A stupid fucking analogy for stupid fucking people

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess he's saying, "the extreme are only extreme, in that their extremism is relative to the next-least extreme. So, if you eliminate the extremists, then the second-most extreme become the most extreme. So, essentially, there's no difference after eliminating the extreme."

Hence, the "criteria is automatically changed."

[john9blue]

I guess he's saying, "the extreme are only extreme, in that their extremism is relative to the next-least extreme. So, if you eliminate the extremists, then the second-most extreme become the most extreme. So, essentially, there's no difference after eliminating the extreme."

Hence, the "criteria is automatically changed."

but there IS a difference.

if one person in the united states thinks that the government should have total mind control over every citizen, and you eliminate that person, then you have changed things. there is an actual difference in what the population believes.

[Woodruff]

It would appear that this thread's title has reached it's fulfillment.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess he's saying, "the extreme are only extreme, in that their extremism is relative to the next-least extreme. So, if you eliminate the extremists, then the second-most extreme become the most extreme. So, essentially, there's no difference after eliminating the extreme."

Hence, the "criteria is automatically changed."

but there IS a difference.

if one person in the united states thinks that the government should have total mind control over every citizen, and you eliminate that person, then you have changed things. there is an actual difference in what the population believes.

I guess, j9b. I have no dog in this debate.

[Lootifer]

If you shot the MOST EXTREME person on both sides of the spectrum it would change nothing/

The second most extreme person would then automatically become the most extreme.

You would still have extremists.

not really, you're just changing your criteria to assign meaning to the word "extreme"

also you would have less variance in ideology, meaning less of a chance for the marketplace of ideas to arrive at a more correct answer

Emphasising the key point in this argument.

[jimboston]

I guess he's saying, "the extreme are only extreme, in that their extremism is relative to the next-least extreme. So, if you eliminate the extremists, then the second-most extreme become the most extreme. So, essentially, there's no difference after eliminating the extreme."

Hence, the "criteria is automatically changed."

Yes.

[jimboston]

I guess he's saying, "the extreme are only extreme, in that their extremism is relative to the next-least extreme. So, if you eliminate the extremists, then the second-most extreme become the most extreme. So, essentially, there's no difference after eliminating the extreme."

Hence, the "criteria is automatically changed."

but there IS a difference.

if one person in the united states thinks that the government should have total mind control over every citizen, and you eliminate that person, then you have changed things. there is an actual difference in what the population believes.

The next person, who thinks the gov't should only have partial control over iur minds would then be the extreme.... and your orignal proposition stated you would get rid of extremists on both sides. So you'd also have to get rid of the person who thinks gov't should have absolutely no control over our minds. The "net" or "sum" of what the population believes would remain unchanged.

[jimboston]

If you shot the MOST EXTREME person on both sides of the spectrum it would change nothing/

The second most extreme person would then automatically become the most extreme.

You would still have extremists.

not really, you're just changing your criteria to assign meaning to the word "extreme"

also you would have less variance in ideology, meaning less of a chance for the marketplace of ideas to arrive at a more correct answer

Emphasising the key point in this argument.

Maybe... I don't like that he said "no not really" when he just didn't get it.

[Lootifer]

The next person, who thinks the gov't should only have partial control over iur minds would then be the extreme.... and your orignal proposition stated you would get rid of extremists on both sides. So you'd also have to get rid of the person who thinks gov't should have absolutely no control over our minds. The "net" or "sum" of what the population believes would remain unchanged.

Yer but there are some absolutes in political idealology/extremism.

I am ok with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all gay people are sinners and will go to hell.

I am not ok with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all gay people are sinners and will go to hell and using that rationale to go out into the community and fight against gay rights.

The latter is more extreme (in an absolute sense - as well as relative) than the former.

You take out the latter and the world does change.

(just an example btw, fighting against gay rights is what it is, i think its stupid, but if the world wants to allow it so be it, I wouldnt actually line em up and shoot them in reality).

[jimboston]

The next person, who thinks the gov't should only have partial control over iur minds would then be the extreme.... and your orignal proposition stated you would get rid of extremists on both sides. So you'd also have to get rid of the person who thinks gov't should have absolutely no control over our minds. The "net" or "sum" of what the population believes would remain unchanged.

Yer but there are some absolutes in political idealology/extremism.

I am ok with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all gay people are sinners and will go to hell.

I am not ok with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all gay people are sinners and will go to hell and using that rationale to go out into the community and fight against gay rights.

The latter is more extreme (in an absolute sense - as well as relative) than the former.

You take out the latter and the world does change.


(just an example btw, fighting against gay rights is what it is, i think its stupid, but if the world wants to allow it so be it, I wouldnt actually line em up and shoot them in reality).

Doesn't change that much if you also take out the group that collectively believes in gay rights and actively works to promote those policies and get laws made.

According to OP you need to take out both extremes... but if you do that not much changes.

[john9blue]

I guess he's saying, "the extreme are only extreme, in that their extremism is relative to the next-least extreme. So, if you eliminate the extremists, then the second-most extreme become the most extreme. So, essentially, there's no difference after eliminating the extreme."

Hence, the "criteria is automatically changed."

but there IS a difference.

if one person in the united states thinks that the government should have total mind control over every citizen, and you eliminate that person, then you have changed things. there is an actual difference in what the population believes.

