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.

 

The Conspiracy Against Labeling:

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by vasaga
 


I agree that its all word play, but it gets messier as you go around the world. You have people who for the majority of the population right here in the US have facts to back up that America is or has been the greatest nation in the world, yet you have others who share that same generalization with their own country and they use different facts to back their statement up. So, should Iranians not use the statement that Iran is the best country in the world in America because then, they might be labeled as terrorists?
Well... I have a very simple and accurate label for that.. Patriotism. It's not about comparing countries at all, but cherry picking what the good reasons are for being in that country. No one likes to look at the bad things in their own country, because then they will realize more than they ultimately want.. But that's another subject..

In the end it comes down to what people give priority to, and well, those are personal opinions, and there's no problem with that. If person A says that he likes Australia and person B says that he likes England, that's fine.. But when the fighting starts, trying to prove which one is better, that's the problem.. Especially when it's blinded by patriotism.

As for the terrorist label... Well.. If the US labels Iran as terrorists just for them claiming that they think they are the best country, well, the US has given them an inaccurate label.. And if they decide to attack.. Uh.. It would be like me beating you up because I prefer Pepsi and you prefer Coke, and I just happened to call you rapist in the process to justify me beating you up so I can throw your Coke away. It's completely baseless.




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

In the end it comes down to what people give priority to, and well, those are personal opinions, and there's no problem with that. If person A says that he likes Australia and person B says that he likes England, that's fine.. But when the fighting starts, trying to prove which one is better, that's the problem.. Especially when it's blinded by patriotism.


When I argue with someone that this place



Is better than this place:



Thats not a "problem" as you put it, its an exercise in oratory and argumentation. Its FUN. If you feel offended by it, its not up to me to "stop labeling", its up to you to ask yourself why you are that thin-skinned to see it as a "problem".

The fact of the matter is that me seeing one place as better than other gives the other side the opportunity to place their counter-argumentation. If they have no counter-point then maybe they`ll learn from my side. This is how conflict can be creative.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


In what way are these pictures 'creative' or 'inspirational'?
On the one hand i see luxury appartments, the other total squalor ( i imagine it's that indian village i forgort the name of.)
In what way are they similar?
The one wishes to live by the sea,because it's fun,the other because it's maybe their only source of water.
in what way are they similar?
ETA; Conflict is never creative......
edit on 26-12-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines

In what way are these pictures 'creative' or 'inspirational'?


I didnt say they are. I said that argumentation and debate can be creative.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That is also moot, argument is never creative, only agreements.
We can argue that black is white, but will that make it so?
Only by agreeing on something can we move forward.
edit on 26-12-2011 by playswithmachines because: Typo




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines

Only by agreeing on something can we move forward.


Not really. And frankly thats quite totalitarian. Diversity of opinion is what makes the world rich and creative.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


But it's not rich & creative, is it?
I agree that we need criticism, but we should be our own worst critics.
That is not happening.
To clarify; We learn only to propogate what is 'right or wrong' from peer pressure, or from TPTB, not what really matters.
edit on 26-12-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines


But it's not rich & creative, is it?
.


Its very diverse. Very interesting.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Uh.. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. With proving A being better than B, I was referring to forcing person B to follow the opinion of person A. So I meant, trying to prove by force, and not by arguments. And that's where the problem starts.. Not by simply arguing..

Plus, I never stated that anyone should "stop labeling". I only stated that the labeling needs to be accurate to have anything productive come out.

Lastly.. Saying place A is better than place B is an empty statement, even in the case you posted with those two pictures. It's not specific enough. It definitely is better looking in my opinion, but that's just one possible aspect. "Better" is still up to personal preference because there are many variables. For all you know, in the second picture, people are highly friendly and social and in the first they are all assholes. Or the second one has free banana trees close-by, while in the first a single banana costs 5 dollars.
So.. These stuff need to be defined. Otherwise it'll only turn into a baseless yes/no argument which will lead to aggression. As long as the question "why" can be asked, it's not defined properly.. For example, Person A says country A is better.. Person B replies with why. Person A says it's ugly. Person B replies, why do you think it's ugly. Person A says, I just do. Person B disagrees, and then the conversation stagnates, because "ugly" was an empty label and never defined and thus one can't verify if the label is accurate or not. If person A would've said that everything is so rusty and he dislikes brown or whatever, then person B can reply with his reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. THAT is a functional and useful argument.

