It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beware the Enemies of Partisanship

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you misrepresent your own words all by yourself just fine. First partisanship allows for "peaceful engagement" but at the same time you never said there was peace, even though the first shots have been fired.

Carry on with your intellectual dishonesty.




posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




Partisanship is only for the peons. There's too much money to be made for our "leaders" to be at each others necks. They all hang out, laugh and vacation together.

It's only the regular people who believe in the division and foster it amongst themselves. With the people in power it's just theater, and a means to an end. Which is more money and the only thing rich people crave more than money, power.


It's not a fact that rich people necessarily crave more money or power. Besides, it is moral corruption that leads people to the abuse of the system of a free society for their own ends, and moral corruption is available to everyone rich or poor.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Flag and star! Yes, exactly. I agree based on personal experience. Example: My husband and I are opposed on many topics. We cross the partisan threshold multiple times based on individual perspectives. Neither of us could be solely divided on partisan lines except on one solely individual issue that we are having a debate upon.

Most that know us are oblivious that we can accept we have different perceptions and yet, appreciate the freedom to differ. We do have some things we can agree on, but often, we both settle with the respect to disagree option.

I love my husband and he loves me...why? We both love freedom, feel we have equality, and enjoy the liberty to share our own perspective without penalty. I feel blessed it is true.

What does this have to do with your op? I have learned that an opposite perspective view lends itself to balancing my own perceptions and vice versus. I would become an absolute zombie living in a world where everyone parroted my ideas, beliefs, or perspectives. There would be no individual growth let alone reason to continue living.

Life provides a challenging puzzle. That is what makes it interesting for many. It would be extreme lackluster living if we all agreed 100%. Enjoy the mesh work of opinions that allow all to grow.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you misrepresent your own words all by yourself just fine. First partisanship allows for "peaceful engagement" but at the same time you never said there was peace, even though the first shots have been fired.

Carry on with your intellectual dishonesty.


Both are true statements. It was you who confused the adverb "peacefully" with the noun "peace", and now try to blame it on me. Misrepresentation, and I think I know why you do it. Carry on.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So there is peace but there is not peace, according to you. Your semantics are impressive, you always seem to know when and how to employ them.

Literally every debate I've gotten into with you has devolved into semantics. Every single one. You're the only member I seem to have that issue with.
edit on 3/19/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

That's a great example. In free societies (which are rare, if even extant), freedom entails we allow others to be free. It is dangerous, but if it tempered by individual responsibility, which involves a deep love of freedom, it could prevail.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




So there is peace but there is not peace, according to you.


According to you, that is what I said, but on simple review of what I wrote that is a lie. Carry on.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But it's true, both words "peace" have different meanings. One is an adverb and the other is a noun. So technically, according to your own logic I am right. Which one is which? You'll have to figure that out, just go with the version that fits what you've meant though if that makes it any easier.

edit on 3/19/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks




Partisanship is only for the peons. There's too much money to be made for our "leaders" to be at each others necks. They all hang out, laugh and vacation together.

It's only the regular people who believe in the division and foster it amongst themselves. With the people in power it's just theater, and a means to an end. Which is more money and the only thing rich people crave more than money, power.


It's not a fact that rich people necessarily crave more money or power. Besides, it is moral corruption that leads people to the abuse of the system of a free society for their own ends, and moral corruption is available to everyone rich or poor.

Not just rich people, but people seeking power.

You don't get to where you run for office and become a politician without a desire for power, and power corrupts more often than not. Add to that a system that is set up so you have to be rich to run for office and it's a wrap.

More money and more power presents more opportunities for corruption. Partisanship takes a back seat whenever real money or power is involved.

If every one of us here typing had free lifetime healthcare, a gigantic pension, a house down on the shore, a mountain home, and multiple large bank accounts would we be screaming at each other over transient politics? I doubt it.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But it's true, both words "peace" have different meaning. One is an adverb and the other is a noun. So technically, according to your own logic I am right.


No, "Peacefully" is the adverb I am speaking about. According to logic and grammar, you are wrong.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All I can say is "stop talking about the....." DNC scandals, FBI corruption, FISA violations, the Cluntons, and everyone and everything else that is a black hole for the democrats in terms of credibility and perceived character. In fact if anyone is suspected of criminal activity we should turn a blind eye to them so as to avoid being ungraceful or whatever.

But lets only hype up the far left and fight to validate its fringe so it can seek out its counterpart in the fringe right, however irrelevant to the whole, and pitch each against each other in the spotlight of national media attention.

It will be grand.

LOL

edit on 3 19 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Peacefully denotes peace, meaning "without conflict". There's plenty of conflict going around right now.

