What can the left an right agree on?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
As an artist, I wonder how much thought you put behind that. Paintings, drawings, etc, have always incorporated nude models, many old, many young. The difference here if you think about it is that in art NOBODY'S BEING PENETRATED. No artist would spend 50 hours making a painting for masturbation material. If that were the case, then you have a right to call it pornagraphy. There have been artists that played with that fine line and have gotten into trouble for it.
But when you're talking about baby butts, that's as bad as when wal-mart was reporting people who took pictures of their kids in the bath. I have kids, I even have a few cute bath pictures. They're more for the memories of the childs innocence, and even moreso for blackmail when they're teens and have girlfriends/boyfriends. :twisted:
Aitrus said:
As an artist, I wonder how much thought you put behind that. Paintings, drawings, etc, have always incorporated nude models, many old, many young. The difference here if you think about it is that in art NOBODY'S BEING PENETRATED. No artist would spend 50 hours making a painting for masturbation material. If that were the case, then you have a right to call it pornagraphy. There have been artists that played with that fine line and have gotten into trouble for it.
But when you're talking about baby butts, that's as bad as when wal-mart was reporting people who took pictures of their kids in the bath. I have kids, I even have a few cute bath pictures. They're more for the memories of the childs innocence, and even moreso for blackmail when they're teens and have girlfriends/boyfriends. :twisted:
The left *will* attempt to maintain civil liberties while attempting to find solutions to child porn. The left is not willing to sacrifice our civil rights in order to rid us of child porn. This isn't wrong, unless the approach taken is extreme.
Conversely, the right will throw civil rights out the window with the naked baby bum water, as it were. Cracking down hard on child porn isn't wrong... unless the approach taken is extreme.
I think Aitrus's whole point is that serious damage can be done by extremists on either side, for extreme stances are, by their very nature, born of tunnel vision.
Conversely, the right will throw civil rights out the window with the naked baby bum water, as it were. Cracking down hard on child porn isn't wrong... unless the approach taken is extreme.
I think Aitrus's whole point is that serious damage can be done by extremists on either side, for extreme stances are, by their very nature, born of tunnel vision.
Actually my point was that there are very few topics on which the two viewpoints can find common ground. Even something as obviously wrong as child porn, that in theory both sides could come to terms on, they cannot.
I am a great supporter of ideology because it gives meaning and purpose to action. What some call "extreme", others call "principled".
In child porn, the right would go so far that diaper ads and many paintings would be considered child porn, and the artists would be taken to court.
The left opposes them on these grounds, protecting artists from an overbearing moral right that they feel is going too far in their crusade against child pornography.
The two sides share the disdain for such actions, they disagree on the resolution.
I am a great supporter of ideology because it gives meaning and purpose to action. What some call "extreme", others call "principled".
In child porn, the right would go so far that diaper ads and many paintings would be considered child porn, and the artists would be taken to court.
The left opposes them on these grounds, protecting artists from an overbearing moral right that they feel is going too far in their crusade against child pornography.
The two sides share the disdain for such actions, they disagree on the resolution.
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
That's an excellent point. Extremeism shouldn't be tolerated from either end.
Although I find that what you say about Aitrus pointing out the phallacy of extremism on the left and right confusing, because of comments such as:
Haggis McBagpipe said:
That's an excellent point. Extremeism shouldn't be tolerated from either end.
Although I find that what you say about Aitrus pointing out the phallacy of extremism on the left and right confusing, because of comments such as:
Aitrus said:
will accept that as YOUR opinion. (invalid as it is ) It is highly presumptuous to state that those in the "center" don't care or don't commit. They just don't advertize it as a rule. And just maybe their "committment " is to simple objective peaceful issues and maintaining some semblance of stability in an unstable situation.
It is condescending remarks like that .......that must be tolerated and viewed as just part of the entire duality that some insist on fostering.
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
[quote="Jo Canadian] what you say about Aitrus pointing out the phallacy of extremism on the left and right, because of comments such as:
Yes, I did take that into account, and it did make me wonder, but my impression was that he refers specifically to the self-righteous stance often taken by centrists, which can be just as bad as the mindless yammerings of extremists.
