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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So are you saying your ideal world wouldn't be a world where everybody loved each other and got along even if they all carried guns? Which is of course impossible hence it being an ideal world.

Is not anti-violence supporters ultimate goal world peace? How can you want no violence but be against world peace?

That was my thought process when I generalized. See? If you don't want these things, then I don't see how you really can claim to be anti-violence.




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


You showed your true intentions with the Right versus Left. Yes, you owned up to it, but it still remains the inspiration of this thread. I refuse to get pulled into the political polarization of our society. Am I Right or Left? I am a man that seeks peace and unity for my children and future lineage on this planet. It's not going to happen by putting myself into one political camp while mud-slinging another political camp.

Divide and Conquer.
United we stand, divided we fall.

It is not about labels or not labeling. It is about the separation, isolation, and compartmentalization of man versus man. When our cells turn against each other we call it dis-ease.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
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!
Uh.. No.. From Oxford Dictionaries:


label
Pronunciation: /ˈleɪb(ə)l/
2) a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive:
the label ‘salsa’ seems especially meaningless when applied to musicians like Tito Puente


Person A and person B are completely undefined aside from the fact that they are people. We don't know anything regarding any of their views and they are not limited by any means. You can add whatever properties you want to them. Person X does not represent anything. You can see them as labels if you want, but, they are undefined and are only used to represent hypothetical scenarios where multiple people are present.

Left and Right contain a whole list of characteristics and they are both restrictive by definition. I would personally never label myself with something that I am unsure about or disagree with. I can label myself with stuff that are clear and define me. Saying if I'm left or right would be like someone asking me if I have a Ferrari or a Lamborghini, I answer Lamborghini but what I really have is an Audi, but I go along with it anyway because it resembles the Lamborghini more than the Ferrari and are made by the same manufacturer and whatnot.. It's no wonder label usage gets confusing and frustrating. The same reason why I don't participate in the illusion of choice called voting.

This all goes back to labels being used accurately. If that is not applied, everything falls apart. If you say you're on the right side, and someone gives an argument why he is not on the right side, and you actually then say you agree with that argument, you really don't represent the right side. One particular aspect changes everything. Is white light still white light if you remove a single color? But these political games are designed to confuse everyone anyway.. So.. Yeah..



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


That makes sense.

Smite me if you will, but when talking about politics and religion in general, I usually like to put people in groups to easily describe which group I am talking about. When someone is spouting off the top talking points of either side of the issue I generally like to say that that person is a liberal/conservative. I know my politics and it's generally easy enough to point out where most people stand on the political spectrum. I describe myself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative but i place myself as a right wing republican because I vote on who will be best for the economy. I find it much easier to do this than to list down everyone's belief and say ok I am talking about people who like the environment gay rights and peace and love. The word liberal is a lot easier to type and say.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
The word liberal is a lot easier to type and say... I find it much easier to do this than to list down everyone's belief and say ok I am talking about people who like the environment gay rights and peace and love.
And who, by the way, are also "cowards and like to whine and complain about stuff."



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sahabi
 


Don't get me wrong, i am all for peace, it's the only way.
Only i don't see any politics as being the answer, think 'zeitgeist'
When there is nothing left to say, only actions will count.
I will take whatever action is necessary to protect my neighbours, i hope that's enough.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So are you saying your ideal world wouldn't be a world where everybody loved each other and got along even if they all carried guns? Which is of course impossible hence it being an ideal world.

Is not anti-violence supporters ultimate goal world peace? How can you want no violence but be against world peace?

That was my thought process when I generalized. See? If you don't want these things, then I don't see how you really can claim to be anti-violence.


1)nope. My ideal world would be one where each could live as they wish. 'Course, I learned a long time ago that trying to view the world in an ideal way is pointless.

2)there you go again, generalizing. I didn't say I was an 'anti-violence supporter' I said I was personally anti-violence. I don't know what 'anti-violence supporters' want, because I don't generalize entire groups like that, and certainly haven't spoken to each individually.

3)never said I was against world peace. Another generalization.

You continue to miss the overall point. No matter how many generalizations you make, or how hard you try to lump me with your generalizations about certain groups, you are wrong. There is not one group out there with which all my belifs align.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


Depends on what you were talking about, economy? Probably not, social rights sure I agree with most libs there

Generalization might not make me right but its easier to clump people together.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So are you for world peace? That's the ultimate goal of anti violence is it not?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So are you for world peace? That's the ultimate goal of anti violence is it not?


I'm not against it, but that is not my 'goal' by personally opposing violence. You are still trying to lump me into some generalization.

You seem to not get thay I do not live viewing the world as I feel it should be. I live by how I feel I should live, and leave others to do the same. That's the difference between you and I.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Tearman
 


Depends on what you were talking about, economy? Probably not, social rights sure I agree with most libs there

Generalization might not make me right but its easier to clump people together.
Well, all right then. But that does raise some questions, at least for me. What exactly is the motivation for lumping people together in that way? When is it useful to do so? And wouldn't you rather avoid it if you could, given how easy it is to lead to additional bias?

