Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
speaking as an >individual< on the right; maybe i am just too principled to erect a cow-manure smokescreen to disguise my dastardly plot to help big-oil to make a few more dollars?
Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?

Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?


When you look at the primarily motivations using the above, you get this insight:

[Left] There is a great potentional danger to the planet which can endanger our lives and those of future generations. (Obviously very sinister motivations.)

[Right] Hey, you are stopping us from making money. I don't care about the planet, I only care for number one. We will heavily fund anti-environmental lobbies, use the media to attempt to spread doubt and uncertainity, at least delaying policies while we attempt to make as much money as possible. (Obviously a mistaken case.)



Is left and right even being applied correctly? This is a tricky issues, as many people have tried to make it a left and right issue, and as the victims (aka, billionaires) usually fall in the right-stereotype category of the mad profiteering and usually vote for Republican/Conservative policies (as it allows them more money at expense of those below them) and how those concerned for the environment are generally on the left (aka hippies), you can see that there might be a slight left-right bias for certain sides.

Then comes for the vital issue. Why is an >individual< taking up such as position?

By identifying yourself as a skeptic and the on right, you will automatically get thrown with the above situation. You would be seen as a person who has stocks and shares in oil corperations or simply some one who is foolish and dancing to the tune of the Right-Wing Pied Piper. Most likely to make this even worse, you might start suggesting that trying to prevent the horrid possible outcome might cost the poor starving oligarchs money in the disguise of "bad for the economy", which wouldn't help your situation at all.

So simply by saying "Hello, my name is Furuculus and I am a rightwing skeptic" you suddenly been thrown into a situation where your whole entire background and history has instantly been invented for you on the spot, following the stereotypical behaviour and examples of fellow "rightwing skeptic" classifications.


So where are the issues?

Clarification on definitions. Who are the 'Right' and 'Left'.

Definitions in regards to positions. Is the bi-choice situation causing more problems than it is worth? Is there space at all for a Middle-Ground/Third/Alternative options?

Priorities on Issues. Many people have never actually said their priority, as part of their line with their view. For instance "Follower - Value of Human Life" "Skeptic - My Bank Account", are there room for options like "Follower - I can make a profit" "Skeptic - Money could be better spent on Universal Health Care*"


Could go on and on....