[quote="Jo Canadian] what you say about Aitrus pointing out the phallacy of extremism on the left and right, because of comments such as:
[/quote]Aitrus said:
Yes, I did take that into account, and it did make me wonder, but my impression was that he refers specifically to the self-righteous stance often taken by centrists, which can be just as bad as the mindless yammerings of extremists.
no problem. If that is your personal philosophy....fine. the problem begins when a personal philosophy is used to influence others./or one condemns another group.(in a nasty way) Not everyone shares this view , in the same way, or inteprets it the same way, so some mutual respect for each individual's thinking is called for ........without making condemning statements about certain categories. The reality is that NO one person or group is absolutely "right" or absolutely "wrong". there are no absolutes. So having an "attitude" about any one group or person only creates dissention.
Ocean Breeze said:
This was what struck me as particularly pompous. To suggest that somehow the "centrists" can sit back and pick out the flaws of left and right, being "objective"ly above it all.
And just as a note of interest, there are more options than left, right, and center. You can find your politics guided by things completely outside the scope of the traditional left-right spectrum.
The most dominant of these, which I find myself, is environment/sustainability and the idea of a civic republic. The left usually gets the bone for environment, but the right gets it for civic republicanism, when you marry the two you get a motivator that is neither left nor right nor center, it is its own entity.
A good example of this is Canada's green party www.greenparty.ca, whom are fond of the statement "we are neither left nor right, we are in front".
When I curse centrists, I am not cursing everyone who is neither left nor right - I am cursing everyone who identifies themselves as "in the middle" with wishy washy stances on all issues and no underpinning drive behind any of their convictions (if they even have any)
so "curse" away. Don't see it as a productive action.......but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
I'm aware that the right usually emphasizes punishment rather than pro-active intervention or public education. But would the right really oppose it or just not pay as much attention to it. If the only difference is that the right is less interested in it than the left is, that's not outright conflict, but rather different degrees of agreement. So it would seem that maybe some common ground could be found there. As for punishment, the left usually opposes stricter punishments, and so common ground might be difficult to find there.
Aitrus said:
I'm aware that the right usually emphasizes punishment rather than pro-active intervention or public education. But would the right really oppose it or just not pay as much attention to it. If the only difference is that the right is less interested in it than the left is, that's not outright conflict, but rather different degrees of agreement. So it would seem that maybe some common ground could be found there. As for punishment, the left usually opposes stricter punishments, and so common ground might be difficult to find there.
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
I'm aware that the right usually emphasizes punishment rather than pro-active intervention or public education. But would the right really oppose it or just not pay as much attention to it. If the only difference is that the right is less interested in it than the left is, that's not outright conflict, but rather different degrees of agreement. So it would seem that maybe some common ground could be found there. As for punishment, the left usually opposes stricter punishments, and so common ground might be difficult to find there.
Aitrus said:
I'm aware that the right usually emphasizes punishment rather than pro-active intervention or public education. But would the right really oppose it or just not pay as much attention to it. If the only difference is that the right is less interested in it than the left is, that's not outright conflict, but rather different degrees of agreement. So it would seem that maybe some common ground could be found there. As for punishment, the left usually opposes stricter punishments, and so common ground might be difficult to find there.
I'm on the left of the political spectrum... But, there are quite a few things I do that involve getting along with people on the right side of it...
Church: I'm a Roman Catholic. [I don't see eye-to-eye with the official Church position on some issues (but neither does my priest) nor do my right-leaning fellow church-goers]. We work together on Prison Ministry, delivering Christmas hampers, pancake breakfasts, raising money for the local Catholic High School, other community improvement endeavours.
Coaching: I coach teenagers in sports. There appears to be no political "slant" left out in our coaching community.
SADD: Students Against Drunk Driving -- parents involved with this through their teenagers. Doesn't appear to be a left or right split here either
Consumers Association of Canada -- our chapter had both right and left-leaning members. I haven't been involved with this for the past few years so don't know if that is still the case.
The Stanton Hospital Foundation - raising money for our local hospital does not seem to be a right/left, ideologically driven activity.
Bridge Club -- playing bridge, I met all kinds.
I actually have many friends who are Conservatives. I can't say that I agree with them on issues but it's not like we have "knock-down" brawls when we have discussions. Mainly, though, we avoid such conversation and rather concentrate on what we do have in common --children, community, social events.
Church: I'm a Roman Catholic. [I don't see eye-to-eye with the official Church position on some issues (but neither does my priest) nor do my right-leaning fellow church-goers]. We work together on Prison Ministry, delivering Christmas hampers, pancake breakfasts, raising money for the local Catholic High School, other community improvement endeavours.
Coaching: I coach teenagers in sports. There appears to be no political "slant" left out in our coaching community.
