people to beat each other up over, in my eyes.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:49 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Btw, DG, my graph from that site, from a year or so ago, came out similar-ish. It was just into the left, green side, but halfway more further down towards the Libertarian edge. (if that makes sense :lol: i'll see if i've still got it saved somewhere).


Is it a valid test, do you think? It seemed quite comprehensive.

In reality though, it wouldn't make much difference to me which 'quadrant' my little red circle was in, I don't form my ideas because I'm in some specific group, I think (hope) I consider each issue on its own merits. You could 'swing' the graph whichever way you wanted if you thought about it, but I just answered each question honestly.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby CatNamedRudy » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:08 pm

Hmmm........lot's of postings here since I was without a computer all day yesterday. I'm not even going to go back and respond to JT's original response to my post about power having nothing to do with greatness because I'm just tired of that same old argument about how the left is ruining the world and the right never does anything wrong. I find it annoying and pointless.

MC, I absolutely agree with this statement

To say all research, education, history is based on some mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view, is as mystifying to me than any extreme conspiracy theorist's views of any affairs that i ever take time out to read. You can take into account your belief of the perspective that an author/academic is coming from when digesting the information, but to simply dismiss it, or accept it, simply for being published by somebody who is perceived as a 'left' or 'right' thinking person, is a bit restrictive, in my eyes.


That being said, I readily admit that there are certain things that I will dismiss on that very basis. I dismiss most of the things published in The National Review for example because I have read first hand accounts of people that have worked for The National Review and through those accounts, I have learned just how un-factual a good share of the articles are.

For the most part though, I will at least listen or read before I make a decision as to whether or not something is pure crap. :)
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Postby ouroboros » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:29 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:As an aside, I have never tried to categorise myself as left-wing, right-wing or anything else. I wouldn't know how to go about it. As I am arguing against you at present, no doubt you would say I was 'left-wing' - but we are only looking at particular issues here, so this doesn't necessarily fully represent my overall views on the world as a whole! How can I find out which 'category' I fit into? I need some kind of 'quiz' or something! :lol:


Apologies that this is my fifth post in a row on this thread... :shock: but I found a quiz which seemed quite comprehensive - here.

I answered the questions honestly, and here are my results, which don't mean a lot to me, but still...

Image


That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind :)
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down :D[spoiler][/spoiler]
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth". Oscar Wilde
User avatar
ouroboros
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:07 pm
Location: London

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:31 pm

ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind :)
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down :D[spoiler][/spoiler]


So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting! :)
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:45 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Maybe JT could validate his corner by referencing all the 'proper', 'valid', areas of research that he's learned from. The 'correct' view of analysing these events of the past? Unfortunately, we obviously have no way of getting first hand accounts from anyone involved. Thus, JT is implying there is a wealth of data, from another source outside of 'normal' circles, to access, if the regular stuff is all wrong. JT must have learned from somewhere to 'feel confident' in his own views of arguing the case.


Absolutely. I had a debate with someone else on this forum who said Wikipedia could not be quoted because users' themselves are able to post data. You just try posting anything on Wiki without an appropriate source (of the type DG quoted) and see how far you get. The mods are even more tyrannical than here! :wink:

However, I seem to remember JT once arguing that most teachers/professors/historians had an intrinsic liberal bias anyway... :roll:
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby welshben23 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:46 pm

I'd just like to say that after reading all the posts on this page, my eyes and my head are now in pain! :D
User avatar
welshben23
 
Posts: 8025
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby CatNamedRudy » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:47 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind :)
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down :D[spoiler][/spoiler]


So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting! :)


I fell pretty much smack dab in the middle of the green section.
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Sorry, :oops: I sort of went a bit crazy on this thread earlier, didn't I?! :lol: I don't know where else to look for info though, so I feel like we've reached a kind of 'stalemate' until JT points me in the direction of some alternative sources.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby welshben23 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:54 pm

On the quiz, I'm in the Green square, 2 squares in from the right and 2 squares down.
User avatar
welshben23
 
Posts: 8025
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:03 pm

That's five 'greenies' and counting...! :D
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:06 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind :)
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down :D[spoiler][/spoiler]


So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting! :)


Yep, seems so. Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros.... on the graph! You lot and your minds :wink: :D
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:07 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros.... on the graph! You lot and your minds :wink: :D


No comment.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:13 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:That's five 'greenies' and counting...! :D


Just as JT suspected, i imagine :lol:
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby ouroboros » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:16 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Yep, seems so. Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros.... on the graph! You lot and your minds :wink: :D


:lol:

Chance to redeem means you are actually more libertarian than me? Cool! :D
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth". Oscar Wilde
User avatar
ouroboros
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:07 pm
Location: London

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:16 pm

Can't find my copy that i saved - but have the numbers written down, so i've nicked DG's graph and added a cross where i should be on it :) (i have nothing to do with my time tonight :lol: )

Image

Actually, i might take it again, and see if it has changed any. it was about 12-18 months ago.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.