As for the whole taking offense of a certain label, I pretty much already explained this in my prior posts, although it was not specifically towards taking offense, the same applies regarding what I said about accurate and inaccurate labels.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That it certainly is!
But are we progressing, or heading towards oblivion??



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
So I meant, trying to prove by force, and not by arguments. And that's where the problem starts.. Not by simply arguing..


What do you mean by "proving by force"?




Lastly.. Saying place A is better than place B is an empty statement


So you say. For me its not empty, its an important statement to make. The statement implies a set of values by which to gauge progress in health, standard of living.



it'll only turn into a baseless yes/no argument which will lead to aggression.


In the normal world people having different views does not lead to aggression. I can only imagine the harsh circumstances you must have experienced in your lifetime to think so.




As long as the question "why" can be asked, it's not defined properly.. For example, Person A says country A is better.. Person B replies with why. Person A says it's ugly. Person B replies, why do you think it's ugly. Person A says, I just do. Person B disagrees, and then the conversation stagnates, because "ugly" was an empty label and never defined and thus one can't verify if the label is accurate or not. If person A would've said that everything is so rusty and he dislikes brown or whatever, then person B can reply with his reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. THAT is a functional and useful argument.


I say place A is better not only as a matter of subjective individual preference, but universally, if we take "high standard of living and health" to be a worthwhile aim. If that is not the goal, then everything becomes relative.

That is my statement. Now, did me labeling something as "better" lead to agression? No. At least not on my side.

edit on 26-12-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
That it certainly is!
But are we progressing, or heading towards oblivion??


Maybe progressing toward oblivion...



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ItanimuliiluminatI
 


It's nice to read someone who makes sense once in a while..Society is formed of labels.....Let's be real. Labels= difference= individuality= human nature.
Peace.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Did anyone even notice that the Opening Post of this thread is inspired by a Left Wing versus Right Wing emotional ideology? The OP went on to label Left-Wing people as cowards, whiners, and complainers, while continuing on that Right-Wing people do not complain about labels.

This separatist ideology of Liberal versus Conservative, Right versus Left, Democrat versus Republican that is spelled all out in the OP is what inspired my posts in this thread. The OP is grounded on the stance that the 'Left' are cry-babies against labeling, while the 'Right' are perfectly fine with it.

Anyone that can think for themselves can see that there is no two-party system... only wealthy bankers and corporate heads that control both parties by finance and acquirement. The societies are polarized against each other based on political allegiances, all the while the top media highlighted leaders of the opposing parties are on the same team and pursuing the same agenda.

The Opening Post and thread creator is trying to propagate a political separatist agenda, i.e., Left-Wing anti-label, Right-Wing pro-label. OP had no intention of unbiased and honest dialogue about labels.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


OK we finally agree



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

No.. Because you clarified it, which only proves my point...



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sahabi
 


I agree & disagree.
Certainly it's no longer a 2 party system, people have had enough of being stereotyped.
but surely they can make up their own minds about what is right & wrong?
Do we need a political party to tell us that????



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The kind of labeling that some are against is a kind of tool that helps a person effortlessly dismiss a point of view that differs from their own. We can just call them "liberals" or "conservatives" and be done with them... No need to listen to anything they say, because they're just "liberals" or "conservatives" and everything they say is a lie anyway, as any rational person knows.
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The only difference is a few posts down I admit that I generalize and label. I certainly am not spreading an agenda or anything as some suggest I do. It's just simply how I view the world. I view the world as left vs right and while I put myself on the 'right' side it doesn't mean that I agree with everything the right does. I don't see why your so upset about me mentioning right vs left. What's the difference between right vs left or person A vs Person B? That's still labeling!



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Sahabi
 


I agree & disagree.
Certainly it's no longer a 2 party system, people have had enough of being stereotyped.
but surely they can make up their own minds about what is right & wrong?
Do we need a political party to tell us that????


We do not need any political party, radio/talk show host, societal norm, celebrity opinion, or even religion to separate us or tell us what is right, wrong, or how to think.

If this thread was about superficial labels, it would be no matter because I Am that I Am, as You Are that You Are. It is what it is.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join