Yes, and? How is that working to criminalize free speech pertaining to dissing Islam?

Ummmmmm, could it be because she went to the POLICE and filed CRIMINAL CHARGES against the newspaper?

How could you possibly coinsider that as NOT working to criminalize free speech?

Because she just filed a charge. Anyone can do that and are entirely within their rights as citizens to do so.

The charge was of course thrown out of court.

If one wishes to work for the criminalization of something which today is not a crime, one needs to do so by political means.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, d.d. With all the publicity she received, and the implied intimidation provided by all the world wide violence commited by those of a similar mind to hers, I have no doubts whatsoever about her objective.

Communism and fascism are also opposites due to their reasoning. Even though the results were shockingly similar (for communism this was due to the impossibility of the ideals, for fascism- well, they succeeded in as far as putting their ideals to use).

My point is that you can place things on scales in so many different dimensions as to make no scale useful when attempting to compare ideologies holistically.
PI essentially claims that a scale I brought up is invalid... not due to anything about the dimension I used... but because it does not line up perfectly with the scales he prefers.

I'm pointing out the flaws of quantitative comparison of ideology, not any particular ieology.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I'm kinda like this:

1.jpg

Wow, this completely supports the argument I made in my last post about circular logic. Thanks.

I am aware of the 4 way chart but I think that it is focused mostly on political issues instead of principles. My objective in redefining the left/right spectrum is to place these principles on a linear chart, which I think they work into nicely.

__________________

DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW.......OR ELSE!

I'm a Tarte, what! you want some of this?

Domestic Drilling: Beyond Supply, Demand, and the Price of Gas
American Solutions: Sign the Petition
The Facts about Oil

Now, if you could just get those who define themselves in various ways to follow principles!


Most people go about the creation of a world view in opposite fashion. Instead of understanding principles and then creating views based upon these principles, they settle upon the views first, and then rationalize (if at all) the principles to follow. Politics for all too many is an act of conformity, as they place their trust in various peole or labels, and then go about the business of adding their voice to the chorus.

While there may be principles that define left and right, most people simply replicate memes and adopt the dogma of the prevailing orthodox view.

I agree completely. This is why we need more people to focus on the principles so that people will begin to think in a logical manner about this kind of stuff. Everybody should have to defend their position using logical argument, and not rationalization.

__________________

DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW.......OR ELSE!

I'm a Tarte, what! you want some of this?

Domestic Drilling: Beyond Supply, Demand, and the Price of Gas
American Solutions: Sign the Petition
The Facts about Oil

But that in itself creates a problem. As stated before the thing that makes communism and fascism incongruent and contradictory to one another is the principles. But on your chart they show up in around the same area, as your chart only focuses on a certain definition of principles.

This is kind of a necessity to any typology, that it will give up full descriptive accuracy for the trade off of a simplified and communicable vocabulary.
But when it comes to political philosophy, I think the differences in sets of principles go in so many directions as to render just about any chart useless... including the 4-way chart.

The problem is that principles are neither static, nor are they always grouped together in a predictable fashion other than by the conditioning we have in politics. Most ideologies will have competing principles within them that do not always mesh and most will have some allowance for other principles that will occasionally clash with the core principles of the larger group.
The parties themselves are actually rather mish-mashed... and attempting to make them meaningful is an exercise in futility. Socialists and liberals are allies of convenience, not ideological similars. Same with the right-wing libertarians and social conservatives. Any connecting principles that occur are rationalized to support the alliances.

When it comes down to it, principles are mostly fudged... whether they are rationalized after the fact or supposedly derived first (which I'm usually skeptical of). The only meaningful way I've seen to classify politics is by the interest groups that make it up. And whether it's principle or interest that guides them tends to be largely irrelevant.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III