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 welshben23 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:22 pm

Moon Crane wrote
Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros....in my dreams :wink: :D


FIXED! :lol: :D
Last edited by welshben23 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
welshben23
 
Posts: 8025
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby ouroboros » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:22 pm

MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you :D

Kidding!!!!

:lol:
"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 9:26 pm

ouroboros wrote:MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you :D

Kidding!!!!

:lol:


You're going to have to fight for him with Cat, who has also said she could marry him sometimes, and that really little person in the photo, who's his fiancée!

: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 ouroboros » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:32 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
ouroboros wrote:MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you :D

Kidding!!!!

:lol:


You're going to have to fight for him with Cat, who has also said she could marry him sometimes, and that really little person in the photo, who's his fiancée!

:lol:


Nah who can beat tinkerbell :wink:
"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 9:32 pm

welshben23 wrote:Moon Crane wrote
Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros....in my dreams :wink: :D


FIXED! :lol: :D


:lol: i'll have my revenge when we return to the spangly, speedy, new board.
''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 Moon-Crane » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:33 pm

ouroboros wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:
ouroboros wrote:MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you :D

Kidding!!!!

:lol:


You're going to have to fight for him with Cat, who has also said she could marry him sometimes, and that really little person in the photo, who's his fiancée!

:lol:


Nah who can beat tinkerbell :wink:


You're all terrible :lol: :wink:
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:20 am

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


I took a very similar - maybe the same - test once. Very superficial, but for what its worth I was dead-on center on the y-axis and and one grid-square to the right on the x-axis. As I tell people, I'm actually quite in the middle in a lot of ways, but recognize the dysfunction (i like that word) and destructiveness of modern liberalism - and you don't have to go too far to the left of that Cartesian coordinate plane to run into that dysfunction.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:09 am

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.


I was responding to Dorset Girl specifically. I don't need to delve into her original sources - simply reading her interpretation suffices for our purposes. But it is not surprising or mysterious where those interpretations are coming from. It is no secret that the social sciences have for a long time been dominated by academics with overwhelmingly liberal world views. Even indisputable facts are contextualized based upon ones ideological world view, and the cumulative effect of such overwhelming ideological bias on prevailing academic research is disturbing. No MC, there is not a 'wealth of data' to access to support my arguments. And thats the point. I feel confident because its so obvious. Maybe it takes someone of a differing mindset (ideologically speaking) than the bulk of social science academics to recognize the problem. Similar to when an outsider walks into a room and smells something bad and everyone else in the room says "what smell?"

Moon-Crane wrote: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.


Total strawman. I never said nor implied that all research, education, history is based on some "mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view". If I did, then it would indeed be quite easy for you to attack it - which you did - thus it being a strawman argument. Its not mystical or magical. And I don't simply dismiss it because of the source. I consider the arguments - but it doesn't take long to recognize the bias. You know what is really restrictive in my eyes? Having the bulk of academics (particularly the social sciences) being overwhelmingly ideologically homogeneous. That, rather than my marked suspicion of academia, is really restrictive. And not recognizing or acknowledging the bias is myopic.

Moon-Crane wrote: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?


Everyday conversation, including talk radio, is full of sound bites and verbal bumper stickers. But that does not invalidate the truth behind much (or some) of it. Sometimes such superficial language can be used to obfuscate an issue or as rhetorical BS - even Right wingers. And it sure is not precise enough for serious debate. And it is lazy (but can be fun if you agree with it!). So if thats your point, I can agree.

Moon-Crane wrote: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.


Depends on how much granularity you want. Some people, yes- especially liberals, seem deathly afraid of labels. Overly so, imo. But there are indisputable and significant differences that can be usefully illustrated with labels. There is a such thing as a Liberal, and there is a such thing as a Conservative. Are these labels abused? Sometimes. Maybe a lot. But rejection of their use can also be problematic.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:18 am

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! :)


You know, I think this is the problem with these threads! In order to get a real good dialectic going, you have to be presented with opposing viewpoints. In other words, you all (and i mean ALL) really need me! Without me, you all would represent a microcosm of US academia. See my point?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:13 pm

Dorset Girl wrote: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.


Yea. Well, see my reply to MC about academic bias. thats the problem. Not every academic. Not every research product. But enough to be a pervasive problem.

