|*Your*| Perception of who is Smarter, Leftists or Rightists?

None of the above is the only correct answer to the OP poll.

 

Context is important here. I was responding to a comment by ibobbrob who said, "The left is ideologically smarter, in my view."

Well, how am I supposed to interpret "ideologically smarter?" As simply a guidebook of pre selected answers to all manner of social problems and issues that have been vetted. So there doesn't seem to be anything smart at all about being "ideologically smarter."

and speaking of...

You are replying to a comment a year old. But then, I don't know where you come from that ideology is considered a proxy for intelligence.

 

If you want to live in a society – you will be forced help society to achieve its aims – paying for the army, paying for public roads and paying for salary of judges, politicians and more. I noticed that people from the right do not oppose paying for salaries of police, politicians and judges, but helping poor folks is for them “wealth transfer”.
“Why didn't you help those homeless you saw as you walked?” – this is irrelevant question which you can ask everyone, even President Trump or Hillary Clinton.
If Trump wants the wall, why he is not building it from his own money?
If Hillary wants so much “to fight for us” – why she is not paying for college educations of American students instead of supporting H1B visa program, which is suppossedly has to resolve lack of Americans with computer education.

zb

 

You are right. It isn't. I guess I am having trouble differentiating between the types of "smart."

 

I read the chart and I find the chart wanting. Neither the Left nor the Right or Neither the Right nor the Left are altruistic; both sides are the maintenance of the power over others, so in essence, neither are smarter than the other. They are only smarter than those who are beholden to their philosophical persuasion(s). This is my opinion, take or observation of the chart.

 

While true, there needs to be limitations. Personal freedoms in this country are guaranteed by law. I was drafted into the Army and saw it as little more than slavery. I was paid next to nothing, ate lousy food, had no say on where the sent me, and was forced into extremely violent environments. At the time I saw it as my dues for being an American. However, now I know that most were exempt from this. Women, gays, fat butts, the sickly, and others were all exempt. I now feel it should be all or none. While some of these may not be fit for combat there were plenty of jobs they could handle.

My point is that all government functions should have a level of fairness. Those who work should not be forced to support those who chose not to. Laws should apply to everyone and be applied evenly. Bureaucrats like Louis Learner who abuse their power need to go to prison.

 

The left smarter. How do I know? They tell me.

 

Sorry to bother you, A random man, but could you by any chance provide another version of the image you posted? The smaller letters are difficult to read.
Anyway, based on my observations as neither a conservative or liberal, but a syncretic totalitarian, I'd say that the rightists are definately the smarter of the two in a general sense. Though this is mostly because the right tends to be more competent when it comes to economics and managing a country's defense.

 

Personally, I put my ideology first. But since no party (or nation) in the world fits into that, I remain something of an observer.

 

The nothingnists... being part of a side is dumb

 

I think the left is naive, but not stupid.

Unwise, but not unintelligent.


As a trend, people move right as they age.
This is because of acquired knowledge. They gain wisdom.

 

That is a fallacy!

Society trends towards becoming ever more liberal. What happens is that as people age they tend to become more rigid and less flexible in their thinking patterns. They lose the ability to embrace societal changes and become fearful of the changes. This is demonstrated by the fact that those who maintain flexible thinking skills as they age remain liberal. Flexible cognition is key to learning when we are young. Our cognitive abilities change as we get older. Once we stop learning we are effectively declining in our cognitive abilities. It is possible to reverse this process but it takes a willingness to embrace ideas that are "uncomfortable" AKA liberal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851980

 

Liberal ideas aren't uncomfortable.
They are mainstream
.
If anything, they are too comfortable.
Offer solutions to problems that aren't real.
Allow you to think you can change the world in ways that frankly, you cannot.
And with age you learn this. You start to see the results of those solutions and learn which ones work and which do not.

 

Without liberal ideas we would still live in a feudal society where slavery was the norm.

 

Speak for yourself.

We never had slavery in the first place.
And Fuedalism here was replaced by Monarchy centuries before Liberalism.

And guess what? Liberalism ended 100 years ago.... and the monarchy has not.
Some things you just outgrow I suggest..

 

Good grief!

There was slavery in Britain prior to the Romans and it was only ended when the Normans invaded and changed them from slaves into serfs instead.

Furthermore feudalism stems from monarchs and it was only abolished in England in 1660.

