Interesting Idea

[CowboyJD]

And chastising those that pursue "good."

Or even pursuing perfection, but incrementally rather than an all or nothing proposition.

An all or nothing pursuit of change has rarely (if ever) resulted in any actual change.

 

[Ponca Dan]

And chastising those that pursue "good."

Chastising? I don’t see it that way. Perhaps those who are feeling chastised are mistaking the feeling with a sense of ideological guilt.

 

[CowboyJD]

Chastising? I don’t see it that way. Perhaps those who are feeling chastised are mistaking the feeling with a sense if ideological guilt.

Your inherent passive aggressive nature is peeping through.

You accusing them of “abandoning their principles” when they take a pragmatic approach rather than your preferred utopian idealistic approach....that’s DEFINITELY chastising.

 

[Pancreek1]

Chastising? I don’t see it that way. Perhaps those who are feeling chastised are mistaking the feeling with a sense of ideological guilt.

Ohhh Please. You, up to now, have had reasoned debate with reasoned disagreement.

Now your true colors have arisen.

Accusing someone of abandoning their principals when they simply disagree with your "opinion" (and virtually 100% of your posts on these matters have been your "opinion".....not stated fact)......then to elevate your ego by saying those that disagree with your "opinion" are only experiencing ideological guilt for not agreeing with you, because otherwise why in the F*(& would anyone ever disagree with your opinion....is very interesting. I will continue to listen to your "opinion", whilst you will arrogantly try to pass your opinion off as Gospel fact that shouldn't be debated.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ohhh Please. You, up to now, have had reasoned debate with reasoned disagreement.

Now your true colors have arisen.

Accusing someone of abandoning their principals when they simply disagree with your "opinion" (and virtually 100% of your posts on these matters have been your "opinion".....not stated fact)......then to elevate your ego by saying those that disagree with your "opinion" are only experiencing ideological guilt for not agreeing with you, because otherwise why in the F*(& would anyone ever disagree with your opinion....is very interesting. I will continue to listen to your "opinion", whilst you will arrogantly try to pass your opinion off as Gospel fact that shouldn't be debated.

OK, let’s take this step by step. To begin I do not accuse anyone of abandoning their principles. I suggest they may not have any principles to abandon. Or their principles are so muddled they contradict themselves. The perfect example is when you argue that you are 100% free markets, that interference in free markets is very bad, therefore the US government should interfere in free markets. That’s a contradiction that should not go unchallenged. I do not consider pointing out the contradiction as chastisement.

Second, yes I am expressing my opinion. I thought that is what a person does on a board for expressing opinions. I have shared many links from people, mostly economists, who have spent their entire professional careers studying policies, and dispensing facts to buttress their case. People whom I admire greatly, and in whose opinions I concur. If you choose not to follow the links there is nothing I can do about that.

I am not attempting to elevate my ego. My ego is elevated enough! I suggest that someone who feels he has been chastised when a contradiction in his argument has been pointed out might be experiencing “guilt” that his contradiction has been exposed. You, for example, have an obvious emotional and ideological attachment toward punishing the Chinese for their actions. But you feel chastised when it is pointed out that your revenge will hurt the very people you champion.

I have acknowledged many times on this board - indeed, in this very thread! - that my opinion is in the minority. Oftentimes it seems I’m the only one expressing my side of the argument. I accept that my opinion is going to lose the democratic vote more often than not. I don’t see why that should stop me from expressing it.

I appreciate that you will continue to listen to my opinion. I will certainly reciprocate!

 

[CowboyJD]

Not that accusing of having NO principles is any less of a “chastisement” that accusing them of abandoning their principles, but here are at least two examples of you accusing someone of abandoning their principles...one of them using expressly those terms.

No one ever expects the LP to win, just to have influence, have an impact on the political direction the country takes. All political movements eventually lose steam and begin to subvert their principles in an effort to be relevant. The LP is no different. It’s when I came to this realization that I began to identify as a philosophical anarchist.

The red guys most certainly ARE statists. They used to be less statist than they are now. Thus my comment that they have abandoned their principles. I don’t think I am in error in saying the blue guys have a much greater desire to exercise more control over the rest of us. The red guys seem to be trying their hardest to catch up. Politicians of both parties are deserving of contempt.

You nailed me on the anarchist jab! I probably am the oldest anarchist! Do I get a prize for holding onto my principles for this long in the face of almost total rejection?

And what actual movement towards your ideal has your adherence to your ideologically pure principle without pragmatism or compromise accomplished?

None.

It HAs given you a framework to feel pure and justified in rigidity over compromise and upon which to judge anyone not as pure as you as having no principles. Congratulations Don Quixote.