Walther War Machines big book of Soldier Knowledge

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#161

It’s left-wing politics with a right-wing branch that still acts as left-wingers. Thus Sanford University’s statement that liberalism is not right-wing, regardless of the faction. Debate it all you like, that remains fact.

If you study liberalism enough, you’ll see that their statement is factual. Actions speak louder than words, and it is the actions od libertarians, left or right factions, that group them all as left-wingers. You can say all you like that you are this or that, as libertarians love to do, but that does not change what you do and what you take action against.

#162

From everything I’ve read on this debate, and following the links provided, it seems that libertarianism has aspects of all politics, from left to right wing.

The statement from Stanford seems to mean that it is incorrect to label Libertarianism as right wing, not that no part of it is right wing. This is borne out by the rest of the text. Repeatedly quoting one sentence against other sentences from the same text doesn’t add anything.

Hang on! I made a similar post on page 8, but no argument has been added to the “Libertarianism is never ever even the slightest eensy-weensy bit anything other than left wing ever and anyone who says different is blathering anti-american hatred” viewpoint. I think the site has reached a consensus that libertarianism is a combination of left, right and centrist policies - the Left-Right spectrum being insufficient to characterise it fully.

#163

No, now you are playing semantics. It does not state that it is incorrect to label libertarianism as right wing. It states:

“Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons.”

So, it states that libertarianism is NOT right-wing, not that labeling it is incorrect. There is a difference, and you are attempting to extract a meaning from the statement that is not there. A sneaky but failed attempt.

Carrying on about other passages of text does not change the summary of the article (above) which plainy states that libertarianism is left-wing, period. :wink: And it is.

#164

Quite right. The content of the essay has no bearing on how a slightly ambiguous sentence in the summary of the same should be interpreted.

#165

“Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons.”

What could possibly be ambiguous about that? Not a damned thing.

#166

because to specify it is of one wing in particualr is to deny that it is a broad classification for a wide range of political views.

Dont let my BSc stand in the way of your genius though

#167

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford University.

"Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons.

Please, someone more educated than the Stanford University faculty please, please explain how they are wrong. Someone with a PhD in political theory preferably, like the authors of the above.

#168

I agree with Stanford and Ive been told im thick… so Stanford must be thick too!

Its not Right wing, or left wing, its Supra-party politics, being internally divided as it is, one cannot say it belongs to any end of the party political system.

#169

jsut because I have found out how to do this now I thought I might add

#170

he received a good hit,i should change this page as my start page,or create a new usser session.

:arrow: im with a dumb.

:lol:

#171

GOOGLE :lol: .

you have to discover the art of the paintbrush.

what i should do to don`t see more fights!!! :cry: .

#172

Erwin be a love and let it go Iron(Bone)man is a total troll

#173

As long as I disagree with you I’m a “troll” eh? Why are you so silly?

#174

The sentence that Frionscam keeps quoting on its own, and thus out of context, is interesting, for the following reasons:

  1. It is qualified by “at least 2 reasons”. These reasons are inconvenient for tinwalt, so he leaves them off. Without these reasons, the statement is worthless.

  2. It merely says that libertarianism is not right wing. It neither explicitely nor implicitely says that it is left-wing, although eisenbahn has naturally assumed this. The fact is, which most of the posters have already realised by background reading, that it contains elements from all over the political spectrum (generally economically right, generally socially left [if there even is such a thing], due to its permissiveness). It can therefore, as a whole, neither be conidered right wing, left wing, centrist, centre-right, centre-left, green, red, purple, yellow or anything. This conclusion fits firmly within the scope of the statement.

  3. It has got ijzervrouw into his whinging about semantics, while using them himself. In reality, semantics are 100% necessary to the understanding of a statement, since otherwise the statement would be an unconnected series of words. When the semantics of a statement are inconvenient, he introduces his own, warped interpretation.

As a corollary, we can now quote the above part of this post out of context:

SEE STOATY SAYS THAT THE SENTANCE IS INTERESTING THEREFORE HE AGREES WITH IT IN ITS ENTIRITY AND I WILL NOW REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THE NEXT 18 PAGES OF POINTLESS REPETITION AND JUNIOR SCHOOL PLAYGROUND LEVEL DEBATE WHILST OTHER PEOPLE RESPOND WITH INTERESTING, WELL-FORMED OPINION.

#175

I thought what is that poster, took me about 5 secs before I cottoned on to the writing, nearly chocked on my Egg & Bacon banjo - you git!

#176

There is nothing in their own text that disqualifies thier summary statement of the article. All that comes afterward is support of this summary:

“Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons.”

Do you know what a summary statement is?

#177

9 - summary statement, wait, no, I mean 8.
Or was it 10?

#178

Indeed. This statement is true. Libertarianism is not a right wing doctrine. This doesn’t mean that no part of libertarianism is in any way right wing, merely that to label the whole of libertarianism as right wing is wrong.

Of course, what the sentence actually means has no bearing on what it actually means. That’s just semantics.

#179

Logical Positivism,
AJ Ayer
Wittgenstien
Verification
Falsification
(The Geneva Circle)

IRONMAN, for a student of Philosophy your lack of respect for Semantics is very telling. Without using google (I know you will) what do the people above have to say about “semantics.”

#180

[quote=“Crab_to_be”]

Indeed. This statement is true. Libertarianism is not a right wing doctrine. This doesn’t mean that no part of libertarianism is in any way right wing, merely that to label the whole of libertarianism as right wing is wrong.

Of course, what the sentence actually means has no bearing on what it actually means. That’s just semantics.[/quote]

You have a dire need to never be incorrect, so much so that it effects your ability to be reasonable and causes you to debate the simplest of statements. Again, you are attempting to find a meaning in the statement that is not there by using your word “label”. The word “label” is not present or implied. It’s a simple statement. The statement is that libertarianism IS NOT right-wing doctrine, for two forthcoming reasons.

I’m sorry, but you can’t change the simple statement no matter what semantics you apply.