Who is more naive? The Left or the Right?

[August1991]

Like it or not, the civilized political world is divided into Left and Right. In America, the two sides/teams are called Liberal and Conservative, or Democrats and Republicans. In Canada, there are NDP and Liberals, and then Red Tories and Reform or CPC. In Europe, they are Socialists and Christian Democrats, or Conservatives and (new) Labour. Even in Quebec, among nationalists, there is Jacques Parizeau and then Pierre Bourgault.

The Left/Right divide seems inevitable in all civilized societies. The divide gives rise to two teams. So, which team in this civilized debate - in your opinion - is more naive?

Are Leftists the fools, or are those on the Right foolishly mistaken? In your opinion, which side - Right or Left - attracts more naive people?

----

[Last Point: In other societies/countries (eg. Russia, China, India), there is no similar obvious internal left/right divide. I suspect that this left/right divide is a feature of civilization.]

Edited February 21, 2012 by August1991

[olpfan1]

I agree with some right wing views just like I agree on some left wing views .. I don't know what you'd call that? centred?

You couldn't answer your question because it has no answer

[msj]

So, which team in this civilized debate - in your opinion - is more naive?

The person asking the question in the first place.

Are Leftists the fools, or are those on the Right foolishly mistaken? In your opinion, which side - Right or Left - attracts more naive people?

Once again - I think the person asking the question in the first place is the fool.

All those who will earnestly follow will be proven fools - as in "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

As such, I will now close my mouth and enjoy.

[August1991]

The person asking the question in the first place.

----

Once again - I think the person asking the question in the first place is the fool.

All those who will earnestly follow will be proven fools - as in "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

As such, I will now close my mouth and enjoy.

Fool and naive, I suppose, are different.

I simply wonder who is more naive: people on the Left or the people on Right.

For example: Warren Buffet and Bill Gates seem "Leftists", and yet they're not naive. We can argue anout George Bush, and his son ot we can argue about tham.

Edited February 21, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

It's a silly question. It's better to say that society tends to divide itself into two groups in considering major issues - one that favours the status quo and one that favours change.

Socially, those left of the spectrum want change. Economically, they want the status quo. But that's just today.

[BubberMiley]

There's no such thing as left and right. That's just a construct of the corporate mushy middle to distract you.

[olpfan1]

Why not make a thread with the question who is more retarded left wingers or right wingers?

if youre gonna troll do it right

Edited February 21, 2012 by olpfan1

[Moonlight Graham]

I agree with some right wing views just like I agree on some left wing views .. I don't know what you'd call that? centred?

I'd say you're just human. I'm the same, as are most IMO. It's useful to simplify things I suppose, but the left-right spectrum is flawed since many peoples thinking can't be fit into some neat box.

I also think the left-right thing is divisive. It's always right vs left. Things should be taken issue for issue, you're either right or wrong based on the evidence, or you either agree or disagree with a person's opinion on a moral issue.

[GostHacked]

Anyone who thinks there is still a left and right are the real naive ones.

[Topaz]

That is wrong with the Conservative government. IF a government always thinks they are RIGHT, then they see no use of opening talks with the oppositions parties to get other ideas which could be very good ones. Two examples, one the Tories kept turning down the Liberal ideas on the justice bill in committee and then afterwards they tried to put those ideas in on their own. Harper called on the leader of the NDP for her thoughts on the budget coming up. The printing was almost done with or done with and it was all for show by Harper. ANY leader of Canada, should have a open mind and willing to work with the other parties but when the leader thinks he knows best, that's were the problems arise.

[dre]

Like it or not, the civilized political world is divided into Left and Right. In America, the two sides/teams are called Liberal and Conservative, or Democrats and Republicans. In Canada, there are NDP and Liberals, and then Red Tories and Reform or CPC. In Europe, they are Socialists and Christian Democrats, or Conservatives and (new) Labour. Even in Quebec, among nationalists, there is Jacques Parizeau and then Pierre Bourgault.

The Left/Right divide seems inevitable in all civilized societies. The divide gives rise to two teams. So, which team in this civilized debate - in your opinion - is more naive?

Are Leftists the fools, or are those on the Right foolishly mistaken? In your opinion, which side - Right or Left - attracts more naive people?

----

[Last Point: In other societies/countries (eg. Russia, China, India), there is no similar obvious internal left/right divide. I suspect that this left/right divide is a feature of civilization.]

First of all your premise is wrong. The world is not divided into left and right. Its divided into roughly three groups, the two at either end of the spectrum are left wing and right wing partisans, but theres about 1/3rd in the middle that arent. Swing voters you can call em I guess.