Dorset Girl wrote: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:


I think you're missing the point, Dorset Girl. And please I hope you don't think I am condescending or arrogant, but it is just my opinion. People - researchers included - see the 'truth' differently. The social science academics in the US at least are very ideologically homogeneous. Groupthink is also part of the problem. It's a closed system that feeds on itself. And they seem to arrogantly reject non-liberal interpretations.



Dorset Girl wrote:and b) That some Academic, somewhere, wouldn't have seen the money-making opportunity for research which contradicts that which has already been done?


Well, for one thing I would hope that a serious academic wouldn't be out looking for a money-making opportunity in research. That could lead to academic corruption - in addition to the ideological corruption that already exists.


Dorset Girl wrote: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.


Again, Dorset Girl, I respectfully think you are missing the point. Even if they are honest, even if they diligently follow rigorous methodology, they cannot escape the prism of their world view. And who decides if an angle is 'worthy' of study? Its like our complaint about biased main stream media: They decide what is worthy of reporting and how it is reported.



Dorset Girl wrote: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. :(


No. I'm not berating you for doing research. I am addressing your post on American indian history and commenting on and cautioning against prevailing views of this history. The debate continues.....
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:32 pm

Dorset Girl wrote: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.


ok. Sorry. I was being what Bernard Goldberg would call 'sloppy' in argument. But the germ warfare thing is brought out by lib whackos a lot as a given and 'evidence' of American exceptionalism at evil.


Dorset Girl wrote: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.


Yea but scalping, etc. just being part of their culture does not abrogate valid criticism of them - as compared with criticism of the Euro colonists. Furthermore, I would think that the scale of the killing on either side would not be that important in this context. I don't want to sound arrogant and insensitive again (which I know every last one of you think), but I would argue that if we killed more of them it was simply because we were more successful at it. Not because we were less moral or more wrong.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:59 pm

This is probably out of date, while i see the additional posts adding to the thread while i keep amending, but c'est la vie.

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
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.


I was responding to Dorset Girl specifically. I don't need to delve into her original sources - simply reading her interpretation suffices for our purposes. But it is not surprising or mysterious where those interpretations are coming from. It is no secret that the social sciences have for a long time been dominated by academics with overwhelmingly liberal world views. Even indisputable facts are contextualized based upon ones ideological world view, and the cumulative effect of such overwhelming ideological bias on prevailing academic research is disturbing. No MC, there is not a 'wealth of data' to access to support my arguments. And thats the point. I feel confident because its so obvious. Maybe it takes someone of a differing mindset (ideologically speaking) than the bulk of social science academics to recognize the problem. Similar to when an outsider walks into a room and smells something bad and everyone else in the room says "what smell?"


Fair enough, but if DG had simply come to this topic and said she was confident in her point of view "because its so obvious" - you would have, quite rightly, hammered her.

All i really wanted was to be pointed towards material supporting your view. It must exist, if you were able to identify with it. I was trying to open the way to citing some sources. You're too well read to not drop a couple of names in. They'd be worth seeking out.

I actually had a brush with this subject, for a paper years ago - and actually tend to agree that it's not a one way street for any 'blame' over the troubles that ensued. However, i can't go with the argument that "Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures". Because they were there first may sound simplistic, but it stands for me as much then as it should now with any country who live under a different set of rules to ours.

But, i agree with you that people need to accept it happened, and we shouldn't have to continue apologising and flagellating ourselves for something we had no personal control over, so many years ago. Good and bad things happen in the world, and they all contribute to its development.

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote: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.


Total strawman. I never said nor implied that all research, education, history is based on some "mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view". If I did, then it would indeed be quite easy for you to attack it - which you did - thus it being a strawman argument. Its not mystical or magical. And I don't simply dismiss it because of the source. I consider the arguments - but it doesn't take long to recognize the bias. You know what is really restrictive in my eyes? Having the bulk of academics (particularly the social sciences) being overwhelmingly ideologically homogeneous. That, rather than my marked suspicion of academia, is really restrictive. And not recognizing or acknowledging the bias is myopic.


Strawman! Great term. I apologise, on rereading, for the way i structured that part. It was a bit sloppy. Fair enough that you think it's unfair and irrelevant - i should have made it clearer that it wasn't implied purely by this one post. (my mistake) but including some past comments in general.

i sometimes feel your answers imply some power, by liberals, to wallpaper over the true situation and stop right minded people progressing in the way they would prefer. Surely they aren't that powerful a set of people to prevent others doing what they want if they hold the power. Sure they can rant and rave and protest, etc, but it doesn't stop it happening. Feel free to put me right about that, as it is only an impression.

