Social Issues vs. Economics

Gedio
Ok couldn’t wait so I’ll carry on.

My point is that defining them in separation can distract from the fact that they are linked it is a trap that can too easily be fallen into and so I’d recommend a more holistic approach.

Yes I must admit I’m confused about your thinking, for example take your statement here – “In my eyes good governance is a pipe dream” – thing is that all known human societies have had some form of governance, from the elders and meetings of hunter gather societies through to chiefs, kings, republics, councils and parliaments.
All such governance can be shades of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to say that you are not even trying to strive for better governance would seem to imply you don’t care if the governance is good or bad.

 

Gedio

It was just some questions to try and understand your thinking, the problem is that no person is an island – we are all products of our environment and the society he grow up in, this influences how we see ‘morality’ and shapes our ‘moral compass’. What is perceived to be ‘right’, ‘just’ and ‘acceptable’ can change and the type of governance we are brought up under will have a profound effect on our outlooks. So while it is easy in theory to say that people should ignore what they’ve been taught (although probably not even knowing that it is leant) it is very hard to do that in reality.

 

Gedio

I’ll quote from a very good book on Anarchy ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006862454/qid=1141817809/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-7013781-2335648"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...013781-2335648

Chapter 36 concentrates on Anarcho-capitalism

You can find the full text here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10 (copied from http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpo...e/sp000051.txt)

But I’ll just reprint the last few paragraphs –

“In the utopias of the anarcho-capitalists, there is little reason to believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and poor as they do at present. It is difficult to imagine that protective services could impose their ideas of fair procedure without resorting to coercion. With the free market encouraging selfishness, there is no assurance that 'public goods' like sanitation and clean water would be provided for all. Indeed, the anarcho-capitalists deny the very existence of collective interests and responsibilities. They reject the rich communitarian tradition of the ancient Greek _polis_ in favor of the most limited form of possessive individualism. In their drive for self-interest, they have no conception of the general good or public interest. In his relationship with society, the anarcho-capitalist stands alone, an egoistic and calculating consumer; society is considered to be nothing more than a loose collection of autonomous individuals.

The anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative. It calls for the absence of coercion but cannot guarantee the positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence. Nor does it recognize the equal right of all to the means of subsistence. Hayek speaks on behalf of the anarcho-capitalist when he warns: 'Above all we must recognize that we may be free and yet miserable.'[13] Others go even further to insist that liberty and bread are not synonymous and that we have 'the liberty to die of hunger'.[14] In the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all.

Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.

As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.[15]”

 

Gedio

 

Gedio

Can you back this theory up?

But where these neoliberal ideas have been tested the riches, power and influence of wealth has grown usually at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

Try reading

A brief history of Neoliberalism by David Harvey
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273"]A Brief History of Neoliberalism: Amazon.co.uk: David Harvey: 9780199283279: Books

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0141024534/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329907468&sr=1-1"]The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism: Amazon.co.uk: Naomi Klein: 9780141024530: Books

Globalisation and its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Globalization-Its-Discontents-Joseph-Stiglitz/dp/014101038X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329907592&sr=1-1-spell#reader_014101038X"]Globalization and Its Discontents: Amazon.co.uk: Joseph Stiglitz: Books

23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism by ha-joon Chang
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1846144159"]23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism: Amazon.co.uk: Ha-Joon Chang: Books

Well please put up a counter argument all you have done so far is say I’m wrong but that’s not a rational counter argument.

 

Gedio

No I pay into a community chest we all pay in and we often pay in a differing rates, I am helping to pay for other people’s children to be educated just as someone is helping to pay for my child’s education.

Even when I didn’t have a child I was happy to pay into the chest because I think it is good to have an educated society. The ones I’ve heard complain the most are those that choose to privately educate their children because they resent also having to pay into the community chest.

As far as I can tell the right wing libertarian idea is that people would have to pay directly for their child’s education. No community chest just ability to pay would dictate the level of education received. No money no education, a little money a little education and so on. A big winner would be those that have the money already to privately educate their kids because they wouldn’t have to pay into a community chest. To me the rest of society would be worse off, I mean a well educated society helps both the economy and the way people interact in a community and toward their community.

But how do you calculate its expense and its efficiency? I mean the OECD report on the NHS indicated it was good value for money especially compared with the US. As to education how do make comparisons?

