Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

okie wrote:

I'm honest enough to admit Humphrey was a poor example. Perhaps I was at least 50% wrong, maybe 75%, but .....

Parados, I've already conceded long ago in this thread that I overreached in using Humphrey as an example of a Right Winger. I was attempting to illustrate a point by using an exaggeration of suggesting some of today's liberals would consider Humphrey a right winger. I fully knew Humphrey was a liberal icon of his generation when I started this thread, and that is why I used him as an example. My central point was that Humphrey was of a different generation, a more conservative generation, and some have labeled his brand of liberalism as being cold war liberals. They were rather hawkish Democrats, strong on defense, anti-communists, and strong on other traditional American cultural values. Scoop Jackson would be a prime example of that term.

I will stick to my central point, that is that modern liberalism is clearly a different brand of liberalism to the left of the brand that Hubert Humphrey subscribed to. I believe my point is demonstrated by history and I think many historians clearly agree with the point I make here. The younger generation of Democrats growing out of the 60's opposed the candidacy of Hubert Humphrey, as he was considered a relic of the previous, more conservative Democratic generation of politicians. The modern Democrat grew out of their rejection of traditional values, the traditional view of national defense, nationhood, and the world in general prior to 1970, the traditional view of marriage, family, alternate lifestyles, abortion, and a whole host of other things, which I have referred to, such as gun rights, public lands policies, energy, etc.

As I said, I conceded long ago that I made an exaggerated statement in an effort to make a point. I even conceded 50 to 75% in error, as I have always known Humphrey was a liberal icon of his day. Yet you refuse to acknowledge my concession, but doggedly argue you are 100% correct, that Humphrey would apparently feel 100% right at home with today's liberal views. I think you are clearly wrong. If he had lived, perhaps he would have "grown" or evolved into it, as some other politicians have, we cannot know for sure, but that is not the argument here. The argument is whether the politics or the liberalism during Humphrey's political career is to the right of today's liberalism, and I think that is a clear fact.

I accept some of your points of your last post, such as Kerry, Clinton, and others using the term "God" in their speeches. I agree they do that. I think there is a phoniness about it however, because the Democratic Party and liberals in general are not supportive of the traditional recognition of God and religion as a positive influence in politics, education, and American culture in general. Some, Howard Dean is an example, seem to almost have an open animosity towards religion. We certainly see it here on this forum with constant criticism and sarcasm of the religious. I believe that religion, Christianity in particular, overall has had a positive role and influence on American culture from the very beginning.

And if Humphrey had been around to observe the Clinton administration, we all have to imagine what his reaction would have been, but I cannot visualize a man like Humphrey that had a respect for the country, for himself, and the office of presidency, I can easily see him thinking, "wow, I've lived to see the day where one of those types of pot smoking riff raff outside the Democratic convention in 1968 that caused me so much trouble, is actually president." I think he would be incredulous.

Gore, in his book, "Earth in the Balance," I think betrays the fact that he is in the mold of the Humphrey generation liberal. Kerry is not a big supporter of the military, ever since he came back from Vietnam and basicly accused most Vietnam veterans of atrocities. This has never been fully retracted, and he just recently accused soldiers in Iraq of terrorizing women and children.

As far as Humphrey's kids values, surely you can observe the fact that many people's children's values have drifted from their parents.

0 Replies

Okie, I accept that you stated you might be wrong. But this is the way you say it.

"I might be wrong but here are some other false arguments that prove me right."

False arguments are false arguments whether you concede some truth to the other side or not.

Quote:

I accept some of your points of your last post, such as Kerry, Clinton, and others using the term "God" in their speeches. I agree they do that. I think there is a phoniness about it however, because the Democratic Party and liberals in general are not supportive of the traditional recognition of God and religion as a positive influence in politics, education, and American culture in general. Some, Howard Dean is an example, seem to almost have an open animosity towards religion.

This is the perfect example of your false arguments okie. You declare that even though someone does something it has no meaning because you don't want it to have meaning. You don't feel you have to justify it. You get to just declare it is so. Humphrey is for God because he mentions him. Clinton, Kerry, Gore are against God because they mention him. It is BS. It is intellectually dishonest. It makes it impossible to have any kind of a debate. You get to set the rules and then change them whenever you see fit.