SADD: Students Against Drunk Driving -- parents involved with this through their teenagers. Doesn't appear to be a left or right split here either
Consumers Association of Canada -- our chapter had both right and left-leaning members. I haven't been involved with this for the past few years so don't know if that is still the case.
The Stanton Hospital Foundation - raising money for our local hospital does not seem to be a right/left, ideologically driven activity.
Bridge Club -- playing bridge, I met all kinds.
I actually have many friends who are Conservatives. I can't say that I agree with them on issues but it's not like we have "knock-down" brawls when we have discussions. Mainly, though, we avoid such conversation and rather concentrate on what we do have in common --children, community, social events.
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
Keep up the good work. It's amasing how as soon as we step out of the political arena, we suddenly find unity in the community on many issues.
Garth Brasseur said:
Keep up the good work. It's amasing how as soon as we step out of the political arena, we suddenly find unity in the community on many issues.
Gotta love talking about kids...I could talk about mine all day, they provide me with endless entertainment, and fill me with pride. around here though EVERYONE talks about the weather :roll:
Um, well yeah if you're not talking about politics the left and right have lots of things in common.
Right wingers eat apples, so do lefties.
Right wing goes swimming, so does left.
Right wing has a garden, so does left.
so on and so forth ad nauseum.
If you want to find common ground between politically opposed units, just look outside of politics. Not that it's a very useful exercise.
Right wingers eat apples, so do lefties.
Right wing goes swimming, so does left.
Right wing has a garden, so does left.
so on and so forth ad nauseum.
If you want to find common ground between politically opposed units, just look outside of politics. Not that it's a very useful exercise.
Re: RE: What can the left an right agree on?
Actually I can see it as a useful exercise for the folowing reasons.
Immagine the resourses wasted in confrontation between the right and left in campaigns when there are many projects both sides could agree on to which these resourses could go.
Some examples:
The money going to the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns could be going to helping mothers who are looking for an alternative to abortion. So if the pro-life side became less political, money from both sides could be rediverted to these ends, and I'm sure even the pro-choice side would agree with helping a mother have other options besides abortion if she wants to. But if all that moeny is going towards campaigning on both sides, then that help might not be there, thus leaving her with no option in her mind other than abortion.
I'm sure even pro-logging groups would have no qualms about volunteering a little for tree-planting.
I'm sure even anti-welfare proponents might still support voluntary contributions to help the poor. But again, as long as both sides are busy campaigning for or against welfare, there's no money left to help the poor from either side.
Regardless whethr you support the war in Iraq or not, I'm sure even some on the right would agree to participate as volunteers in multi-cultural programs to educate the public about Islamophobia, etc.
And plenty of other examples. As long as we duck out of the political arena, it would be surprising how much both sides would probably agree on in terms of volunteer or other community work, donating funds etc. which could make a great contribution to making the community better rather than just wasting it all on campaigns.
Just as another example, regardless whether one agrees with SSM or prostitution, I'm sure many on both sides would agree that it would be wrong to assassinate a homosexual or a prostitute, and many on both sides would be willing to engage in educational programs on that front, for instance.
Aitrus said:
Actually I can see it as a useful exercise for the folowing reasons.
Immagine the resourses wasted in confrontation between the right and left in campaigns when there are many projects both sides could agree on to which these resourses could go.
Some examples:
The money going to the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns could be going to helping mothers who are looking for an alternative to abortion. So if the pro-life side became less political, money from both sides could be rediverted to these ends, and I'm sure even the pro-choice side would agree with helping a mother have other options besides abortion if she wants to. But if all that moeny is going towards campaigning on both sides, then that help might not be there, thus leaving her with no option in her mind other than abortion.
I'm sure even pro-logging groups would have no qualms about volunteering a little for tree-planting.
I'm sure even anti-welfare proponents might still support voluntary contributions to help the poor. But again, as long as both sides are busy campaigning for or against welfare, there's no money left to help the poor from either side.
Regardless whethr you support the war in Iraq or not, I'm sure even some on the right would agree to participate as volunteers in multi-cultural programs to educate the public about Islamophobia, etc.
And plenty of other examples. As long as we duck out of the political arena, it would be surprising how much both sides would probably agree on in terms of volunteer or other community work, donating funds etc. which could make a great contribution to making the community better rather than just wasting it all on campaigns.
Just as another example, regardless whether one agrees with SSM or prostitution, I'm sure many on both sides would agree that it would be wrong to assassinate a homosexual or a prostitute, and many on both sides would be willing to engage in educational programs on that front, for instance.