 

You ask a lot of questions. My free time has been limited recently.

I encounter rude people every day, as a part of my job. I don't care to do much of it when I don't have to. When I get into a political discussion with someone and I realize that we are going to agree on absolutely nothing, not even a minor point here and there, those conversations end pretty quickly.

Maybe you need to get out of this forum section more and deal with a wider variety of subjects.

I wasn't thinking about you, specifically. I doubt that you would be moderating a political forum if you were a teenager who had only spent two minutes skimming a political article on Wikipedia, but claims to know everything. All of us have encountered such people online, which makes me skeptical at times. A few words on someone's background helps put their comments in perspective, like when that guy mentioned that he has an interest in international investing. I'm a college graduate who works in the business world, and sometimes does volunteer work for the Democratic Party, primarily because of their positions on social issues.

But getting back to the original topic, I think you are missing a huge, rapidly developing story in American politics. With the economy now showing some signs of improvement, many Republicans seem to be ditching their strategy of running against the economy and turning almost entirely to social issues, including religion. November is not so far away anymore, so the new focus on conservative social sentiment could very well decide who is the leader of the Western world for the next four years.

Don't bury your head in a textbook and miss the big story.

 

Karen

Again you seem to be putting a lot of effort into not answering questions rather than just answering them.

I’m in no hurry (been here over ten years now) so I’m happy to wait.

But that wouldn’t be a discussion. You seem to be implying that you give a statement and if anyone questions your position or disagrees with it, you will refuse to talk with them. That is certainly what has happened here, you seem to have flown off the handle because I’ve had the audacity to question your views.

As to been ‘rude’ I’ll repeat if you thought I was I really think you must have had a very sheltered life.

Basically it seems like another excuse, using righteous indignation as a smoke screen for not answering questions.

LOL – do you honestly think this forum is my life? This is just an enjoyable hobby, I have numerous other interests, I mean I have a seven year old girl for a start do you have children do you understand what that means?
Thing is that this is a politics forum so guess what…it mainly deals with politics.

 

Karen

But you aimed the comments at me, I mean those comments were in a post addressed to me.

Your argument seemed to be that I shouldn’t be so presumptuous as to question you on American politics because you had the much greater insight. That I and anyone else who wasn’t a well educated American couldn’t and shouldn’t make comments because they would always be inferior to your own.

Funny thing is that you seem to be the one that’s stumped and so is refusing to answer questions.

I don’t care what age someone is or what level of formal education they’ve achieved, it what they say that counts. I’ve meet many instructive, insightful and entertaining teenagers. To repeat it is not who you are but what you have to say that counts.

You seem to want to know who they are first to see if they are worthy of your attention before you will talk to them, you seem to be saying for example it doesn’t matter what the teenager says they clearly cannot have any insight in your view because they’re a teenager.

So what - that doesn’t mean you have any greater insight than anyone else I mean while I have meet people with little formal educations who were working in labouring jobs who were instructive, insightful and entertaining, I’ve also meet people with PhD’s in well paid jobs who were evasive, close minded and boorish.

I see what people have to say – you seem to be making excuses why you will not say anything.

 

Karen

At last, the question is are you willing to debate the subject or are you going to give me more excuses why you can’t?

I don’t think the social issue game plan even went away it plays so well to the base and so has been the bedrock of past Republican victories, so I don’t think you could call this a new development. The economic angle I think is meant to be for the wider audience and the undecided. But at this stage it is the primaries it can be the base that matters more in the race for the nomination (although if they push it too far they will turn many voters off). However it seems to me that it is easy to link the economic with the social their ideas on public spending are a reflection of their social attitudes.

Oh how imperial and condescending of you LOL. I mean come on you think that’s the ‘big story’?

 

I don't think you have a clue what I am saying to you. You appear to always think I'm implying something terrible, and then you respond to your twisted interpretation, rather than to what I literally said. I don't know what to do with that.

I read your replies and I think, "What the hell is this guy reading?" I don't imply a lot of subtle points here because I don't think that approach would work well in this setting.

My college professors liked almost everything I wrote. They didn't seem to have any trouble understanding what I was trying to communicate. Maybe there is a cultural barrier. I never had a professor from the UK. You probably know the old saying, "The US and England are two countries divided by a common language."

