Defining political Left and Right: Why the line is shifting to the left.

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are making a couple of basic logic errors.

I'm not making that argument, I'm using it as an example. Contemporary political arguments are full of value judgments and logical errors as you point out. That makes discussion leading to agreement between the two sides impossible. But the "choice" argument seems to me to the most acceptable way of bridging the divide. And when that solution is rejected we're left with a stalemate.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Just to be clear, a value judgment is not a logical error.

When anti-abortion people say "abortion stops a beating heart" that is a scientifical testable fact. Whatever your position on abortion rights, thenfact that it is stopping a beating heart is factually true.

You need to develop your own opinions on abortion, it will come down to a difference of moral values rather than facts. If you say the facts are on one side or the other, you are wrong..The facts are just facts and they are valid whether they support your position or not.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. I am not sure I agree with your assessment, even for "developed" countries. There are trends in Europe... European countries influence each other, but I am not sure that counts. You may be right, but if you had an objective measure I suspect the difference would be between Western Europe vs America.

I certainly would include Australia, New Zealand, Japan in the mix...as well as, as you noted, most of Western Europe.

We are not in the minds of most of those nations a "left leaning" nation. In fact, it seems to me that most would judge us VERY right leaning.

Quote:

2. Of course if you measure a different crowd you will find a different "middle" position.

Of course. So?

Quote:

3. I am curious about your use of the term "developed" countries. This would likely exclude most people from Muslim nations and traditional African cultures. Would this exclude Russia, China, Iran?

This seems like an arbitrary distinction to make.

I doubt Russia, China, or Iran would consider us to be a left-leaning nation...just as I doubt any of the countries mentioned above would.

As for the Muslim nations and African cultures...is you think they would...I'd be interested to hear your case for why you do.

I suspect most of the world sees us as a predominantly conservative nation.

I may be wrong.

But I disagree with your opening suppositions.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Just to be clear, a value judgment is not a logical error.

No – countering a value judgment with a scientific fact, or vice versa, is a logical error. But this is commonly done when value-based world views interact with science-based world views and makes compromise difficult if not impossible.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You do not have a "science based world view". There are many cases where I have seen you reject or ignore testable facts that don't fit your world view.

I am not sure if the term "science based world view" even makes sense. I dont think such a thing exists. I would assume that this term would mean someone who only accepted beliefs that couls be tested by experiment. I don't think anyone could live that way.

I make an effort to separate things I believe because they are scientifically testable and things I believe because of my personal values. The point is not to confuse the two.

1 Reply

maxdancona wrote:

I can't think of any way that our modern, hyper-sensitive, continually outraged political culture has moved to the right. Can you?

This is because conservatives don't advocate change. They resist change.

A conservative victory does not result in the line changing to the right. It results in the line staying exactly where it is.

Ideally, the tension between progressives and conservatives results in society changing where change is good, and not changing where change is bad.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You do not have a "science based world view".

No, not exclusively. I don't think anyone does. Same with a "value-based" world view. When we use these terms to apply to contemporary issues being debated on the national stage we're not talking about specific individuals. They are abstract terms.

Quote:

There are many cases where I have seen you reject or ignore testable facts that don't fit your world view.

For instance?

1 Reply

@hightor,

You haven't stated clearly whether you accept that Genetically modified food is as safe for human consumption as conventionally developed food.

Do you accept the science on this topic?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You haven't stated clearly whether you accept that Genetically modified food is as safe for human consumption as conventionally developed food.

Wouldn't it depend on the particular GMO? I assume they are pretty carefully tested but I think it would be careless to just make a blanket statement about every single instance of a genetically modified food crop. What I will state is that the technique, by itself, can be used to create crops safely used for human consumption. I think that's as far as the science goes, safety concerns would need to be addressed by the company introducing the new food.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

This is from the AAAS. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

Here is the science. Don't weasel. Do you accept it or not?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I already told you, today and yesterday as well, that I accept the science. I'm not "weaseling" when I suggest that the technique could be used, maliciously, to create foods that were unsafe to eat. Just because something has been created through genetic modification doesn't automatically mean it's safe to eat. That's as stupid as saying just because something has been created through genetic modification it is automatically unsafe to eat. Commercially-sold GMO's may be presumed safe because the corporations behind them are responsible and would seek to avoid being sued but GMO technology could certainly be misused. Many scientific technologies have been appropriated by people who use them for negative ends.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Good. I am glad we agree on that.

0 Replies

Defining political Left and Right: Why the line is shifting to the left.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know