Which party do you support?

[SlappyMcGee]

All right, I'll try and explain my objections more clearly.

You believe that the association with a political party is a sacrifice of ideals.

The objection that I have is, stated as clearly as possible:

1) The association with a political party does not necessarily you embrace and endorse all of the ideals held by the leaders of the political party. I think you're under the impression that this is not true; that to associate yourself with the Republicans means you are pretending to be against gay marriage to get proper conservative economics. This is ridiculous to me on a couple of levels; the most prominent being that there is not a political party in the world where dissent is not only common but expected. The way you choose a political party is by deciding which issues are the most important to you, and seeing which party represents your most important interests. This is not a sacrifice, because you can still disagree and vocalize your opinions about the other platforms.

2) I find it completely puzzling that you think you can reasonably vote or elect in a democracy if you only identify with people who agree with you wholeheartedly. This not only has the narcissism of believing that you are absolutely right on all subjects, it's also impossible to find someone who agrees with you about everything. I think that your objection with being associated with a political party, is then, that you don't want to be expected to vote for the same party each year. Nor do you have to. To say that you agree with the Dems now does not mean that in four years, you'll be holding up "Bring Back Barack" signs in front of Denny's.

[T3chno]

I propose we go back to the Federalist and Democratic-Republican days of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

[Amadeus]

All right, I'll try and explain my objections more clearly.

You believe that the association with a political party is a sacrifice of ideals.

The objection that I have is, stated as clearly as possible:

1) The association with a political party does not necessarily you embrace and endorse all of the ideals held by the leaders of the political party.

Voting for someone in a political election seems like endorsing them to me.

2) I find it completely puzzling that you think you can reasonably vote or elect in a democracy if you only identify with people who agree with you wholeheartedly. This not only has the narcissism of believing that you are absolutely right on all subjects, it's also impossible to find someone who agrees with you about everything. I think that your objection with being associated with a political party, is then, that you don't want to be expected to vote for the same party each year. Nor do you have to. To say that you agree with the Dems now does not mean that in four years, you'll be holding up "Bring Back Barack" signs in front of Denny's.

It's impossible to find someone who wholeheartedly agrees with you on every political point. That's not what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that by pledging yourself to a political party, you get a moral package deal, compromising your ethic standards to fit in with a larger group. For example, I of course do not pledge myself to a party. I am strongly against any socialist programs whether it be medicare or public health care or government bailouts. However, I am for gay rights and against war. If I was to align myself with a party, I'd be pledging myself to uphold a platform that contradicts beliefs core to my moral system. In an election, I'd probably go democrat as the lesser of evils/sacrifices, but that doesn't mean I support the democratic platform. It's simply the view that aligns closest with my personal, unique, individual values system.

[SlappyMcGee]

Right, right, and I get what you're saying. I just think that this is what happened:

1) Somebody made a thread asking what political party in your country best represents you.
2) People posted accordingly.
3) You not only Pie Forum'd, you challenged the idea of associating yourself with a political party on the very basis that they stifle independent thought somehow.

Do you not vote? Is this how you enact social change? I can't imagine you could vote for anybody, because by your own admittance, voting for somebody means endorsing them fully, and in turn, would mean a heavy sacrifice of your ideals since you also agree that nobody agrees with you on every point.

And what you said at the end of your post seemed downright reasonable and not at all contradictory. You actually showed that you have some issues that are more important to you than others, and made a conscious decision to endorse that party at this moment. Just because I have an NDP card for donating ten dollars to them because I really strongly agree with a lot of Jack Layton's ideals, does not mean I will always want things the way he wants them. The point of this topic was not "How did you align yourself politically two years ago?" or "How will you align yourself politically next week?", it's about which party you support right now.

So, in sum:

1) If your statements are true, and you want to continue to hold by them, you could not vote for a political figure who does not agree with you wholeheartedley (because you do not endorse or support things that are not perfectly in line with your thinking) who does not agree with you on every point, and no such person exists, so you do not vote. And since you don't vote, I don't think you have much of a say or stake in politics.
B) You don't support a political party because you believe that supporting a party is a sacrifice of ideals. I thought, reasonably, that you meant because the party might change in the future, and you would not want to be permanently associated with said party. It seems to me that the reason that you don't support a political party is because you don't agree with any one in full, and you seem adamant that your own sense of morality is more correct than that of a large base of people. This, I believe, is why your stance is perverse to the very nature of democracy.