You have a downer with the media generally? "The vast majority of the stuff you read about the 'Native Americans' is biased liberal propaganda" or "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."

I notice all persuasions have a problem with media at some time or another. There seem to be enough, with loud enough voices, who nail their mast to the 'anti-liberal' voice of the media currently, in the UK at least. I tend to think that the mainstream media is a pretty weak industry that tends to promote a certain agenda when it suits them, and will switch when necessary. That's down to Editors/owners moreso than particular journalists though. Editors who have to toe a certain line employ the 'yes men' that will give them the slant they need.

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote: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?


Everyday conversation, including talk radio, is full of sound bites and verbal bumper stickers. But that does not invalidate the truth behind much (or some) of it. Sometimes such superficial language can be used to obfuscate an issue or as rhetorical BS - even Right wingers. And it sure is not precise enough for serious debate. And it is lazy (but can be fun if you agree with it!). So if thats your point, I can agree.


It seems we do. It can be quite entertaining sometimes, but the volume of occurance starts to drain me. Even if the presenter is backing views i tend to share, i get a bit sick of any opposition being shouted down almost constantly. I guess it makes their fans happy though.

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote: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.


Depends on how much granularity you want. Some people, yes- especially liberals, seem deathly afraid of labels. Overly so, imo. But there are indisputable and significant differences that can be usefully illustrated with labels. There is a such thing as a Liberal, and there is a such thing as a Conservative. Are these labels abused? Sometimes. Maybe a lot. But rejection of their use can also be problematic.


I agree. I wasn't saying they should be all rejected. Just the use of the terms is increasingly incorrectly used, imho. Liberal is regularly used as a dirty word in our country, where i think a true Liberal ideology excludes a lot of the areas lumped under the term when criticism is forthcoming on certain socio-political issues. It cyclical maybe. A decade ago, I seem to recall the same ills of the country being blamed on capitalists and a Conservative approach (i wouldn't even call those two, necessarily the same thing.

Finally, hats off to the 'walk into a room' analogy. I wish more people would take that stance in all areas - especially political. Both left and right could do with stepping out of the room, occasionally, and accept that while their way might be the correct approach in their eyes, both have flaws which constantly need addressing. Is that another limp liberal thought :lol: i don't know - i don't care. No party seems to do it.

I feel my previous post looked more like an attack on JT when i really didn't want it to be. I'm seemingly more 'left' of JT, but assume i'm more 'right' of others here? If we talked about our views on particular social/political/economic areas, i've been called far from liberal by others. (Hence why i think liberal is often wrongly used. - Or maybe i'm really not liberal - I certainly feel more libertarian - but is that necessarily a liberal trait - not to me.)
Last edited by Moon-Crane on Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
''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 Moon-Crane » Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:04 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
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! :)


You know, I think this is the problem with these threads! In order to get a real good dialectic going, you have to be presented with opposing viewpoints. In other words, you all (and i mean ALL) really need me! Without me, you all would represent a microcosm of US academia. See my point?


We do need you, it's true. Lack of 'opposition' in any area leads down a dangerously apathetic route, and will never be useful for continued growth. I tend to think that there would be some surprising alliances and oppositions if we investigated specific areas though.
''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 » Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:16 pm

JT - I agree that you need people with opposing views to argue and debate something effectively. That's why I thought I'd look into it a little, so that I was a bit better equipped to debate it.

I also appreciate that you may feel as if you are 'in a corner' because you're having to argue your case against several people. I can empathise with this, because I have been in a similar position when debating on other forums. Personally, it made me feel even more 'defensive' about the topic than I would have been otherwise! I'm certainly not saying that this is the case for you JT, I expect you'd give the same responses even if there were other people agreeing with you, but I do empathise!


Can I ask again - how have you arrived at your conclusions if there is no literature to support your views? You said you 'feel confident because it is so obvious' - but it's not obvious to me. Please can you point out why it is obvious? Please don't give me the 'liberalism' argument again, because to me that is just a category that people are slotted into, and I feel it can be quite restrictive to impose that mindset on someone.


A couple of other points you made:

Well, for one thing I would hope that a serious academic wouldn't be out looking for a money-making opportunity in research. That could lead to academic corruption - in addition to the ideological corruption that already exists.