Just about everyone on the left and right ends of the scale is somewhat naive. These people let ideology crowd out logic and observation, and basically have a form of mental retardation. They add nothing and the political process would be roughly unchanged if they just stayed home, because all they do is cancel each other out.

[Guest Manny]

Anyone who is blatantly partisan, calls themselves completely "Left" or "Right" is naive. In fact I doubt that most people totally polarized in this way. I suspect that the vast majority are "Left" on some issues and "Right" on others. This extends to the ideology of our parties. They're not completely left or right wing on every issue. How can they be? Our country is based on a mix of these ideas.

Would you agree?

[capricorn]

In Canada, there are NDP and Liberals, and then Red Tories and Reform or CPC.

You forgot one category. Recovering Liberal, of which I am one.

[TheNewTeddy]

Both.

There are Ideologues, and it does not matter if you are a right-wing or left-wing Ideologue, you are an Ideologue.

And then there are those who live and work in the real world.

[August1991]

First of all your premise is wrong. The world is not divided into left and right. Its divided into roughly three groups, the two at either end of the spectrum are left wing and right wing partisans, but theres about 1/3rd in the middle that arent. Swing voters you can call em I guess.

Two or three or four groups? We're divided.

Just about everyone on the left and right ends of the scale is somewhat naive. These people let ideology crowd out logic and observation, and basically have a form of mental retardation. They add nothing and the political process would be roughly unchanged if they just stayed home, because all they do is cancel each other out.

But who is more naive?

Dre, you avoid the key questions.

---

Giving more thought to this question, I think that we are divided into "progressives" and "conservatives". There are people who are "early adopters", and others who choose to "wait-and-see".

The Left are "early adopters". The Right prefer to "wait and see".

For the past few centuries, socialism/government is perceived as "new". Progressives promoted big government because that was the "new" thing.

Nowadays, minorities are the "new thing". Hence, progressives want to defend minorities, and think political correctness is good.

Conservatives (or the Right) question every new thing. They ask why society should change.

Edited March 3, 2012 by August1991

[dre]

Two or three or four groups? We're divided.

But who is more naive?

Dre, you avoid the key questions.

---

Giving more thought to this question, I think that we are divided into "progressives" and "conservatives". There are people who are "early adopters", and others who choose to "wait-and-see".

The Left are "early adopters". The Right prefer to "wait and see".

For the past few centuries, socialism/government is perceived as "new". Progressives promoted big government because that was the "new" thing.

Nowadays, minorities are the "new thing". Hence, progressives want to defend minorities, and think political correctness is good.

Conservatives (or the Right) question every new thing. They ask why society should change.

Dre, you avoid the key questions.

No you avoided asking any key questions.

And youre trying to view the world through the lens of political stereotypes that are at best half truths.

[eyeball]

Giving more thought to this question, I think that we are divided into "progressives" and "conservatives". There are people who are "early adopters", and others who choose to "wait-and-see".

The Left are "early adopters". The Right prefer to "wait and see".

For the past few centuries, socialism/government is perceived as "new". Progressives promoted big government because that was the "new" thing.

Nowadays, minorities are the "new thing". Hence, progressives want to defend minorities, and think political correctness is good.

Conservatives (or the Right) question every new thing. They ask why society should change.

No, they're simply the first one's to crap their pants in fear. If not for the progressives ability to ignore the shrieks of the regressives our species would still be clinging to its branches in the trees.

Seriously though I think the more relevant division in society is the one between the governed and the government - between those who have authority and those who are merely authorized.

Naturally, I expect conservatives to fearfully and naively suck-hole to authority the hardest.

Edited March 3, 2012 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

Heck, I'll play this game just for fun. Left & right are equally naive, because those who stick to ideology instead of being pragmatic will inevitably be so.

Let's take the issue of healthcare: The left in Canada are naive in their insistence of sticking to the current universal 1-tier system in the name of "equality" without any consideration of looking at the possibility of more privatization or user-fees that could ultimately benefit everyone because of how stressed our healthcare system is.

The right are naive in that, let's take the US right for example, they are locked in their ideology that state intervention is bad and won't look at the possibility of universal healthcare, even though statistically universal systems make for healthier countries even though they spend less on healthcare.

The left are also naive in that they tend to be more utopian in terms of social & economic policy. Multiculturalism, for example, sounds all well and good, but in practice some of its policies have showed to be flawed and have caused many problems in Europe and Canada.

The right is naive in their blind faith in the "free market". They believe neoliberal ideals like lower taxes, private ownership, deregulation, and open trade markets will magically make all countries more economically prosperous when statistically this has shown to have failed in many ways throughout history. Sometimes ie: deregulation works in certain areas, and not in others, it should be looked at on a case by case basis and not as a blank slate.

The left are also naive economically, in that again they tend to be utopian vs pragmatic, Communism being a good example.