[Amadeus]

I said, probably mistakenly as it caused a misunderstanding, that if I voted I'd go democrat. As I'm underage I can't vote, explaining the "if." I'd like to go on record saying that I will always vote for a party, that it would be foolish of me not to participate in a democratic election. It's a whole "lesser of evils" thing. I'll never get a candidate who aligns perfectly with my own standards, I'll simply have to vote for the candidate who aligns most closely, just like every other rational person in America. This is realistically a necessity, imagine the problems with our country if every rational, moral person decided not to vote.
However, allegiance to a political party is not a necessity. I am neither unrepresented nor lose my rights in a democratic election - and so here, with nothing to lose, the practice of a theory can be applied realistically. Parties by their nature try to involve and coerce as many people as possible into joining, and they do this by broadening their stances, making themselves more moderate, and toning down their moral views, which is an ethical compromise. By becoming a member of these moderate, broad, sweeping platforms, I am falsely represented. Hypothetically, I think the best way for the democratic system to operate is where each person has an individual take on politics. Come election day, candidates do no run under a specific party's platform but rather their own platform, unique and honest. Then, voters match the platform with their own standpoint, to achieve the most accurate representation of the country's ideals.

[SlappyMcGee]

I said, probably mistakenly as it caused a misunderstanding, that if I voted I'd go democrat. As I'm underage I can't vote, explaining the "if." I'd like to go on record saying that I will always vote for a party, that it would be foolish of me not to participate in a democratic election. It's a whole "lesser of evils" thing. I'll never get a candidate who aligns perfectly with my own standards, I'll simply have to vote for the candidate who aligns most closely, just like every other rational person in America. This is realistically a necessity, imagine the problems with our country if every rational, moral person decided not to vote.
However, allegiance to a political party is not a necessity. I am neither unrepresented nor lose my rights in a democratic election - and so here, with nothing to lose, the practice of a theory can be applied realistically. Parties by their nature try to involve and coerce as many people as possible into joining, and they do this by broadening their stances, making themselves more moderate, and toning down their moral views, which is an ethical compromise. By becoming a member of these moderate, broad, sweeping platforms, I am falsely represented. Hypothetically, I think the best way for the democratic system to operate is where each person has an individual take on politics. Come election day, candidates do no run under a specific party's platform but rather their own platform, unique and honest. Then, voters match the platform with their own standpoint, to achieve the most accurate representation of the country's ideals.

And I agree with you on a lot of this. I think our misunderstanding comes from what you determine as a sacrifice of ideals. I don't think that endorsing a candidate I don't fully agree with is an ethical compromise, but more a realistic one. An ethical compromise would be to lie and say that I supported him on the grounds that I disagree with.

[otters~1]

I propose we go back to the Federalist and Democratic-Republican days of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Yeah--let's exhume and somehow reanimate Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams. Good system. Definitely gonna solve our current problem.

[T3chno]

I propose we go back to the Federalist and Democratic-Republican days of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Yeah--let's exhume and somehow reanimate Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams. Good system. Definitely gonna solve our current problem.

At least they got something passed.

[otters~1]

I propose we go back to the Federalist and Democratic-Republican days of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Yeah--let's exhume and somehow reanimate Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams. Good system. Definitely gonna solve our current problem.

At least they got something passed.

They got so lucky. Too many geniuses all at once, counteracting each other. Thankfully we don't have that dilemma today.

[Fraxtil]

Hm... does "moderate" count as a party? I'm torn between Libertarian and Conservatism in quite a few ways.

They got so lucky. Too many geniuses all at once, counteracting each other. Thankfully we don't have that dilemma today.

Yup, now it's just idiots counteracting each other. Good times.

[origami_alligator]

I propose we go back to the Federalist and Democratic-Republican days of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Yeah--let's exhume and somehow reanimate Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams. Good system. Definitely gonna solve our current problem.

At least they got something passed.

They also only had 13 States to deal with.

[zan3011]

KEEP YOUR ANSWERS SHORT please!!
i cant be bothered to read all the paragraphs and of you are going to post a reply, make sure it answers the question!

[otters~1]

KEEP YOUR ANSWERS SHORT please!!
i cant be bothered to read all the paragraphs and of you are going to post a reply, make sure it answers the question!

Keep it stupid, guys. No more intelligent but oh so slightly tangential arguments. Slappy. Gan.

[SlappyMcGee]

KEEP YOUR ANSWERS SHORT please!!
i cant be bothered to read all the paragraphs and of you are going to post a reply, make sure it answers the question!

Keep it stupid, guys. No more intelligent but oh so slightly tangential arguments. Slappy. Gan.

k

[Atilla]

KEEP YOUR ANSWERS SHORT please!!
i cant be bothered to read all the paragraphs and of you are going to post a reply, make sure it answers the question!

IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE LENGTH GET OUT OF THE STRING FACTORY.