I'm asking this not really having an Idea what your answer would be.
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


As I said before to narrow down and make it easier to talk about groups of people. Its easier to say liberal than hippie peace loving anti war tree huggers.

Just like how its easier to say tbtb than greedy 1% ceos that push money. Of course the powers that be is a generalization for them

edit on 26-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Okay, I can see how it would be "easier" to do that. This may be a stupid request, but can you describe a specific example that illustrates how it would be useful to lump people into the category "hippie peace loving anti war tree huggers"? Maybe I just can't imagine a scenario in which it would do any good.

The kind of example I keep imagining goes something like this. "Conservatives say such and such about the economy. Could they be right? No, because they're fascists."
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


The kind of example I keep imagining goes something like this. "Conservatives say such and such about the economy. Could they be right? No, because they're fascists."
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)


Ok in that case then, I always get people whining about the conservative label or even the fascist label. Don't call me labels! That doesn't describe me! Or not all conservatives are fascists that isn't fair to label them that way, so don't say that word around us!



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Er.... In case you thought I was actually accusing conservatives of being fascists, I was not. The way I feel about it is I'm either talking in specifics in which case it is obvious who I'm talking about and a label is unnecessary, or I'm talking in ambiguities or broad generalizations, in which case a label will be inaccurate or at least imprecise.

EDIT: Actually, more to the point. The label of fascist, whether accurate or not, is irrelevant, because in the example I gave, it says nothing either way about whether they are right or wrong about whatever specific argument they were making. And if I'm using that label in order to discredit their perspective because I know the audience to whom I speak have a strong bias against "fascists", then what I'm really doing is cheating. I'm dismissing their argument without actually addressing it. And this strategy will probably work because the anti-fascists will be inclined to want the fascists to lose the debate, no matter what their specific argument actually was.
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
Er.... In case you thought I was actually accusing conservatives of being fascists, I was not. The way I feel about it is I'm either talking in specifics in which case it is obvious who I'm talking about and a label is unnecessary, or I'm talking in ambiguities or broad generalizations, in which case a label will be inaccurate or at least imprecise.

EDIT: Actually, more to the point. The label of fascist, whether accurate or not, is irrelevant, because in the example I gave, it says nothing either way about whether they are right or wrong about whatever specific argument they were making. And if I'm using that label in order to discredit their perspective because I know the audience to whom I speak have a strong bias against "fascists", then what I'm really doing is cheating. I'm dismissing their argument without actually addressing it.
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)


True, and I've tried to do that most of my life, but it's to the point where I no longer care, because people don't give me the same respect to do it to. So, I give in, gave up. Call it what you will, but it's a lot easier to me. I always get the people who think stuff is about them or try to make it about them or make everything personal and completely off topic.

Edit: I was not bashing your example just showing you what happens in almost every debate on here or in my personal life/ and every post.
edit on 26-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Well, try not to give up! I think there's some hope for us still. Also: sorry I edited my last post apparently after you posted your reply.

If you're interested in more than just winning a debate, I hope you try to keep your biases and fallacies somewhat in check. Not just you, obviously. That is something we all need to keep practicing. We are all naturally inclined toward these mental devices. I say it is a nature we should fight back against.

Let's start teaching children at a young age about all the logical fallacies and biases we've identified, and instruct them to practice avoiding those errors. They'll never be free from them entirely, but there is a lot more we could do than what we have.

EDIT: SORRY. I edited again after you posted... Sorry.
edit on 26-12-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


What really bugs me is the people who go onto posts or debate when clearly the argument was about a certain label or group or generalization and then they tell me not to do so. If you want to debate if Bush is the antichrist, that's fine. Don't just yell at me that Bush isn't the Antichrist, it's not fair to call him that wah wah wah. If someone gives good evidence about any theory I can get behind it!

To make it clearer, let's say you post a very thoughtful post linking certain things to the Bush Antichrist theory. Now, you may not even fully support the claim that Bush is the antichrist, but you think that there might be some truth to it and have some evidence and facts to back it up. Then someone tries to make it personal calling you a liberal hippie. and the cycle continues.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 
That is annoying. And I think the reason people do that is that the goal, unfortunately, in debate isn't usually to arrive at some agreed truth, but to exercise a kind of dominance over others, to have your side prevail, and your "enemies" lose face. If that is the goal, you don't really need to have "facts" on your side, any tactic that embarrasses the other side will do. I don't think this is a behavior in which individual perpetrators are normally aware that they are engaging.




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 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


and Maybe that is just another side a debate and the one that usually wins. Because as stated in this thread most of the population doesn't look at logic or facts. Uh Oh that's generalization and labeling most of the population as stupid! Is it true, that's for another debate hehe!!!


If you don't like labels just avoid it, don't go onto threads saying how much you hate the particular label, that's not helping the debate, especially when so many people on here like to debate about republicans and democrats or conservatives and liberals.

It's a waste of time and energy as I see it and quite useless in debates about liberals or debates about conservatives or debates about Muslims, Christians, or Jews etc...
edit on 26-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join