[sharkman]

What was that quote? Something about if you aren't a liberal by the time you're 20 you haven't got a heart and if your not a conservative by the time you're 30 you haven't got a brain. Hope I haven't butchered it too badly, but in that case, the left is more naive. But give them time.

[Jack Weber]

Heck, I'll play this game just for fun. Left & right are equally naive, because those who stick to ideology instead of being pragmatic will inevitably be so.

Let's take the issue of healthcare: The left in Canada are naive in their insistence of sticking to the current universal 1-tier system in the name of "equality" without any consideration of looking at the possibility of more privatization or user-fees that could ultimately benefit everyone because of how stressed our healthcare system is.

The right are naive in that, let's take the US right for example, they are locked in their ideology that state intervention is bad and won't look at the possibility of universal healthcare, even though statistically universal systems make for healthier countries even though they spend less on healthcare.

The left are also naive in that they tend to be more utopian in terms of social & economic policy. Multiculturalism, for example, sounds all well and good, but in practice some of its policies have showed to be flawed and have caused many problems in Europe and Canada.

The right is naive in their blind faith in the "free market". They believe neoliberal ideals like lower taxes, private ownership, deregulation, and open trade markets will magically make all countries more economically prosperous when statistically this has shown to have failed in many ways throughout history. Sometimes ie: deregulation works in certain areas, and not in others, it should be looked at on a case by case basis and not as a blank slate.

The left are also naive economically, in that again they tend to be utopian vs pragmatic, Communism being a good example.

That,sir,is 100% correct!!!

[August1991]

After a re-read of this thread.

Why not make a thread with the question who is more retarded left wingers or right wingers?

if youre gonna troll do it right

Like it or not, people in civilized countries are divided. Left/right are the terms we use to describe the sides or "teams". (I'd even venture that a test of civilized society is the existence of "two sides". Countries without such sides are not "civilized".)

First of all your premise is wrong. The world is not divided into left and right. Its divided into roughly three groups, the two at either end of the spectrum are left wing and right wing partisans, but theres about 1/3rd in the middle that arent. Swing voters you can call em I guess.

But it still comes down to whether the light is on, or off.

Just about everyone on the left and right ends of the scale is somewhat naive. These people let ideology crowd out logic and observation, and basically have a form of mental retardation. They add nothing and the political process would be roughly unchanged if they just stayed home, because all they do is cancel each other out.

Dre, I'll put you down as "Both are naive". Edited March 6, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

No, they're simply the first one's to crap their pants in fear. If not for the progressives ability to ignore the shrieks of the regressives our species would still be clinging to its branches in the trees.

Except that the "progressives" (early adopters) pick the first crazy idea to appear and without thought, apply it: 8 track tape, 3D camcorders, eugenics, social engineering, behead all the educated nobility, Khmer Rouge, communism.

Admittedly, "progressives" sometimes apparently get it right: American progressives put a man on the moon and in Canada, we have the GST and free trade.

Sometimes ie: deregulation works in certain areas, and not in others, it should be looked at on a case by case basis and not as a blank slate.

MG, with that quote alone, I'll record you as a "conservative". Edited March 6, 2012 by August1991

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Equally but in different ways.

For instance, some people believe that a truly free market will clean up oil spills and toxic industrial chemicals out of the good of their hearts(LOL!)

Others believe that we'd be able to function as a society with motivated people just for the good of society and share any wealth we generate. (LOL!)

[Guest Peeves]

It's a silly question. It's better to say that society tends to divide itself into two groups in considering major issues - one that favours the status quo and one that favours change.

Socially, those left of the spectrum want change. Economically, they want the status quo. But that's just today.

Worse than that. There's positively a a biased, emotional partisan allegiance of many on either side that hold to the party regardless the cost. A schism of discord, disharmony dissension and even hate.

When you hear how far, how extreme are the spokesmen for the parties it becomes truly frightening. Take Rush this past week. Take the things the Republican candidates are saying about each other! It's pretty sad that party line comes before country ain't it.

What is needed in the USA is another choice. a party that will represent the interests of the citizen, the taxpayer, and the future citizens and taxpayers.

[Michael Hardner]

What is needed in the USA is another choice. a party that will represent the interests of the citizen, the taxpayer, and the future citizens and taxpayers.

Maybe two new choices ? Really, when it comes down to it we're just all arguing about the check at a restaurant for the most part. Why do we need to inject so much identity into that question ? I don't know why. If you want to see real divisiveness, break rank with somebody who agrees with you politically, as I often see when I tell fellow left-of-centres that the government wastes money, that healthcare could be run better, that global trade is a good idea... I'm looked at with a certain glare reserved for the disloyal.