Let me explain further. Firstly, this is an obvious parody of the commonly-used phrase "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", thus implying that if you find certain circumstances distasteful you should not willfully enter a place in which these conditions are prevalent. This expresses the belief that long posts are common in political debates, and you should be prepared to deal with them if you expect to participate. To elaborate, there are a wide range of issues which may dictate a person's political affiliation, leading to a similarly wide range of opinion. Furthermore the arguments put forth in favour of a given position may touch upon several issues at once, and become quite complex, thereby necessitating a degree of prolixity in excess of what some people may consider comfortable. While such verbosity necessarily increases the time commitment required to participate in the dialogue, it is essential if the concepts involved are to be fully expressed.

We may also examine the sentence in terms of its cultural impact and relevance. Notice that referring to the string factory references the rhetorical question "How long is a piece of string?", which is used to imply that there is no single correct answer or that the answer is undefined or subjective. The astute may also notice that as the sentence discusses the length of a forum "thread", the reference to string is also a clever pune, or play on words. Freudian analysis may also give special meaning to the phrase, "take the length", which gives the sentence a root in modern culture and slang, thereby allowing the everyman to empathise even though he may lack full understanding of the significance of the clever wordplay.

Now, if the textual paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between precultural textual theory and the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus. In a sense, Sontag uses the term ‘the textual paradigm of reality’ to denote the role of the writer as observer. The subject is contextualised into a modernist theory that includes art as a paradox. If one examines modernist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic modernism or conclude that consciousness is capable of significance, given that Lyotard’s model of subconstructive narrative is valid. The example of modernist theory prevalent in Fellini’s Satyricon emerges again in Amarcord, although in a more mythopoetical sense. But if presemanticist Marxism holds, we have to choose between subconstructive narrative and the subcapitalist paradigm of reality.

Conversely, in the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. The main theme of the works of Gibson is not narrative, as Foucault would have it, but subnarrative. It could be said that an abundance of discourses concerning the common ground between consciousness and class may be found. And yet Sartre suggests the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to attack sexism. Thus, several desituationisms concerning surrealism exist. This demonstrates that a number of theories concerning the rubicon, and eventually the fatal flaw, of dialectic consciousness may be found. Thus, subtextual discourse suggests that class has significance.

On the other hand, if we examine Plato's formulation in "The Republic", it is clear that only through the contextualisation of individual cognizance is it possible to reconcile the excess degree of linguistic complexity exhibited with the need for semantic meaning. Indeed, the syntactic restrictions enforced by pre-societal paradigms of communication result in a subjuncture of discourse, dividing the participants into two distinct groups: those who find the prolixity warranted, and those who lack the means to comprehend it. However, is it effective to disassemble the buttresses of text to create a simplistic dichotomy which reassures those present by hearkening back to the playpen? For though such measure may bring comfort, they ultimately inhibit the dissemination of necessary ontology which is prerequisite to the convergence of opinion.

[SlappyMcGee]

KEEP YOUR ANSWERS SHORT please!!
i cant be bothered to read all the paragraphs and of you are going to post a reply, make sure it answers the question!

IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE LENGTH GET OUT OF THE STRING FACTORY.

Let me explain further. Firstly, this is an obvious parody of the commonly-used phrase "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", thus implying that if you find certain circumstances distasteful you should not willfully enter a place in which these conditions are prevalent. This expresses the belief that long posts are common in political debates, and you should be prepared to deal with them if you expect to participate. To elaborate, there are a wide range of issues which may dictate a person's political affiliation, leading to a similarly wide range of opinion. Furthermore the arguments put forth in favour of a given position may touch upon several issues at once, and become quite complex, thereby necessitating a degree of prolixity in excess of what some people may consider comfortable. While such verbosity necessarily increases the time commitment required to participate in the dialogue, it is essential if the concepts involved are to be fully expressed.

We may also examine the sentence in terms of its cultural impact and relevance. Notice that referring to the string factory references the rhetorical question "How long is a piece of string?", which is used to imply that there is no single correct answer or that the answer is undefined or subjective. The astute may also notice that as the sentence discusses the length of a forum "thread", the reference to string is also a clever pune, or play on words. Freudian analysis may also give special meaning to the phrase, "take the length", which gives the sentence a root in modern culture and slang, thereby allowing the everyman to empathise even though he may lack full understanding of the significance of the clever wordplay.

Now, if the textual paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between precultural textual theory and the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus. In a sense, Sontag uses the term ‘the textual paradigm of reality’ to denote the role of the writer as observer. The subject is contextualised into a modernist theory that includes art as a paradox. If one examines modernist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic modernism or conclude that consciousness is capable of significance, given that Lyotard’s model of subconstructive narrative is valid. The example of modernist theory prevalent in Fellini’s Satyricon emerges again in Amarcord, although in a more mythopoetical sense. But if presemanticist Marxism holds, we have to choose between subconstructive narrative and the subcapitalist paradigm of reality.