In the real world, Academics have to submit a proposal and receive funding for their work. In the Social Sciences in particular, it is very competitive. I'm not saying that the primary goal of most Academics is to make a profit from their work, but they do need funding and that's not going to be awarded if they are duplicating work that has already been done. It is therefore common, even at Masters level, for people to be looking for a 'niche' that has not yet been explored or covered in detail. This is not necessarily corruption (although there must be some people who abuse the system, I'm sure), it is Academic survival, and if it didn't happen, huge areas of all subjects would be left unexamined.


It is no secret that the social sciences have for a long time been dominated by academics with overwhelmingly liberal world views. Even indisputable facts are contextualized based upon ones ideological world view, and the cumulative effect of such overwhelming ideological bias on prevailing academic research is disturbing.

It's a secret from me! The subject I know best is Human Geography. I could give you a long, boring list of 'paradigms' (i.e. methods and approaches to study) that the subject has been through in the past 50 years. There is such an overwhelming array of approaches, that I can't see at all that any one is dominant.

Also, even if as you say the social sciences have been 'dominated' by academics with liberal world views (which I'm not saying is the case!), this can't account for 100% of people, so to me it feels far too much of a generalisation to say Academics = liberal.



Please could you give your views on this question I posed in an earlier post:
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.



Lastly, and this is going to sound exceptionally arrogant I know, but I am an intelligent person, with an I.Q. higher than Niles and lots of academic experience :lol:. However, when I'm reading your posts, I'm frequently having to stop and look terms up. Most of these terms seem to be political 'labels' that I have not come across before. Maybe it's just me - it probably is - but you say that 'liberals' reject labels. I think there is good reason for this if a) they categorise people too generally, or b) in my case, they are not readily understandable!

Please, help my pounding brain out and explain the term that I asked you about in an earlier post - "Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality" - what does this mean in everyday language that I can understand? :?
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 DHP » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:41 pm

I think there are arguments to be made that other civilisations were far more impressive, and in spite of huge treasure hoarding, had a far better distribution of wealth (probably due to smaller populations than we have today to be fair). I'm not a fan of the legal system at times in the western world that lets people serve very short sentences for crimes that in other times would have demanded much more powerful deterrents, such as rape or even murder. I think certain civilisations in history at certain times can show us many things that we can learn from.
Goodnight Seattle, we love ya!!!
User avatar
DHP
 
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:19 pm

DHP wrote:I think there are arguments to be made that other civilisations were far more impressive, and in spite of huge treasure hoarding, had a far better distribution of wealth (probably due to smaller populations than we have today to be fair). I'm not a fan of the legal system at times in the western world that lets people serve very short sentences for crimes that in other times would have demanded much more powerful deterrents, such as rape or even murder. I think certain civilisations in history at certain times can show us many things that we can learn from.


I think it's a fallacy that people get short sentences for murder, imho. What is certain, is that law has become increasingly more complex, so there can be wider diversity in sentencing, for whatever mitigation is applied. There's also greater press coverage, so any sentence that can cause shock headlines, on face value, can be highlighted.

I'd rather be living in the modern day Western world than as part of any historical civilisation that i can think of. In those terms, that's why i'd tend towards the USA (or Western life, in general, i suppose) being the best civilisation to have lived so far.
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:34 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:

Can I ask again - how have you arrived at your conclusions if there is no literature to support your views? You said you 'feel confident because it is so obvious' - but it's not obvious to me. Please can you point out why it is obvious? Please don't give me the 'liberalism' argument again, because to me that is just a category that people are slotted into, and I feel it can be quite restrictive to impose that mindset on someone.


The literature is full of the interpretation of facts - something that is subject to personal bias. The 'support' of my views is in the interpretation of facts. Do you arrive at conclusions based only on the views of a narrow demographic - even if they are 'experts'? Would you necessarily adopt conclusions of Wall Street Journal editorialists who believe that the U.K's social welfare construct is not better than the US's system? They have a personal and professional biases which effect their professional work. Conventional 'wisdom' on campus is full of fantastic claims. Characterizing our treatment of the Indians as 'genocide', for example, is something that is all too common and is inaccurate. A fact that such-and-such a number of Indians were killed is too often interpreted in this way. Historians will sometimes characterize Indian relations as 'ethnic cleansing', but somehow seem to miss things like the Supreme Court case of Worcester v. Georgia, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, or the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 establishing pensions, Indian control of lands, and the funding of education, medical care, etc. for Native Americans. Commentator Michael Medved smells the stench in the room as I do:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Mich ... ans?page=1

As Mr. Medved writes: "The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our "original sin" fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans."