I can point to example after example of you doing this okie. You negate facts because they don't fit your world view. It is the true sign of a partisan when they take something that is fact and ignore it or try to make it mean the opposite. You do it constantly.

I noticed on other threads you have now refrained from calling everyone that disagrees with you a communist. You might be learning something.
There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions but if you want any chance of changing someone else's mind you have to be able to show why you logically reached those opinions. Emotional appeals only play to those already convinced.

0 Replies

It would be more accurate for you to recognize that I have admitted to being partly wrong, due to my use of exaggeration to make a point, but I contend that I am partly correct as well. I am neither completely wrong or completely right. And I am trying to get you to admit the obvious, that you are not completely correct as well. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you choose to believe you are 60% to 75% correct, I might not argue tremendously although I think it is closer to 50%, but I do not concede you to be 100% correct in any way, shape, or form.

Do you think there is more criticism and sarcasm of the religious in politics now than there was 40 years ago? Do you deny some of the statements made by Howard Dean? I do not think my arguments are false at all.

Do you contend there has been no cultural change whatsoever in terms of moral standards, views toward religion, the environment, abortion, gay marriage, etc. among liberals in the last 40 years? Do you deny some of the past actions by John Kerry concerning the military and actually think this is harmonious with the views of Hubert Humphrey? Do you deny the new brand of environmentalism, as set forth in part in Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance." Do you deny the reality of the peace movement of the 60's and the Democratic Party that grew out of that?

Parados, I think you are coming dangerously close to being like the proverbial ostrich with your head buried in the sand if you continue to contend there has been no drift to the left amongst liberals, compared to the brand of liberalism of Humphrey's generation.

0 Replies

ROFLMAO....

Thanks for doing exactly what I said you do okie.. It was quite funny.

Please note, I have never said I was 100% right. I pointed out errors in your argument. Disagreeing with your false arguments doesn't equate to my taking the other side absolutely. It only equates to your argument is a piece of crap. I have told the same thing to people that I pretty much agree with on here. The same standard applies to both sides. If you can't formulate a logical, supported argument then your argument isn't worth much.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ROFLMAO....

Thanks for doing exactly what I said you do okie.. It was quite funny.

Please note, I have never said I was 100% right. I pointed out errors in your argument. Disagreeing with your false arguments doesn't equate to my taking the other side absolutely. It only equates to your argument is a piece of crap. I have told the same thing to people that I pretty much agree with on here. The same standard applies to both sides. If you can't formulate a logical, supported argument then your argument isn't worth much.

You must have a weird sense of humor.

So you've never said you were 100% right, huh? I've certainly never heard you admit to being in error in the slightest. So disagreeing does not equate to taking the other side absolutely? Huh? So my argument is a piece of crap, but I guess nobody even knows what your argument is if it doesn't necessarily take the other side absolutely? Are you a lawyer? Just wondering.

Bottom line, I think this is the closest you've ever come to admitting you were not 100% right. Just maybe you are "growing?" Give yourself time, Parados, maybe theres hope for you yet.

0 Replies

I spent some time reading through this whole thread. In a way, it was oddly intriguing.

It was also educational, before reading the definition of socialism; I just assumed I was basically a socialist.

0 Replies

My argument is the facts I have laid out. If my facts aren't true or my conclusions can not logically come from those facts than my argument would also be crap. It's a pretty simple standard.

Look at your claim that Clinton said Bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan compared to the actual statement. There is no way a thinking person can get "an offer" out of what was said. You could show that to 500 people unfamiliar with the situtation and ask them after they read it if Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton and 499 would say no.

I spent some time earlier in this thread pointing to the logical fallacies in your arguments. It is those fallacies that make your argument crap. I have said more than once that it is possible to hold conservative opinions and put forward good arguments. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions but they should be able to logically show why they reached that conclusion.

