Masterbagger wrote: ↑
Fri, 12. Apr 19, 04:07
...I may be a libertarian at heart. I really do think this should be a nation of gay married couples defending their marijuana fields with legal machine guns. I'm not a perfect fit for the Republican party but to date they have always been a better choice than a democrat. There is no risk at all with disagreeing with a Republican. A democrat is going to go berserk and call you a racist and try to destroy or censor you.
I'm... I dunno, maybe a sort of Libertarian/Constitutionalist? For instance, the Libertarian Party (If there could be such a thing) is whacked, largely due to the prominence of the "Ron Pauls" who are a bit too isolationist in my opinion.
I'm against the legalized recreational use of marijuana. But, say that around here and people lose their minds... /sigh As far as fully automagic weapons are concerned, I'm against that for individual private citizens, since it's just over-compensation for a small ding-ding... For true "collectors" with a license? Sure, go for it. I have no problem with that.
But, that's not why I responded.
You brought up a very good point. Well, perhaps a more poignant one:
"...There is no risk at all with disagreeing with a Republican. A democrat is going to go berserk and call you a racist and try to destroy or censor you..."
That is somewhat true. However, Republican's are just as guilty of committing personal attacks as Democrats. To refuse to acknowledge that is to purposefully stick a knitting-needle in your own eye and twist... Republicans will say someone is a Communist/Socialist or Anti-American or a Peacenick or for Open Borders or part of some World Gubbermint Conspiracy. They are no more innocent of such attacks than anyone else in the political spectrum.
Each of these groups, however, insult others not based on "reality" but based upon their own professed platforms. Which... is stupid and anyone with any sense can see right through their words and what they're trying to do with their insults. BOTH groups spend far too much time resorting to attacking an opponent based upon their own platform rather than the opponent's argument. Why?
If I attack someone's point of view by using a major point in my own platform, I am not only casting a negative light on the person I am attacking just because I have implied they are wrong, I am also elevating my own platform at the same time, implying that it is legitimate enough to fuel such a denial in the first place.
Eg: Let's say I am in favor of legalized marijuana and believe it can have positive effects. (NONE OF WHICH IS TRUIE! But... for the sake of this example..)
Opponent: Marijuana is proven to damage brain development, especially in adolescent brains younger than 23 years old or so. It may also have continuing and lingering bad effects on adult brains!
Me: You hate plants! You hate people who have cancer! You don't want people to have a healthy choice for relieving stress and finding solutions other than the damaging effects of alcohol and drugs! I bet you're a lobbyist for the drug companies and the cotton industry that hates hemp growers! (note: Marijuana is not the "hemp" used for cloth manufacture despite what the pot-lobby says.)
I didn't have to address the other's argument. I just threw a bunch of stuff at them that makes my argument, which is fallacious, look better.
That's all the politicians are doing when they assault each other and start making wild accusations. They misdirect the discussion so that it makes whatever their platform is look more legitimate, valid, or more betterer.