Context. I'm not the only one who sees these things, just in case you were thinking i'm some right-wing delusional nut job sitting in front of my Confederate flag eating fried chicken while cleaning my shotgun.

Check out this nutty blog by a liberal wacko reviewing a liberal wacko 'historical' book on the American 'holocaust' against the Indians:

http://whiteprivilege.com/2004/08/15/bo ... -stannard/

This kind of thing unfortunately is not rare in liberal - and academic - circles. Are you familiar with the saga of Ward Churchill at a Colorado University? Enough of this crap and just about anyone would see the bias as obvious. If its not obvious to you, maybe that smelly room analogy is applicable.

O.K I have to go for now. I'll have to respond to your other points later.....
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:43 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Commentator Michael Medved smells the stench in the room as I do:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Mich ... ans?page=1

As Mr. Medved writes: "The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our "original sin" fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans."

Context. I'm not the only one who sees these things, just in case you were thinking i'm some right-wing delusional nut job sitting in front of my Confederate flag eating fried chicken while cleaning my shotgun.


I would, as i mentioned in an above post, tend to agree with that sentiment - but i still wonder why it is that you have to be classed as a 'Liberal wacko' if you 'blame' settlers for any/all woes and feel like eternal apologists? I'm not sure where it comes into it - i feel like a liberal person, i guess, but can't get my head around the actions of anyone who feels the need to apologise for any events of the past that they could simply have no control over.

Seems like some sort of politically correct thing, to me - but that doesn't sit side by side with being liberal, in my eyes, anyway. It would be quite the opposite in most ideas of political correctness gone mad that i can think of.
''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 CatNamedRudy » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:06 pm

JT just so you are aware, the majority of those of us who consider ourselves "liberal" think Ward Churchill is a freaking whack job to the enth degree.


You cannot use Ward Churchill as an example of how everyone in education is a leftist loony tune! It's not fair and it's completely inaccurate! His type of thinking IS rare in our institutions. When is the last time you took a class at one of our Universities?

I consider myself fairly liberal in a great many aspects. However, I am NOT anti-fur, I'm not an animal rights activist, I am not a gun control nut, I don't think 9/11 was a Government conspiracy, I don't agree with Affirmative Action and I absolutely don't agree with any type of reparations.

A true "liberal" is one who believes in less government control! Yes, that is true! It's not someone who wants the government involved in everything.
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 JT the Rightwing American » Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:43 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:JT just so you are aware, the majority of those of us who consider ourselves "liberal" think Ward Churchill is a freaking whack job to the enth degree.


You cannot use Ward Churchill as an example of how everyone in education is a leftist loony tune! It's not fair and it's completely inaccurate! His type of thinking IS rare in our institutions. When is the last time you took a class at one of our Universities?


Its true that Churchill was extreme and not representative, in degree that is, with the average uni soc sci prof. But the main point in using his example is that he was able to 1. get hired 2. survive and 3. flourish at a state university. Why is that?

Funny anecdote from my experience on a college campus a few years ago. Plenty of Anti-Bush and 'US is an Imperialist pig' types of stickers around campus, but a vehicle in the campus parking lot (car park) had two bumper stickers on the back bumper - about an inch apart. One read "Got Compassion?" the other read "There is an village in Texas missing an idiot". The real message there - the whole message - is far more significant than either of its intended parts.

CatNamedRudy wrote:I consider myself fairly liberal in a great many aspects. However, I am NOT anti-fur, I'm not an animal rights activist, I am not a gun control nut, I don't think 9/11 was a Government conspiracy, I don't agree with Affirmative Action and I absolutely don't agree with any type of reparations.


Cat, have you ever thought that maybe you have mislabeled yourself? You may not be as liberal as you seem to think.

CatNamedRudy wrote:A true "liberal" is one who believes in less government control! Yes, that is true! It's not someone who wants the government involved in everything.