As for you claim that I HAVE to take the opposite or I have no argument. That is BS again. You claimed Humphrey was against abortion. The opposite argument would be he was for it. I did not say he was for it. I said you have no evidence he was against it so couldn't make that claim. I thought my argument was pretty clear. You certainly responded to it. Now you want to claim you were confused? I left it wide open for you to provide actual evidence. You have failed to do so. You only recycled a quote in which you mangle the meanings of the English language to make it support your opininion.

0 Replies

Lets take the subject of Humphrey and abortion. You claim I present no evidence. It may not be 100% proof evidence, but at least it is circumstantial evidence, which if my understanding of criminal cases is correct, I am not a lawyer, much circumstantial evidence is considered pertinent in the court. My circumstantial evidence is the preponderence of cultural view toward abortion among Humphrey's generation, plus I do cite the statement by Humphrey concerning the dawn of life. I would consider dawn as the beginning of stronger sunlight, including just before the sun peeks over the horizon, or as it peeks over the horizon, which would be analogous to the strong evidence of being with child before the child is born. Well, you apparently disagree, but we can't ask Humphrey now. You consider none of this 100% proof, but on the flip side, you have no evidence to dispute the circumstantial evidence. Also, I did not rate Humphrey an L, I gave him an M on this issue, which is about 50%, which I think is the most likely rating for him on this issue.

Since pro-life was the prevailing view of his generation, I think the burden of proof would be more in your corner to prove he was an anomaly, which would be pro-abortion or pro-choice. If he had been, I think his political opponents would have made political hay out of it, but they did not.

A similar example would be gay marriage. Virtually nobody was in favor of it in Humphrey's day, so to rate Humphrey as pro gay marriage would not be logical in my view. Even though the issue never saw the light of day and Humphrey expressed no view on it, it is safe to assume Humphrey would not have been leading the charge for gay marriage. If you had taken a poll of senators at that point, it would have been close to 0% for gay marriage. All of this only furthers the conclusion of my assertion, that politics have drifted left.

0 Replies

Quote:

Even though the issue never saw the light of day and Humphrey expressed no view on it, it is safe to assume Humphrey would not have been leading the charge for gay marriage.

Complete BS. Logical fallacy of major sort.

One could as easily argue that since there was no push for legislation or constiutional amendments to prevent gays from getting married then everyone was for it.

Because there is no record of being on one side or the other you can't assume one side is more likely.

Because the founders never expressed a view on oil drilling it is safe to assume they opposed it.
Because the founders never expressed a view on gay marriage it is safe to assume they supported it.

They are logical fallacies. You can't assume without some evidence. Just because someone doesn't oppose something doesn't equate to they support it.

Now an example of your other fallacy.

The GOP opposes the Dubai ports deal...
I can list several news stories here that will say that.
GOP Governors oppose Ports deal
GOP lawmakers oppose ports deal
Since the GOP opposes the ports deal then George Bush OBVIOUSLY must oppose it too.

I used your exact logic. I put Bush in a group, I found evidence of how the group thinks then concluded Bush MUST think the way they do. We both know the conclusion is false and that Bush supports the deal.
Absent evidence of an individual you can't assume he thinks a certain way because a group might. To do so is a logical fallacy.

You continually use logical fallacies okie. When they are pointed out, you use a different fallacy to try to support your first fallacy.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Even though the issue never saw the light of day and Humphrey expressed no view on it, it is safe to assume Humphrey would not have been leading the charge for gay marriage.

Complete BS. Logical fallacy of major sort.

One could as easily argue that since there was no push for legislation or constiutional amendments to prevent gays from getting married then everyone was for it.

You demonstrate your illogical thinking in the above. Since nobody was pushing for gay marriage, there was absolutely no need to legislate against it. Because nobody was pushing for legislating against it does not indicate that everybody favored gay marriage at all.

The above analogy would be a bit like a scenario wherein nobody had ever advocated building a house with old junk cars on a city lot. Therefore no law had ever been advocated in the building code to outlaw the practice. Therefore according to your logic, everybody was in favor of the practice. My logic is that nobody had done it and nobody had ever tried doing it, and no law existed in regard to the practice, so my conclusion is that it is almost certain that virtually nobody would be in favor of doing it or making it legal in the building code.

0 Replies

You two guys are still at it?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You two guys are still at it?