I only know what I see, and what you tell me about yourself.

I was merely following my own advice and providing a snip of background information about myself. Most people like to have some idea who they are talking to. But as usual, you had to look for some negative, implied point.

I don't need excuses. I'm not taking a class from you, so I can respond to whatever interests me. Especially in my own thread.

Sometimes Republicans win on their economic platform, sometimes they win on national defense issues, and sometimes they win on social policy and morals. This time, they were focused mainly on the economy until the numbers started looking better. I think their strategy is entirely pragmatic. They just want to win. They emphasize whatever seems to be the hot topic of the day.

Their big problem now is that their loyal base by no means resembles the typical American voter, so they are forced to do things to win primaries that will work against them in the general election. They have no choice.

In any presidential election year, that's going to be our big new story, unless there is a huge military event or large-scale natural disaster. The outcome won't be determined by dry, academic debates, but by the combined impact of a number of factors.

 

Karen

LOL – why not just reply to the questions rather than make endless excuses why you will not.
Yes I am unsure what you are trying to say and that is why I ask the questions - and/or tell you what, in my view, you seem to be saying or implying (which is another form of questioning). The problem is that you seem unwilling or unable to answer the questions or explain why you think my viewpoint of your ideas is wrong (although you seem happy to just tell me I’m wrong without any explanation as to why).
For example:

You are basically just saying that it’s my fault I didn’t just ‘get it’ so why should you answer questions or explain anything. That’s not debate.

Which bits did you show and as you say ‘almost’ what were the bits they questioned you on? And [grin] did you answer the questioning or tell them they should have understood and since they didn’t you can’t be bothered to?

Again do you understand the nature of debate or education? Because what you seem to be saying here is that because someone else understood your meaning you don’t have to explain things to anybody that didn’t understand you because to you they’re not worth the effort.

I believe the quote is from George Bernard Shaw. I’ve meet people that have been educated in the US and one of the things they noticed was in essay writing. In the UK when asked to write an essay we’d be given a bibliography, a list of books and that was it, in the US people were often given the books to read but also the pages and even the paragraphs, is that common or have I been misinformed?
Anyway you still seem to be putting up excuses why you will not answer questions or explain your thinking.

 

Karen

But the question I was asking was this – is a persons background that important? I mean isn’t it what people actually say in relation to the issue being debated rather than their background?
I mean before you seem to have implied that background (knowledge or educational level) gives validity not what has actually been said, that a comment made by an uneducated labourer has less validity as the same comment made by a college professor.
For example I get the feeling that you have the idea that you don’t need to explain your thinking since it clearly must be sound because you are an educated person, you have stressed your educated status on several occasions now unbidden.
Now while your background may be of interest to someone I’d much rather you answered the questions put to you so I can make my own judgement.
*
the question is are you willing to debate the subject or are you going to give me more excuses why you can’t?

Again you don’t seem to understand the concept of debate – for one thing debate is a form of ‘class’ it is a way of learning that involves individuals or groups with differing viewpoints asking and answering questions in an effort to explain ideas and stimulate critical thought on the issues being discussed. If you are unwilling to answer questions then it isn’t a debate it is you telling people what to think without question.
Yes you can respond to whatever you like and you can ignore questions and criticisms of your ideas – but those questions and criticisms don’t go away.

 

Karen

To me you seem to see questioning as a hostile attack rather than as an opportunity for inquiry. It is often not the destination that is stimulating but the journey. Questions and answers are the crossroads and highways opening up new vistas and horizons. You know what they say travel broadens the mind.

First you need to understand that I’m not being hostile when I ask questions only inquiring and second I’d love to go on this incredible journey with you and don’t understand why you are reluctant to take the first steps.

 

On a political forum that is read by all kinds of people from all over the world, I think it is important to word things as clearly and simply as possible. So whenever you think I am implying something that I did not state very clearly and openly, that was not a point I was intentionally trying to make. Just read for the obvious, surface meaning. That should help you. Clever, sophisticated, subtle writing involves too many cultural factors to be reliable in an international setting. I'll do some of that other places online, but not here.

And I have already answered quite a few questions.

Rude question. :toetap05: My time here is limited. I'm not a full-time student. When you take a class, you're not finished dealing with a topic until the professor says you are done. It's not like that in the real world. I have to prioritize my time, like every other adult with a job. If somebody asks me 30 questions, I might get to the best 5 or 10, in a day or two.

