Left as a direction isn't the opposite of right as a direction. If you want to illustrate that make a mark on paper then make a mark slightly to the left of that one. It's different, but it isn't opposite. By the time that mark is moved to where it would be the opposite of the first mark it ceases to be one reasonably explained by using the term.[The opposite of right]...is both left and wrong.
When used to denote objective truth "too" doesn't really enter into it. When used otherwise it only expresses bias, not truth.Basically, you can never be "too" right,
One of the dangerous ways extremists normalize their behavior is by attempting to convince others that their mentality either is or should be the norm, making any opposing thought inherently wrong and potentially dangerous without supporting the wrongness or danger objectively. It's the problem of conflating the subjective with the objective. One great way to get people to do that is by making sure they remain uneducated by opposing public education, calling it a public evil of some sort.or a "right-wing extremist."
To sum, when the word right is used to underscore or shorthand objectively verifiable, empirically established truth it's one thing. When it's used to indicate direction it's another. And when it is used to conflate subjective value with empirical truth it's something else again.I mean, what could be wrong with being right?
Right. :chuckle:...is both left and wrong.
Not when the 'right' we're talking about is the one that opposes 'wrong,' correct.Basically, you can never be "too" right
While this 'right' is the one opposed to 'left,' it is arguably another homonym, because of its political context here., or a "right-wing extremist."
I have lost almost all use for dividing politics between 'left' and 'right,' since there's so much confusion about the differences.I mean, what could be wrong with being right?
Right. :chuckle:
Because they're homonyms. Homographs and homophones, spelled the same and sounds the same, but different words. Like identical twins that are nonetheless distinct and different people from each other.
Not when the 'right' we're talking about is the one that opposes 'wrong,' correct.
While this 'right' is the one opposed to 'left,' it is arguably another homonym, because of its political context here.
I have lost almost all use for dividing politics between 'left' and 'right,' since there's so much confusion about the differences.
Not at all.Are you implying something sinister? Apparently, Stipe's first language isn't English, so it's an easy mistake for him to make.
I've pretty much abandoned these too. When I'm referring to someone who disagrees with my politics, I say 'Democrat.' Democrats are libertarians on some matters while Republicans aren't on some matters. In some matters, I'm libertarian, and in others I'm decidedly not. And both Democrats and Republicans can be authoritarians in different matters also. It's a question of what we should be authoritarian on, and what we shouldn't be.The two-axis classification with "left/right" and "authoritarian/libertarian" scales, seems to work much better.
...is both left and wrong.
Basically, you can never be "too" right, or a "right-wing extremist."
I mean, what could be wrong with being right?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
:rotfl:Left as a direction isn't the opposite of right as a direction.
Or drive down the road till you reach an intersection. The two roads are different, in opposite directions.If you want to illustrate that make a mark on paper then make a mark slightly to the left of that one. It's different, but it isn't opposite.
One will be on the right and the other will be — wait for it — on the left.No one walking up to the mark will know which is which without a context.
And yet, whenever there are two marks, there is always a reference point to tell right from wrong.The opposite of right as an empirically verifiable proposition would be wrong. Outside of that, subjectively speaking, it's back to the need for a fixed mark and where you stand in relation to it.
Nope. The opposite of right is both left and wrong.So overall your opening statement is more false than true taken broadly, and insufficiently fleshed to be meaningful taken otherwise.
I think that's what I said. I think. :chuckle:When used to denote objective truth "too" doesn't really enter into it. When used otherwise it only expresses bias, not truth.
Should this be a normal response?One of the dangerous ways extremists normalize their behavior is by attempting to convince others that their mentality either is or should be the norm, making any opposing thought inherently wrong and potentially dangerous without supporting the wrongness or danger objectively.
:rotfl:One great way to get people to do that is by making sure they remain uneducated by opposing public education, calling it a public evil of some sort.
That's why it can have two opposites. :chuckle:When the word right is used to underscore or shorthand objectively verifiable, empirically established truth it's one thing. When it's used to indicate direction it's another.
25 Years of Right-Wing Terrorism.
I have lost almost all use for dividing politics between 'left' and 'right,' since there's so much confusion about the differences.
Its called Legalism.
You think legalism is right? :AMR:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I prefer to stick to what is right (as opposed to what is wrong).
Rather, as a point of reference to a third position right and left can signify a choice of opposites, but the terms are not opposing in their nature, which is why if you draw a circle only one point on that circle moving left will take you to an opposite point to your starting point.It sure is. Like wrong is the opposite of right. Or drive down the road till you reach an intersection. The two roads are different, in opposite directions.
Only if you begin with the assumption that someone approaches the marks from your orientation. Which is why I've noted the need for a context to make it meaningful.One will be on the right and the other will be — wait for it — on the left.
Well, no. The reference point can vary between individuals, just as the physical approach to those marks may be different. What will then seem obvious or true to you may seem obvious and true to someone else with a different reading.And yet, whenever there are two marks, there is always a reference point to tell right from wrong.
It really isn't and for the reasons given.Nope. The opposite of right is both left and wrong.
In the sense that normal responses are best guided by examination and reason, sure. The extremist wouldn't care for it, being largely driven by something other than that faculty and relying on something other than its operation on the whole to move and maintain their base.Should this be a normal response?
It's denied to everyone who then can't afford a private one. It's denied to the poor.How on Earth is an education denied if there is no public education?
Almost no one here.And who is it wanting public education ended?
Then the answers, respectively, would be people like you and that's private education.You can send your kids to whoever you like, just don't expect me to pay for it.
To match, nope.There, I just took the ridiculous seriously.
Sure enough....is both left and wrong.
Basically, you can never be "too" right, or a "right-wing extremist."
I mean, what could be wrong with being right?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Trying your hand at this again? :chuckle:...is both left and wrong.
Basically, you can never be "too" right, or a "right-wing extremist."
I mean, what could be wrong with being right?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The terms are not opposing in their nature.
The reference point can vary between individuals.
In the sense that normal responses are best guided by examination and reason, sure. The extremist wouldn't care for it, being largely driven by something other than that faculty and relying on something other than its operation on the whole to move and maintain their base.
It's denied to everyone who then can't afford a private one.
Left can't be wrong if right is reliant upon it.
You're a bundle of contradictions today, aren't you? :chuckle:
Left as a direction isn't the opposite of right as a direction. If you want to illustrate that make a mark on paper then make a mark slightly to the left of that one. It's different, but it isn't opposite. By the time that mark is moved to where it would be the opposite of the first mark it ceases to be one reasonably explained by using the term.
And no one walking up to the mark will know which is which without a context.
The opposite of right as an empirically verifiable proposition would be wrong. Outside of that, subjectively speaking, it's back to the need for a fixed mark and where you stand in relation to it.
So overall your opening statement is more false than true taken broadly, and insufficiently fleshed to be meaningful taken otherwise.
When used to denote objective truth "too" doesn't really enter into it. When used otherwise it only expresses bias, not truth.
One of the dangerous ways extremists normalize their behavior is by attempting to convince others that their mentality either is or should be the norm, making any opposing thought inherently wrong and potentially dangerous without supporting the wrongness or danger objectively. It's the problem of conflating the subjective with the objective. One great way to get people to do that is by making sure they remain uneducated by opposing public education, calling it a public evil of some sort.
To sum, when the word right is used to underscore or shorthand objectively verifiable, empirically established truth it's one thing. When it's used to indicate direction it's another. And when it is used to conflate subjective value with empirical truth it's something else again.
So, depending on the usage and the circumstance, right can mean a number of things. It can't, however, mean all of them at the same time.
There, I just took the ridiculous seriously, which is only arguably right.