Negative. A modern liberal thinks that government should get involved in providing a 'fix' to perceived social injustices and redistribution of wealth to meet some preconceived ideal of equality. Liberals are very suspicious of private endeavor and see government as the savior against private greed. Liberals do want less government control only when it comes to the primary function of our government - defense. Then they decry the efforts of government as fascistic, war-mongering, and intrusive of civil rights by Rightwing extremists. True Conservatives, however, do believe in less government control - except in national defense (some social conservatives,admittedly, overreach on governmental 'fixes' for 'vice'). Especially the Libertarians. True conservatives are much more comfortable with the supremacy of the private sector. As a matter of fact, supremacy of the individual and private institutions is fundamental to modern (and traditional) conservative ideology.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:02 am

Moon-Crane wrote:I would, as i mentioned in an above post, tend to agree with that sentiment - but i still wonder why it is that you have to be classed as a 'Liberal wacko' if you 'blame' settlers for any/all woes and feel like eternal apologists?


Because in my opinion blaming settlers for any woes and eternally apologizing for it and for characterizing our behavior as 'genocide' and using all this to further fuel modern anti-Americanism is wacky. And it IS liberal. I'm not saying ALL predominantly liberal people think this way - but it IS liberal thinking. I do recognize shades of gray and gradations of people's thinking. I like to say facetiously that I am right of Attila the Hun, but even I believe in a social welfare safety net, a progressive tax system, and could even come to terms with a socio-economically based affirmative action system that targets disadvantaged kids only. (that is once they become adults, they are on their own to compete and win or lose). I could even understand a better-constructed and implemented short-term racial affirmative action program in the '60's designed to boost American black's culture achievement to improve competitiveness. But my point is that these wacky ideas (White man bad, US are imperialist pigs, perpetual affirmative action, etc. etc. ad nauseum) are the prevailing paradigm now (even though moderate liberals don't go that far they do enable it - look at the tenure of Ward Churchill), and only aggressive anti-liberalism such as I practice (even though I have come out almost dead center (x and y) on a similar ideology graph as is being displayed here) can hope to stop this runaway train and get it turned around.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:32 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:I would, as i mentioned in an above post, tend to agree with that sentiment - but i still wonder why it is that you have to be classed as a 'Liberal wacko' if you 'blame' settlers for any/all woes and feel like eternal apologists?


Because in my opinion blaming settlers for any woes and eternally apologizing for it and for characterizing our behavior as 'genocide' and using all this to further fuel modern anti-Americanism is wacky. And it IS liberal. I'm not saying ALL predominantly liberal people think this way - but it IS liberal thinking. I do recognize shades of gray and gradations of people's thinking. I like to say facetiously that I am right of Attila the Hun, but even I believe in a social welfare safety net, a progressive tax system, and could even come to terms with a socio-economically based affirmative action system that targets disadvantaged kids only. (that is once they become adults, they are on their own to compete and win or lose). I could even understand a better-constructed and implemented short-term racial affirmative action program in the '60's designed to boost American black's culture achievement to improve competitiveness. But my point is that these wacky ideas (White man bad, US are imperialist pigs, perpetual affirmative action, etc. etc. ad nauseum) are the prevailing paradigm now (even though moderate liberals don't go that far they do enable it - look at the tenure of Ward Churchill), and only aggressive anti-liberalism such as I practice (even though I have come out almost dead center (x and y) on a similar ideology graph as is being displayed here) can hope to stop this runaway train and get it turned around.


On a slightly lighter note, it strikes me as amusing that liberals are classed as wishy washy ditherers who sit on the fence over any opinion, yet are then always then beaten with the stick that they are so staunch in their supposed self-loathing, anti-American attitudes :)

You say "only aggressive anti-liberalism such as I practice... can hope to stop this runaway train..." - yet i don't agree with it and would voice my disagreement of any such stance, and i'm not aggressively anti-liberal, you'll certainly agree. I know you're saying not all people are like this, but I think i'm far from a minority in this way, so I don't think the picture's so bleak as you seem to paint it?

Moving slightly off the point. Christmas is closing in, and we'll soon be hearing a number of newspapers and presenters, in the UK, using scare tactics about the actions of 'loony liberals' in various councils and organisations. There'll be shock headlines about how they're trying to take away our festive occasion, to 'avoid offence to non-Christians' and other such nonsense. Politically correct crusaders may well be loony, but they're just just not liberal at all, in my terms of the word.
''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 Mr Blue Sky » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:42 pm