Yeah, still at it. Parados once posted something like "there was no such thing as liberal logic." I'm here allowing him to demonstrate that for all to read and see. Check out the thread about "Liberalism not conducive to happiness" thread also and you can read more of the non-existent liberal logic concerning the statement Clinton made about the Sudanese and Osama Bin Laden.

0 Replies

Quote:

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:

1. Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
2. Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
3. Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Whether you argue a positive or a negative BOTH are false arguments. My statement was as much a logical fallacy as yours was. Glad you recognize it when I do it. Now learn to recognize it when you do it.

Like the definition says. "Lack of proof is not proof." Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true.

The argument that people would be opposed because it hadn't been done is the same logical fallacy as arguing they would be for it since it had never been proposed.

Let me give you another example. Because the founders had never considered abortion they would be opposed to it. Because the founders had never considered a ban on abortion they would be opposed to banning it.

Both are arguments of "people would normally be opposed to something." We just changed what they would be opposed to.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You two guys are still at it?

Yeah, still at it. Parados once posted something like "there was no such thing as liberal logic." I'm here allowing him to demonstrate that for all to read and see. Check out the thread about "Liberalism not conducive to happiness" thread also and you can read more of the non-existent liberal logic concerning the statement Clinton made about the Sudanese and Osama Bin Laden.

LOL.. If I were you okie, I wouldn't suggest people like Finn do that. They are more likely to agree with me when it comes to logic. :wink:

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Let me give you another example. Because the founders had never considered abortion they would be opposed to it. Because the founders had never considered a ban on abortion they would be opposed to banning it.

Both are arguments of "people would normally be opposed to something." We just changed what they would be opposed to.

I keep pointing out that the culture was largely opposed to abortion, and this cultural view crossed political party boundaries, so in the absence of direct quotes or actions by the founders, circumstantial evidence indicates a higher likelihood that they almost certainly would have opposed abortion. Parados, I think you keep bolstering my side of the argument even though you are trying to shoot holes in it. You keep ignoring the cultural and societal views from which the politicians originated and were a part of. The politicians did not operate in a vacuum.

If nobody believed in life on Mars in 1776, and we have no direct statement from the founders concerning life on Mars, I think it would be fairly safe to conclude that they probably did not believe in life on Mars. Hey, I'm not even sure they knew about Mars yet.

Parados, to debate this point, this is not the same as convicting somebody in a crime, it does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply try to use some common sense reasoning and come up with your best assessment.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Let me give you another example. Because the founders had never considered abortion they would be opposed to it. Because the founders had never considered a ban on abortion they would be opposed to banning it.

Both are arguments of "people would normally be opposed to something." We just changed what they would be opposed to.

I keep pointing out that the culture was largely opposed to abortion, and this cultural view crossed political party boundaries, so in the absence of direct quotes or actions by the founders, circumstantial evidence indicates a higher likelihood that they almost certainly would have opposed abortion. Parados, I think you keep bolstering my side of the argument even though you are trying to shoot holes in it. You keep ignoring the cultural and societal views from which the politicians originated and were a part of. The politicians did not operate in a vacuum.

If nobody believed in life on Mars in 1776, and we have no direct statement from the founders concerning life on Mars, I think it would be fairly safe to conclude that they probably did not believe in life on Mars. Hey, I'm not even sure they knew about Mars yet.

Parados, to debate this point, this is not the same as convicting somebody in a crime, it does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply try to use some common sense reasoning and come up with your best assessment.

Are you on a mission here to prove your ignornace on nearly everything?

Quote:

January 22

1973 Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court decriminalizes abortion by handing down their decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Despite opponents' characterization of the decision, it was not the first time that abortion became a legal procedure in the United States. In fact, for most of the country's first 100 years, abortion as we know it today was not only not a criminal offense, it was also not considered immoral.

In the 1700s and early 1800s, the word "abortion" referred only to the termination of a pregnancy after "quickening," the time when the fetus first began to make noticeable movements. The induced ending of a pregnancy before this point did not even have a name-but not because it was uncommon. Women in the 1700s often took drugs to end their unwanted pregnancies.

