This isn't entirely what I believe, but I'm making a point

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Anybody that's reading this, I recommend staying tuned to the end.  It wouldn't seem to make any sense, but eventually, I think it will.

DP supporter: Here's what I believe:

  1. Every gun law is an infringement (unless it happens to transgenders).
  2. Ban abortion.  Abortion is murder.  Murder should either be punished with death or life imprisonment.  So treat abortion the same way.
  3. End single motherhood for harmless fathers (unless the father is an illegal alien, then kick him out because it's the LAW and the LAW must be upheld no matter what (unless it's the Roe V Wade law)).
  4. America first!  No money for foreign countries (unless Israel, because they stand for freedom (but only the freedoms we don't like such as legalized abortion and other satanic rights (biblical rights, like the right to freely move where you want they don't do))).
  5. Parental rights (unless the parents look like this: Example)
  6. Like Trump because he runs the country like a business, hate wokeness, and call businesses woke (and like Trump because he runs the country like a business).
  7. My body my choice for vaccination (but not for cannabis; out of my most agreeable states; only 13% of them legalized recreational weed; the states I don't like, about 90% of them legalized weed).
  8. God is always morally correct on everything (unless it's any of these verses: 20 Bible Passages for Curious Leftists, then I'm against it).
  9. Taxation is theft (and fund our police).
  10. Decentralize the government, less people per representative (so government becomes less centralized).  In other words, agreeing with this guy: How to Make Congress Less Terrible | Robert Reich (youtube.com).  But wait, he uses buzzwords like, "Women" and, "People of Color", and he's on the left, so we can't agree with a left-wing point.
  11. I support the free market; free market capitalism is great (unless the free market (aka Big Tech) decides to take down my speech because they have decided that my speech is harmful for their profit margins, then I don't like the free market).  The free market using child slaves to produce goods cheaper; I don't protest against that.  The free market taking down electronic text that I wrote; I will get upset at that and I will protest against that.
  12. I support free speech so much; it's why I agree with this woman that wants to take away certain people's right to vote because they tend to vote blue: Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls It 'Wise' to Bar Democrats Who Move to Red States From Voting (newsweek.com) (or at least I won't actively call her out on it because she is on my team).
  13. I'm going to act like my mind can be persuaded and other people are going to assume my mind can be persuaded (and maybe I will actually believe that my mind can be persuaded), but subconsciously, I won't be able to have my mind persuaded because I have a party to stick too.  My party's orthodoxy can't be challenged no matter what, no matter how little it makes sense.  Until I break partisan bonds, my mind will never be changed.
For those who are wondering, D supporter is not, "Democrat Party supporter", it's "Donald TrumP Supporter".
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
you spend so much time creating hard and fast beliefs, or truths. i dont think you're convincing others that much, but you are developing your world view, which has merit to that. i am different than you in beliefs... i stick to general principle on most things, and understand that reasonable people can differ on details, even me sometimes when being i'm wishy washy. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,713
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
How do you feel about military spending?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm going to act like my mind can be persuaded and other people are going to assume my mind can be persuaded (and maybe I will actually believe that my mind can be persuaded), but subconsciously, I won't be able to have my mind persuaded because I have a party to stick too. 
Truth table it out. What happens when you assume that other minds are irrational?

If you're right then what do you gain?

If others are rational, but you don't give them a chance to be convinced, then to them you aren't susceptible to reason as well.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@n8nrgim
 i am different than you in beliefs... i stick to general principle on most things
What is your principle?

 and understand that reasonable people can differ on details
The issue is the exceptions to their principles are consistently the same.

Like lets say the conservative ethos is small government and personal liberty, but there are exceptions.  Here are some examples of potential exceptions:

Ex A: Right to get an abortion
Ex B: Right to be an undocumented immigrant
Ex C: Right to be Jewish
Ex D: Right to interracially marry
Ex E: Right to be Polygamous
Ex F: Right to marry someone of the same sex
Ex G: Right to be a prostitute
Ex H: Right to smoke weed
Ex I: Right to have sex with someone underage

With few exceptions, the exceptions conservatives have decided to make their exceptions to the, "small government" ethos are A,B,E,G, I and (F and H) are like 50/50.

Some exceptions are going to be more popular than others (exception I is going to be more popular in terms of an exception than C or D and this is fine), so exceptions are ok.

But when the majority of conservatives have their exceptions to the, "small government" ethos are at least A,B,E,G, and I, it seems like a cult to me.

All of these letters should be mutually independent in terms of the views of the individual.

My exceptions are A and I; that's it.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
i agree that most people are zombies to culture and political party. we shouldn't know what a person believes, without even talking to them, by simply looking at common party platforms. there's too many independent ideas, as you said, on each list.

with that said, as ive said before... you spend way too much time trying to find consistency in beliefs and then attack anyone who doesn't follow your views. there's all kinds of ways to differientiate beliefs. someone can be against abortion cause it's a human but believe in big government which isn't party line, others may be for it cause they think the localest decision is the woman, even if they prefer local governing decisions in generl and aren't liberal. there's just so many ways to view the world and you try too much to make everything black and white. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Truth table it out. What happens when you assume that other minds are irrational?

If you're right then what do you gain?

If others are rational, but you don't give them a chance to be convinced, then to them you aren't susceptible to reason as well.
If I'm right, hopefully I can convince others to break out of partisan cults, and then once that happens, then they become more persuadable once they realize that their party was forming their own beliefs instead of their own mentality.

If others are rationale, then they would be open about the times when they are willing to buck orthodoxy and be as passionate about the issue they buck orthodoxy with their party on as if it was an issue accepted by their party.

When was the last time you heard someone like YouFoundLxam advocate a left wing position he genuinely believes in?  Or Dr. Franklin?