Conversely, in the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. The main theme of the works of Gibson is not narrative, as Foucault would have it, but subnarrative. It could be said that an abundance of discourses concerning the common ground between consciousness and class may be found. And yet Sartre suggests the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to attack sexism. Thus, several desituationisms concerning surrealism exist. This demonstrates that a number of theories concerning the rubicon, and eventually the fatal flaw, of dialectic consciousness may be found. Thus, subtextual discourse suggests that class has significance.

On the other hand, if we examine Plato's formulation in "The Republic", it is clear that only through the contextualisation of individual cognizance is it possible to reconcile the excess degree of linguistic complexity exhibited with the need for semantic meaning. Indeed, the syntactic restrictions enforced by pre-societal paradigms of communication result in a subjuncture of discourse, dividing the participants into two distinct groups: those who find the prolixity warranted, and those who lack the means to comprehend it. However, is it effective to disassemble the buttresses of text to create a simplistic dichotomy which reassures those present by hearkening back to the playpen? For though such measure may bring comfort, they ultimately inhibit the dissemination of necessary ontology which is prerequisite to the convergence of opinion.

lol fatass

[otters~1]

KEEP YOUR ANSWERS SHORT please!!
i cant be bothered to read all the paragraphs and of you are going to post a reply, make sure it answers the question!

IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE LENGTH GET OUT OF THE STRING FACTORY.

Let me explain further. Firstly, this is an obvious parody of the commonly-used phrase "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", thus implying that if you find certain circumstances distasteful you should not willfully enter a place in which these conditions are prevalent. This expresses the belief that long posts are common in political debates, and you should be prepared to deal with them if you expect to participate. To elaborate, there are a wide range of issues which may dictate a person's political affiliation, leading to a similarly wide range of opinion. Furthermore the arguments put forth in favour of a given position may touch upon several issues at once, and become quite complex, thereby necessitating a degree of prolixity in excess of what some people may consider comfortable. While such verbosity necessarily increases the time commitment required to participate in the dialogue, it is essential if the concepts involved are to be fully expressed.

We may also examine the sentence in terms of its cultural impact and relevance. Notice that referring to the string factory references the rhetorical question "How long is a piece of string?", which is used to imply that there is no single correct answer or that the answer is undefined or subjective. The astute may also notice that as the sentence discusses the length of a forum "thread", the reference to string is also a clever pune, or play on words. Freudian analysis may also give special meaning to the phrase, "take the length", which gives the sentence a root in modern culture and slang, thereby allowing the everyman to empathise even though he may lack full understanding of the significance of the clever wordplay.

Now, if the textual paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between precultural textual theory and the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus. In a sense, Sontag uses the term ‘the textual paradigm of reality’ to denote the role of the writer as observer. The subject is contextualised into a modernist theory that includes art as a paradox. If one examines modernist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic modernism or conclude that consciousness is capable of significance, given that Lyotard’s model of subconstructive narrative is valid. The example of modernist theory prevalent in Fellini’s Satyricon emerges again in Amarcord, although in a more mythopoetical sense. But if presemanticist Marxism holds, we have to choose between subconstructive narrative and the subcapitalist paradigm of reality.

Conversely, in the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. The main theme of the works of Gibson is not narrative, as Foucault would have it, but subnarrative. It could be said that an abundance of discourses concerning the common ground between consciousness and class may be found. And yet Sartre suggests the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to attack sexism. Thus, several desituationisms concerning surrealism exist. This demonstrates that a number of theories concerning the rubicon, and eventually the fatal flaw, of dialectic consciousness may be found. Thus, subtextual discourse suggests that class has significance.

On the other hand, if we examine Plato's formulation in "The Republic", it is clear that only through the contextualisation of individual cognizance is it possible to reconcile the excess degree of linguistic complexity exhibited with the need for semantic meaning. Indeed, the syntactic restrictions enforced by pre-societal paradigms of communication result in a subjuncture of discourse, dividing the participants into two distinct groups: those who find the prolixity warranted, and those who lack the means to comprehend it. However, is it effective to disassemble the buttresses of text to create a simplistic dichotomy which reassures those present by hearkening back to the playpen? For though such measure may bring comfort, they ultimately inhibit the dissemination of necessary ontology which is prerequisite to the convergence of opinion.

I would sig this if I could. Instead I guess I'll have to remember it forever. Incidentally, "The Republic" was ridiculously convoluted; Plato could've used some stream-lining.