Both of those occurred BECAUSE of liberalism.

Now prove that "Liberalism ended 100 years ago" with something credible.

 

No mate, There is no historical record of any slavery in Briton at all.

There are no records of life before the Romans at all. You may imagine there to have been slaves, but we have no history of it. Just your imagination running riot.
Records begin in 55 BC with Tacitus's account of Caesars invasion.
We may assume the Romans had slaves as they did in Rome, but we have no historical record of this being the case. Romans left in around 300AD.
There is no record of slavery in the UK ever.
The closest thing we have record of is indentured farmers. People who rented their properties from the local Barons.


Fuedalism stems from Barons. It is ended by Monarchs. Namely, Henry VII.
The Wars of the Roses. Circa 1450's By 1485 it was all over.

Liberalism began in about 1850 and was all over by 1918. Socialism replaced it.
The Liberal Party disappeared when the Labour Party was born.

!00 years ago,

 

The Greek historian Strabo describes slaves as exports from Britain.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html

Then there is the evidence of slavery in the Doomsday book.

https://regia.org/research/misc/earner.htm

Your allegation about liberalism is hearsay and has no merit whatsoever.

 

Yes, I also think Caeser took slaves and paraded them in Rome.

There is no slavery mentioned in the Domesday book.

Indentured farmers are often mistakenly portrayed as slaves by those that wish to believe in such things. They are what some call today "wage slaves"

Ireland isn't in the UK nor is Norway and Denmark.
Nor is Rome or Greece.

Equally captives of the Japanese used as slaves in WW2, does not mean that there was slavery in Britain at that time. Only in Burma.

Sorry.

There just isn't any history of slavery here. No matter how much you may wish that there was, there isn't.

Spurious conjecture is the best you are going to be able to come up with.


Rule Britannia.
Britannia rules the waves.
Britons never, never, never, shall be....


Liberalism is a word coined to describe the ideologies of the Liberal Party.
They were a historical party of the UK from 1850 -1918.
It's a matter of public record.

 

I have provided documented contemporaneous records supporting the existence of slavery.

You have nothing but baseless denials without any substantiation whatsoever.

The preponderance of factual evidence is ALL on my side.

 

That's nice for you.

Shame your documented evidence was just some guy on the internet.
Start with Wikipedia mate.
Educate yourself.

You provided me with evidence of slavery in Greece and Denmark and Ireland.
That is all.

I've added Rome to that list for you.
And also Burma.

Hope it helps.

 

Your failure to provide any substantive rebuttal is duly noted and the facts regarding slavery in Britain remain uncontested.

Have a nice day!

 

I've pointed out where I feel you have misinterpreted your own evidence.

Corrected you on all points in need of correction.


You have offered me conjecture and opinion dressed up as facts and they are not facts.
No history of slavery or indeed anything else before the Romans.
No mention of slavery in the Domesday book.

Only spurious conjecture that captive Britons enslaved in other countries by invaders = evidence of slavery in Britain.
It does not. It is evidence of slavery in those countries which captured and enslaved them,

Sorry that's not substantive enough for you.
No slavery here mate. Sorry.
Didn't happen.

Might have happened in your country, but not here. Sorry.
Different cultures.

Feel free to re-write our history if it makes you feel any better about your own.
Whatever pleases you.

 

Credible documentation always beats baseless denials every time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/doomsday_01.shtml

 

I'm tempted to stand corrected.

Serfs are not slaves however. You can't buy and sell them.

So we could translate servi as slave but we could translate it as serf.
Servant.

I live in a 1066 building. It's in the Domesday book and I've read it.
Servants quarters I have. Slave quarters? Nope.

These are simply spurious conjectures. I don't want to take this to absolute extremes.
I don't want to rule out entirely the use of slaves in Britain.
Only that there is no history of it.

I believe that it is more true to say there is no history of slavery here. Than to say that there is.
That if I say there has never been slavery here, I am broadly speaking correct.
This is not a slave culture. This is not India or America.
Not Rome nor Nazi Germany.

I appreciate the efforts you have made with me and the patience you have shown,
Frankly, I'm as qualified on this subject as any BBC compiler could be. I am confident in my own opinion.

I won't however be leading a class on the subject for you. Sorry.
If winning a debate is all this is about, you win through superior effort.
I do not however, stand corrected. I'm sorry.