As I suspected JT, your view is based on reading an extreme right-winger's opinion and happening to agree with it. How disappointing, I thought there may have been a treasure trove of academic research out there supporting your views, as opposed to the dozens of sources DG uncovered. But they all have liberal bias, obviously. It does make me wonder how a Republican has ever been elected in the US, it seems everyone sees the world through a liberalist prism (or prison, as you might say... :wink:)
"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 Moon-Crane » Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:15 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:A modern liberal thinks that government should get involved in providing a 'fix' to perceived social injustices and redistribution of wealth to meet some preconceived ideal of equality. Liberals are very suspicious of private endeavor and see government as the savior against private greed. Liberals do want less government control only when it comes to the primary function of our government - defense. Then they decry the efforts of government as fascistic, war-mongering, and intrusive of civil rights by Rightwing extremists. True Conservatives, however, do believe in less government control - except in national defense (some social conservatives,admittedly, overreach on governmental 'fixes' for 'vice'). Especially the Libertarians. True conservatives are much more comfortable with the supremacy of the private sector. As a matter of fact, supremacy of the individual and private institutions is fundamental to modern (and traditional) conservative ideology.


I think you're including Liberal with Socialist, in terms of wealth distribution and equality, if i may be so bold. Is that because you disagree with both, so see them as basically the same thing? i think there are fundamental differences.

In my sense of being Liberal, i think the economy should be open to business, where innovation and market forces, decide whether a product/invention lives or dies. I do, however, believe that any utility that people are dependent on, within the infrastructure of a country - ie Water, Electricity, etc - shouldn't be in the hands of private corporations. These utilities are necessary to everyone in the country, while a corporation is there to make profit, first and foremost and has a duty to its sheholders above thecustomer - the two can't sit together, imho. I've no problem with private sector companies competing against a national system, if people think they are better and want to use them, but to have a basic commodity such as water first and foremost decided by how much profit can be made for shareholders isn't healthy. A not-for-profit company, issued a licence to run the utility, may work fine, but i'd be strict with targets. I'd assume that may go against my high Libertarian position on that graph, but there you go.

Just to give an indication of my stance in a couple of other areas; i'd legalise all drugs but hammer heavily any drug related crime. I'd scrap any laws pertaining against acts between two consenting adults - which i'd be tempted to draw a line at 21 for everything. I'd be fairly lenient on most first offences - but hammer any repeat offenders. I'd advocate zero-tolerance for as much as possible, including littering, various driving offences, and other so-called minor middle-class offences, alongside the usual so called chav-like antisocial behaviour. I'd tend towards a single income tax level no matter how much you earn and scrap any Govt benefits for having any more than 2 children. I'd have stricter border controls and rules for immigration, and equally i'd take away a lot of citizens' rights/benefits from anybody who decided to live in another country (with a couple of exceptions).

That should be enough to disappoint a few people, so i'll throw it out there to see what it stirs up and maybe people can tell me where they think i sit in the political spectrum.
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:58 am

Beer Necessity wrote:As I suspected JT, your view is based on reading an extreme right-winger's opinion and happening to agree with it. How disappointing, I thought there may have been a treasure trove of academic research out there supporting your views, as opposed to the dozens of sources DG uncovered. But they all have liberal bias, obviously. It does make me wonder how a Republican has ever been elected in the US, it seems everyone sees the world through a liberalist prism (or prison, as you might say... :wink:)


Sorry you're disappointed BN, but like a few others, it seems you miss the point. Once again - THERE IS NO 'TREASURE TROVE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH' OUT THERE SUPPORTING MY VIEWS, AS OPPOSED TO THE DOZENS OF SOURCES DG UNCOVERED. Thats the point. Liberal domination of soc sci academia is as thorough as that of the US mainstream media. See how destructive such ideological monopolies have on the perception of truth? Do you all believe everything academia come out with? Even if they involve contextual interpretations in the social sciences? I don't have to read 'an extreme right-winger's opinion' to form my opinions. Simply reading about our 'theft' of Indian territory and 'genocide' of Indian populations, and 'greed' of European colonists, and 'raping' of the natural environment in the face of the eco-enlightened 'Native' Americans, and much of this subtly implied under the guise of academic credibility. Any 5 facts vis a vis colonist/Indian interaction can be interpreted in widely varying contexts. And I view all this liberal filtering amidst the other stuff - like the nutty posts about the dearth of U.S inventiveness, including a poster on here responding to my challenges with "Everything thats been said in this thread is factual" or something like that. Its as nonfactual as 2 + 2 = 5.
BTW, Medved is not an extreme Rightwinger - at least unless one sits so far out on the Left that one sees nothing but rightward. BN, what views of Mr. Medved do you specifically disagree with? Why are his views extreme Rightwing?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


© 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.