That is correct. Our research papers do require very detailed footnotes. We're not supposed to express any opinions directly, but of course, there are other ways to do that, such as selective emphasis of facts, within reasonable limits. Open communication of factual information is the main priority.

Debate classes are very different. Opinions are allowed to some degree, and there are tight constraints on the length of everything you present. Common rhetorical tricks are not only allowed but expected, and winning is the primary goal.

Those two approaches are almost incompatible, but they end up getting mixed together in the online world.

It is up to the reader to decide the degree of relevance of the writer's background in each case. It varies.

In an open forum, knowing a little about the writer helps me with asking follow-up questions. If you've written a paper about something, I'll ask academic questions. If you've recently spent six months in a place, I'll ask some personal experience questions; things that you can't learn from a distance. And if somebody has only been doing a job for two years, I probably won't ask him how his field or industry has changed over the last 30 years. I'll ask an old retired guy that question.

It undoubtedly means something different. For one thing, laborers are a large voting block in any democracy or democratic republic. College professors are negligible in number, so the views of the working class guy are far more important on election day. Also, these are two groups with very different priorities and worldviews. If blue collar workers are being won over to a specific political view, that tells me one thing, but if college professors are buying into it, that may be a sign of a completely different dynamic in play. It's all a part of the big picture.

The topic also matters. On a complicated, technical subject like global warming, I'm interested in what people have to say if they have a strong academic science background, specializing in natural science. I could learn something from them. I'm not going to learn anything about it from a truck driver. He only knows what somebody else has told him about it. He's no more qualified to draw conclusions about scientific data than I am, which is not at all. But he does know more about trucks than I do, and his political views on global warming will matter on election day. I do care how he plans to vote, and why.

The natural science expert in this example is likely to know a lot about air pollution produced by diesel trucks, but he isn't regularly exposed to any other aspects of trucking. So if I want to know something else about big trucks, I'd rather hear from the truck driver, even though the science guy is surely much better educated. People know more about things that they have invested a lot of time and effort into. Personal experience matters.

So it isn't accurate to say that I'm always biased in favor of academics. Neither am I biased against them, which has become common in a certain American political party that I won't mention by name again today.
:leaving:

I'm not going to hide what kind of a person that I am here. That would be highly hypocritical of me, in light of several statements I have made. I'll probably say some other things about myself in the future, if it seems relevant to the topic at hand.

If I were to give no one credit for teaching me anything, it could be inferred that I was claiming to be entirely self-educated, which sounds ten times more arrogant than the alternative. Some people like to play that game. It feeds their ego to dishonestly assume the role of the natural-born genius who has figured everything out from nothing.

I have never assumed for one second that I was telling anyone else what to think. Nobody can do that. I don't assume that silence implies agreement. I throw my ideas out there, and people think whatever they choose to think about them.

If I tried to challenge every point that I could find to disagree with on all of Hip Forums today, I would be posting all night. You could probably do the same. We all choose our battles.

 