The first laws that implicated abortion in any way were actually poison-control statutes. In 1827, Illinois passed a law that regulated these abortion drugs in order to protect pregnant women. The law did not make abortion itself illegal, nor did it include any penalties for women who used the drugs. Although other states followed the Illinois example, advertising for "Female Monthly Pills," as they were known, was still common through the middle of the 19th century.

Abortion itself only became a criminal offense in the period between 1860 and 1880. And the criminalization of abortion did not result from moral outrage. The roots of the new law came from the newly established physicians' trade organization, the American Medical Association. Doctors decided that abortion practitioners were unwanted competition and went about eliminating that competition. The Catholic Church, which had long accepted terminating pregnancies before quickening, joined the doctors in condemning the practice.

By the turn of the century, all states had laws against abortion, but for the most part they were rarely enforced and women with money had no problem terminating pregnancies if they wished. It wasn't until the late 1930s that abortion laws were enforced. By the 1950s, Los Angeles had its own six-officer team assigned only to enforcing abortion laws. The crackdown led to a reform movement that succeeded in lifting abortion restrictions in California and New York even before the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The fight over whether to criminalize abortion has grown increasingly fierce in recent years, but opinion polls suggest that most Americans prefer that women be able to have abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, free of any government interference.

---historychannel.com

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Let me give you another example. Because the founders had never considered abortion they would be opposed to it. Because the founders had never considered a ban on abortion they would be opposed to banning it.

Both are arguments of "people would normally be opposed to something." We just changed what they would be opposed to.

I keep pointing out that the culture was largely opposed to abortion, and this cultural view crossed political party boundaries, so in the absence of direct quotes or actions by the founders, circumstantial evidence indicates a higher likelihood that they almost certainly would have opposed abortion. Parados, I think you keep bolstering my side of the argument even though you are trying to shoot holes in it. You keep ignoring the cultural and societal views from which the politicians originated and were a part of. The politicians did not operate in a vacuum.

If nobody believed in life on Mars in 1776, and we have no direct statement from the founders concerning life on Mars, I think it would be fairly safe to conclude that they probably did not believe in life on Mars. Hey, I'm not even sure they knew about Mars yet. (Arguing from ignorance fallacy.)

Parados, to debate this point, this is not the same as convicting somebody in a crime, it does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply try to use some common sense reasoning and come up with your best assessment.

Lets examine your argument..
You claim the culture opposed abortion. False authority fallacy. You have presented no authority to support this contention.

Just because laws say one thing does not equate to the culture being opposed. It may be or it may not be. Wrong conclusion fallacy.

Then you say Humphrey was part of this culture so he would be the same as the entire group. Division fallacy. Humphrey was quite willing to not be part of the group. See his actions in civil rights. Politicians may not operate in a vacuum but it seems you do. Humphrey was KNOWN for taking positions that were not that of the normal citizen, civil rights, arms control. He was a leader because of that.

So your case is built on at least 3 fallacies so far.

Your argument is that no politician would go against what the majority think. You completely ignore the fact that a majority oppose banning all abortions ( http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm ) but politicians in SD just passed a bill doing just that.

As for your statement about Mars. Ever hear of Copernicus? Mars was well known to ancient societies. It is visible to the naked eye and moves through the sky making it easy to identify as different.

Common sense is to NOT use fallacious arguments. You continue to do so every time you post something.

0 Replies

"Culture opposed abortion"

The facts would tend to conclude the opposite is true. When the state became involved in trying to ban abortion, a procdeure that was legal and accepted throughout most of our history, a movement sprang up immediately to oppose this outrageous interference with a woman's privacy by the state.

In a free society, women will NEVER accept such a violation of our rights.

0 Replies

Love your signature, parados.

"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson

BTW parados means "for two" in Spanish. Just wondering what the signifigance of the handle is.

0 Replies

Parados and Roxxxanne, just an observation here that maybe even both of you would agree with, why does almost every political debate eventually end up about abortion? Just a phenomenon that I find interesting. I will follow up on your arguments about that. Will need a little time. I do think it serves as a bellwether indicator of societal and cultural views.

0 Replies

Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know