The next person, who thinks the gov't should only have partial control over iur minds would then be the extreme.... and your orignal proposition stated you would get rid of extremists on both sides. So you'd also have to get rid of the person who thinks gov't should have absolutely no control over our minds. The "net" or "sum" of what the population believes would remain unchanged.

the viewpoint of the "average person" would not change.

the sum WOULD change.

you're telling me that if we killed everyone in america except the person with the least extreme worldview, then things would be the same?

If you shot the MOST EXTREME person on both sides of the spectrum it would change nothing/

The second most extreme person would then automatically become the most extreme.

You would still have extremists.

not really, you're just changing your criteria to assign meaning to the word "extreme"

also you would have less variance in ideology, meaning less of a chance for the marketplace of ideas to arrive at a more correct answer

Emphasising the key point in this argument.

Maybe... I don't like that he said "no not really" when he just didn't get it.

i get that you're trying to tell me that "most extreme" is a label that passes from person to person as their views change. that's obvious. it's not even worth a debate.

i'm taking issue with your assertion that nothing changes when you eliminate extreme viewpoints.

I want to insult john without acknowledging that he is correct.

k

[Army of GOD]

this thread is for stupid people

[Woodruff]

I want to insult john without acknowledging that he is correct.

k

I REALLY don't get how you thought I was insulting ONLY you with that comment. This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've EVER seen.

But whatever.

[john9blue]

I REALLY don't get how you thought I was insulting ONLY you with that comment.

because you've never passed up an opportunity in the past

[BigBallinStalin]

The next person, who thinks the gov't should only have partial control over iur minds would then be the extreme.... and your orignal proposition stated you would get rid of extremists on both sides. So you'd also have to get rid of the person who thinks gov't should have absolutely no control over our minds. The "net" or "sum" of what the population believes would remain unchanged.

Yer but there are some absolutes in political idealology/extremism.

I am ok with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all gay people are sinners and will go to hell.

I am not ok with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all gay people are sinners and will go to hell and using that rationale to go out into the community and fight against gay rights.

The latter is more extreme (in an absolute sense - as well as relative) than the former.

You take out the latter and the world does change.

(just an example btw, fighting against gay rights is what it is, i think its stupid, but if the world wants to allow it so be it, I wouldnt actually line em up and shoot them in reality).

So, you're okay with a group of people collectively thinking to themselves that all extremists, who use violence against other groups (and fight against their rights?), should be "take[n] out"?

To dinner? Or...?

[Woodruff]

I REALLY don't get how you thought I was insulting ONLY you with that comment.

because you've never passed up an opportunity in the past

Whatever. You should seriously go back and look at it again.

[lynch5762]

@ tkr4lf... My response would be that I completely disagree with you. It is my entire point that conservatism is a human instinct not a way of thinking or "antiquated" thinking as you mentioned.

Of course we don't live in tribes anymore but that is irrelevant. It is just an easy way to show an example of how people must be held accountable and contribute in a productive way in their respective civilizations or societies.. I really don't want to have a lengthy debate on this concept... just accept it as my opinion I guess.

Fair enough, if you don't want to debate it. But it's good to debate, since if your opinions can't hold up in a debate, then perhaps it's time to rethink those opinions...just my thoughts.

If you change your mind, I'd be happy to talk more about it.

I never said my opinion wouldn't hold up in a debate... I said said I didn't want to. I don't mind a good debate every now and again but it is more of a time thing for me really.

Also, I am not sure what we would be debating. My original statement was that conservatism is a human instinct rather than a way of thinking or behaving. Obviously the word has taken on many different meanings throughout time but I am only referring to a deep down instinct that we all have inside of us as a survival mechanism. I guess if you disagree with that then their would be something to debate about.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your opinions wouldn't hold up in debate. I was more noting that a debate gives you the opportunity to defend/justify your opinions, and that IF they didn't hold up, then it might be time to re-examine them. Miscommunication on my part.

As far as what we would be debating...I guess it really wouldn't be much of a debate. My central point is that many of our survival instincts are left over from when we lived in tribes, which is the natural way for us to live. But since we don't live in tribes any more, and therefore don't need many of those left over instincts anymore, that perhaps we should discard them. Basically, I think that since we have evolved out of a tribal lifestyle, we should evolve out of our old habits and ways of doing things left over from that lifestyle. To illustrate the point, I used racism. I honestly think it served a purpose back then, but today it serves no purpose. It should be discarded.

Of course this is just a theory of mine, so I guess it doesn't matter. But that was the point I was trying to make, not necessarily saying anything about conservatism (I probably shouldn't have said "antiquated thinking"...I can see how that comes off as derogatory). Just that when the justification for something is that it's a human survival instinct that we've had since our tribal era, then perhaps we do not need that anymore, since we don't live the same life that we did back then.

I hope I was more clear about my position this time.

Apologies for the late response.... But I would like to acknowledge that I do see the point you were trying to make crystal clear now!! I believe that we see things with a similar view.

As I mentioned before... Time is my biggest enemy when it comes down to posting in forums like this but I would like to continue the discussion on one point that you made.

You mentioned that you used racism as an example but I think that you have to be very careful there. Racism in general is a very ugly thing and it exists in many different shapes and forms..... I realize that you were referring to my quote about basic survival instincts but I think that there is a "Stark" difference in the following two analogies:
(1) choosing not to mingle with other tribes or civilizations due to fear of the unknown consequences..
(2) vs choosing not to mingle with other tribes or civilizations because your belief is that they are inferior and should be contained.

[Army of GOD]

can someone explain to me why this suggestion is fornicating?