So is there piece or is there not peace? You keep falling back on semantics for some reason. Either the first shot has been fired or it hasn't, you haven't made which you believe to be clear yet.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




Not just rich people, but people seeking power.

You don't get to where you run for office and become a politician without a desire for power, and power corrupts more often than not. Add to that a system that is set up so you have to be rich to run for office and it's a wrap.

More money and more power presents more opportunities for corruption. Partisanship takes a back seat whenever real money or power is involved.

If every one of us here typing had free lifetime healthcare, a gigantic pension, a house down on the shore, a mountain home, and multiple large bank accounts would we be screaming at each other over transient politics? I doubt it.


I might be a little more naive than you, but then again maybe not. I think some politicians are in it for right and noble reasons. But you're right, one can easily avoid politics altogether and find comfort in matters of self-concern.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Peacefully denotes peace, meaning "without conflict". There's plenty of conflict going around right now.

So is there piece or is there not peace? You keep falling back on semantics for some reason. Either the first shot has been fired or it hasn't, you haven't made which you believe to be clear yet.


I never said there was peace, so I don't know why you keep asking.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you think that you perhaps think that critical thinking and an informed populace is missing in the equation?

When emotions stand between logic and reason, the argument is already lost, however, debate rages on under those pretenses and rarely culminates to anything that could be progress.

Also, can the argument be held in honesty when there is an abstract agenda where the benefits are not for the people?



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




Do you think that you perhaps think that critical thinking and an informed populace is missing in the equation?

When emotions stand between logic and reason, the argument is already lost, however, debate rages on under those pretenses and rarely culminates to anything that could be progress.


I think a lack of principle contributes more than a lack of education. Adhering to the rules of debate, for instance, is a matter of principle. As I mentioned, the western tradition is a matter of trial and error. In the short term we won't see much advance, and will likely still see much travesty, but in the long run, this trial and error will let us learn from our mistakes.



Also, can the argument be held in honesty when there is an abstract agenda where the benefits are not for the people?


Corruption, and I would to that bureaucracy and legal plunder, can end the progress we've made.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks




Not just rich people, but people seeking power.

You don't get to where you run for office and become a politician without a desire for power, and power corrupts more often than not. Add to that a system that is set up so you have to be rich to run for office and it's a wrap.

More money and more power presents more opportunities for corruption. Partisanship takes a back seat whenever real money or power is involved.

If every one of us here typing had free lifetime healthcare, a gigantic pension, a house down on the shore, a mountain home, and multiple large bank accounts would we be screaming at each other over transient politics? I doubt it.


I might be a little more naive than you, but then again maybe not. I think some politicians are in it for right and noble reasons. But you're right, one can easily avoid politics altogether and find comfort in matters of self-concern.

I think everyone turns dirty after long enough in a dirty system. Even if they started with benevolent intentions. It may be a cynical worldview, but I see government and big business as one big jungle still.

We aren't physically ripping each other to shreds anymore, but the intention and aim is there. Just played out in different ways that are acceptable to our social contract.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So there is no peace, yet there is partisanship. You said partisanship allows for peaceful engagement. If there us partisanship right now then why is there no peace? Or is there no partisanship happening right now all of a sudden?



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So there is no peace, yet there is partisanship. You said partisanship allows for peaceful engagement. If there us partisanship right now then why is there no peace? Or is there no partisanship happening right now all of a sudden?


It's the sign of a healthy, free society, where competing interests can engage peacefully in the democratic political process.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Everyone is partisan, it is just an adjective to describe ''favouring a particular cause''...

It's literally impossible not to be partisan...

Unless...
You are being more specific to narrow down which type of partisanism you're encouraging...


e.g. Political Partisanship;
Well my thoughts on such is that adherence and adoration of a Party just because they espouse a certain position we find aligns with us morally is sheer unadulterated and pitifully pathetic numbskullery...

I don't give a toss if my Gun ownership stance is 'championed'' by Conservative parties...
They are still largely morally defunct in plenty of other areas.

I don't give a toss if my Pro-Choice stance is ''championed'' by Liberal parties...
They are still largely morally defunct in plenty of other areas.




Wanna know how I'm Politically Partisan?
It's in my ''all parties are riddled with disgusting, authoritarian, power-hungry scumbags who use subtle persuasion and smoke and mirrors to seal a vote, while simultaneously selling untold amounts of garbage that the Lobbyists pay them to'' mantra.

They have never contradicted my expectations either.





Anyone who finds compromising some of their ideals in favour of others because ''My Party'' is a complete tosspot.


edit on 19-3-2018 by Hazardous1408 because: Part redacted by KGB... Now move along.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join