They are afraid to call out their own party on issues where they think their party deserves critisism.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@n8nrgim
 you spend way too much time trying to find consistency in beliefs and then attack anyone who doesn't follow your views.
I wouldn't say it's an attack; although the internet can make it seem like that.

It's more passion about an issue.

someone can be against abortion cause it's a human but believe in big government which isn't party line, others may be for it cause they think the localest decision is the woman, even if they prefer local governing decisions in generl and aren't liberal. 
I realize that, there are whole lifers and libertarians.  I respect both beliefs (even if I don't agree with either 100%).

But if one has exceptions to either belief, they shouldn't be party induced exceptions; they should be customized exceptions.

I liked your comment though.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
If I'm right, hopefully I can convince others to break out of partisan cults, and then once that happens, then they become more persuadable once they realize that their party was forming their own beliefs instead of their own mentality.
There are many thought patterns that lead back to the same policy/tactic/code of behavior. This is one of them. Whether you believe it to be the case or not is entirely up to you, but it changes nothing in how you ought to deal with others.

No one, not even cult members will admit to believing something simply because they've been told to believe it. Since it is possible for people in a cult to be unaware of the absurdity of their beliefs it follows that (unless you or I claim to have a superior intellect or will) we could be in a cult. How do we/you know we aren't the crazy ones? Many people respond to this realization by purporting to believe in subjectivism. Of course they don't really believe it, the notion just conveniently short circuits any further contemplation.

Only two people who share the premise of reason can have meaningful communication through this miasma of subjectivity or potential delusion.

You will never convince someone that their epistemology is wrong. Epistemology is what creates knowledge and is the only knob by which convincing can happen. For example if someone believe the bible is the only source of knowledge, you can only convince them of anything by twisting the bible to make your case.

In the end, you can't make people rational, and even if you find someone who beleives themselves to be rational (but you say they are in a cult), the only thing that has a hope of convicning them would be an appeal to reason.

Making a good argument is also the only way to convince a rational person who is not in a cult (or freakishly loyal to a party or whatever word you want to use).

If cult:
   argue
else:
   argue

Talking about this stuff doesn't help, but it can hurt. For example when I reactivated on this forum most recently you said I was one of these party zombies. That contributed absolutely nothing to convincing me of anything but opened the door to turn the conversation to mudslinging and well poisoning instead of relevant arguments.


If others are rationale, then they would be open about the times when they are willing to buck orthodoxy and be as passionate about the issue they buck orthodoxy with their party on as if it was an issue accepted by their party.

When was the last time you heard someone like YouFoundLxam advocate a left wing position he genuinely believes in?  Or Dr. Franklin?
That is not true. You can't presume that orthodoxy must be significantly false and require others to point out their problems with it to prove their objectivity.

Whether or not something is true cannot be affected by who believes it is true. Therefore it is possible for a party/religion/any group to be right even if in practice it is unlikely. It is just as unlikely that any individual is right about everything, but if we knew which of our beliefs were wrong without debate we would hardly have many disagreements.

Again, this analysis that leaves you nowhere closer to the truth or convincing anyone.


They are afraid to call out their own party on issues where they think their party deserves critisism.
It is possible they are afraid, but they are much more likely to be afraid of the cognitive dissonance within themselves than outside criticism and even that is not something you could know with any certainty and certainly not something that convinces anyone to change.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are many thought patterns that lead back to the same policy/tactic/code of behavior. 
Like what (for conservatives)?

How do we/you know we aren't the crazy ones?
Because I've ran some expieriments on people before.

I've asked 2 women; both pro life women that supported Donald Trump, if they would rather vote for a pro lifer that hates Trump or a pro choicer that loves him.

The first woman said they prefer the pro lifer that hates Trump.  

The second woman said they prefer the pro choice that loves Trump.  

They both asked me what I thought.

I told them, for me, the answer was easy; I am a pro lifer that hates Trump.

The first woman ended up abandoning her previous pro Trump position in order to fit in with the simulated parties I pointed her too.  Now, she is a pro lifer that hates Trump.  The 2nd woman became a pro choicer that backs Trump.

I gave you a like.

They both initially were pro lifers that loved Trump.  But many people want to fit into a party, and I can present the party dichotomies anyway I want to and I can cause people to believe whatever I want because people are too afraid to give credit to a politician they dislike and people are too afraid to criticize a politician they like.

I ran the experiment a 3rd time.  It was on someone who was anti death penalty and anti COVID vacciene (1 left belief and 1 right belief; which I respect).  I asked him would he rather support a pro death penalty person that was anti vax mandate or an anti death penalty person that was pro vax mandate.  He said the 1st; I told him I agreed with the 1st; and his psychology caused him to abandon his initial anti death penalty belief.

Democrats kindof did this with anti abortion Hispanic immigrants; a pro choicer that wouldn't deport the undocumented immigrants they knew or a pro lifer that would deport the undocumented immigrants they knew.  The immigrants selected the 1st option; democrats said they were the 1st option, and the immigrants have became much more pro choice than their ethnic counterparts that stayed in their home country.

You will never convince someone that their epistemology is wrong. Epistemology is what creates knowledge and is the only knob by which convincing can happen. For example if someone believe the bible is the only source of knowledge, you can only convince them of anything by twisting the bible to make your case.
This is correct.  To convince an anti unwanted pain democrat of a position, I must state how my position is anti-unwanted pain.  For the republicans though, they don't have a consistent ethos like the bible or anti unwanted pain or liberty or anything like that.

Making a good argument is also the only way to convince a rational person who is not in a cult (or freakishly loyal to a party or whatever word you want to use).

If cult:
   argue
else:
   argue
I can see that.