[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes I am unsure what you are trying to say and that is why I ask the questions[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This forum is mainly inhabited by Americans its why I’m here.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The problem with simple is that it can also be simplistic and simplistic can fall apart if it is put up under stress from questioning I’m just trying to work out if your ideas are solid or fragile by questioning them. That is the whole point of debate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But the point is do you know what you intended or were implying if you don’t seem to have actually looked at your ideas in detail or actually questioned them? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I say the simply might seem simple to someone that hasn’t given it much thought. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’m so awfully thankful form your help – but if you only think in terms of the obvious and the surface meaning it just means you don’t seem to give ideas much deep thought. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]LOL - Oh yes of course you can do clever, sophisticated and subtle but just not here…but somewhere…like you know…like over there…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is the oldest evasion in the book it’s the wizard of Oz telling people he can do magic it’s just that he can’t do it today. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You have a high opinion of yourself and your abilities but it is always easy to claim something that you never reveal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please go on show us your clever, sophisticated and subtle side so we can all make up our own minds as to its level of cleverness, sophistication and subtly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again do you understand the nature of debate or education? Because what you seem to be saying here is that because someone else understood your meaning you don’t have to explain things to anybody that didn’t understand you because to you they’re not worth the effort.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And I’ll repeat if you think that is rude - you really have lived a very sheltered life. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again with excuses why you can’t answer (in a sophisticated and subtle way or not).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you spent only half the time answering questions as you are making up excuses why you can’t you wouldn’t have a problem. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the UK when asked to write an essay we’d be given a bibliography, a list of books and that was it, in the US people were often given the books to read but also the pages and even the paragraphs, is that common or have I been misinformed?[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So its true US students are not just given the books but also told what page and even paragraph they should look at? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If so it seems to me that they’re not being taught to think for themselves or question. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So did the essays that we used to write, the point is that we had to look for the relevant information ourselves rather being told where to look. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So you don’t write essays you write simplistic assignments devoid of personal thought or initiative? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is no way to learn independent thought and a questioning attitude. I mean it’s fine up to a point when you are learning the basics (learning to research and find out information) the teacher can then access how well you can find information by yourself. But only when you are given the opportunity to question, analyse and give personal opinion will anyone learn if you can put a rational argument forward. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This doesn’t sound like debate more like a class in rhetoric, they are very different things. As you say the goal in rhetoric is to win not to learn, rhetoric allows irrational argument, simplistic thinking, evasion, misdirection and even lies (all rhetorical tricks) because it is not about seeking understanding (in fact it can be the opposite). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To me bad politics is more about rhetoric and good more about debate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You will find that I’m opposed to such rhetorical tricks here and point them out when I think I see them, such as evasion. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do you not have tutorials where you can analyse, criticises and argue with others even your lecturer? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So basically you have two ways of tackling issues one in which you pronounce a ‘truth’ - that says ‘this is how it is’ and allows no criticism or questioning of it and one that allows criticism but is not about seeking understanding but about rhetorical lying. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why not have a third way – you put up a position and allow it to be debated – that is you don’t use rhetorical tricks but discuss it openly and honestly – you answer questions, address criticisms and follow that process through to see if the original ideas stands up to scrutiny. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It’s like the idea that economic issues and policies should always be seen as distinct and separate from social issues and policies. To me in many ways they are linked and have an impact on each other. [/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]is a person's background that important? I mean isn’t it what people actually say in relation to the issue being debated rather than their background?[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I prefer to go on what people actually say. Does your opinion of a good point change if you know that person is a professor or a labourer?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why? I mean if you have a question why not just ask the question? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why not just ask the question anyway? I wouldn’t care if the person was a professor or a labourer I’d just put the question. Just because someone has written a paper does not mean that paper is any good or means they are necessarily more authoritative. I’ve read ‘papers’ that promoted racist ideas with footnotes and everything but that didn’t make their authors any less racist. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again why not just ask the question you want to ask? Again you presume knowledge that may not exist. Asking the question you want to ask would seem like the easiest way to get an answer (although with you…). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But this is about political ideas not a specific ‘job’ Are you saying that you would always take the political opinion of a sixty year old over that of a eighteen year old because the older person has more ‘experience’ of politics? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A don’t care if the persons sixty or sixteen, I’ve meet racist, bigoted sixty year olds with political views one step away from Hitler’s and I’ve meet tolerant and open minded sixteen year olds that genuinely wanted to bring about a better world (and vis versa). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot]Karen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]you seem to have implied that background (knowledge or educational level) gives validity not what has actually been said, that a comment made by an uneducated labourer has less validity as the same comment made by a college professor.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But why the difference is the question. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So it’s not about trying to understand the viewpoints or why they many have them, to you they just are? To me the ‘importance’ of the views it is if the views are any good or not and a labourers views can be as valid as a professors. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again you don’t seem to be seeking understanding and you don’t seem to feel it needs debate, its all about how you think and if you think it then that must be so.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And politically – this is a politics forum – if you want to go to a scientific forum to ask questions you are free to - but we are here to discuss politics. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now global warming is a political issue the question then becomes- politically - which argument is the better? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And how are you to know why? How are you going to find out why he has chosen to believe one set of ideas on the issue over another? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Remember we are on a politics site – for example politically on the global warming issue is the truck driver who thinks man made global warming exists and that global laws should be brought in immediately to curb it better or worse than the scientist who believes it doesn’t exist and that it’s a left wing conspiracy to keep people in line? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It does - but that doesn’t mean that it brings about personal beliefs that are rational and stand up well to criticism. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]