The Progressive Basis of Discussion: Unifying the Left

[Andrew_Zito]

I have a love hate relationship with words and actions as they are akin to stories of chickens and their eggs:


All too often many on the left and right abusively concur on their reactionary basis in language in what is objectionable, as defined: Whereas words tend to be time consuming on the other hand some prefer actions without words and seem as such thoroughly reactionary as brainless actors.

In discussion any progressive argument on the left, is based on one or more of the objections listed below, it is immaterial if those discussions are rhetorical, polemical, Anarchist, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyite etcetera or Social Democrat:

Conversely any reactionary argument is objectionable on one or more of the grounds to objection listed below. Think abut it.


Objections by body of law United States


This is a list of objections in American law:[1] Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked to a witness include:


Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.


Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.


Asked and Answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct, but not always.


Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process.)


Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.


Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.[2]


Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.


Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.


Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.


Compound question: multiple questions asked together.


Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.[2]


Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.


Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.


Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness.
Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.


Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts. This objection is not always proper even when a question invites a narrative response, as the circumstances of the case may require or make preferable narrative testimony.


Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.


Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.

[Ele'ill]

this is a less enjoyable version of what avanti used to post but this is a lot less crazy

[perardua]

If I understand this right:

Leftists often make arguments in the manner of one or more of the descriptions stated - which makes their arguments objectionable. Right-wingers make their arguments in the same manner.

But then you say that left and right concur in what is objectionable - according to the descriptions stated - which would mean that what they think is objectionable is the problem? Unless you simply mean that they make their arguments in the same manner (concur usually means to agree, which is why this doesn't make sense to me).

What does "their reactionary basis in language" mean?

Is the problem you are pointing at that leftists don't have the patience to use words adequately, and therefore turn to using abusive and inflammatory language and so on?

[Andrew_Zito]

IF I UNDERSTAND THIS LEFT NEVER RIGHT!

[QUOTE=perardua;2890057]If I understand this right:


Leftists often make arguments in the manner of one or more of the descriptions stated - which makes their arguments objectionable. Right-wingers make their arguments in the same manner.


First of all your statement "If I understand this right" is rather vague as you either understand or you do not understand, and if you understand or don't understand it should be clear as to what you understand or do not understand that I view as a rhetorical trick of a polemic nature disguised in the tones feigning ignorance rather than sincerely stating "I understand A and disagree with B, none the less it is vague as a reference ill founded and feign confused distorted views.

In studying the list of legal objections pertinent to your statement you over complicate matters by stating matter by paraphrasing what I said, as what you write does not in any shape manner or form reflect what I said, in that your comment for suspected reasons seem to reveal you wish to distort what is said by stating:

"But then you say that left and right concur in what is objectionable - according to the descriptions stated - which would mean that what they think is objectionable is the problem? Unless you simply mean that they make their arguments in the same manner (concur usually means to agree, which is why this doesn't make sense to me)"

Where the only segment I was quoted by you as saying was taken out of context in your quote "their reactionary basis in language" in what was a simple phrase you claimed ignorance in understanding:

Where what you said was a distortions where your only quotation of what I said:

When in its proper context I stated:

"All too often many on the left and right abusively concur on their reactionary basis in language in what is objectionable"

Which I add context of "All too often many on the left and right abusively concur on their reactionary basis in language in what is objectionable"

(In what reflects right wing influences rather than left wing ones much like cross examinations of defense witnesses by the prosecution represents the prosecution, as the racist institutionalizations of racism under capitalism in what allows profits for some is fostered but which normally properly illegal in socialist society)


Where first you were vague you then pose compound questions in obtuse lines of interrogation where you commiserate over the most basic of English Language so as to complicate matters as by Eric Blair regarding modern usage of the English Language and Politics when you asked things like:


"What does "their reactionary basis in language" mean?" in your attempts to attack "Leftists" in stating:


"Is the problem you are pointing at that leftists don't have the patience to use words adequately, and therefore turn to using abusive and inflammatory language and so on?"


When in actually you appear as "bump on a log" as you dissect the phrasing of what was said to attack the left as seemingly the revisionist reactionary you are.
--------------------------------------------------------
While I say


"1. Don't get me wrong as in incorrectly but get the distinct impression of the right wing nature of your origins.
2. But in so far as your language epistemological questions are concerns you thoroughly study and consult dictionaries including (and that means thoroughly) including English and the language that make up the English language and its dialects (which are many) including Latin Greek French, and if need be Hebrew Greek which are especially import in the study of theology and religion.
3. As for my distinction between left and Right you get the message a bit twisted as reactionary and progressive (both of which are not confined to their current uses) where your biases reveal themselves in your stating:


"Leftists often make arguments in the manner of one or more of the descriptions stated - which makes their arguments objectionable. Right-wingers make their arguments in the same manner as by definition " where the right by definition opposes changes or supports regressive change, counter-reformation, counter-revolution, going backwards as Chump and GOP type reactionaries states to the "Good Old DAys".


When use of the terms Left and Light began in the Period of the First French Revolution (1789 until 1799) where the King was supported by those in sitting of the Right of the National Assemby. "Factions within the Assembly began to clarify. The aristocrat Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès and the abbé Jean-Sifrein Maury led what would become known as the right wing, the opposition to revolution (this party sat on the right-hand side of the Assembly). "


By definition those whose support the King were REACTIONARIES as persons "who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.[1]"


"Political reactionaries are largely found on the right-wing of a political spectrum, though left-wing reactionaries can also exist.[2" (wiktionary)
Which though would only in part concur I would object and conject that the left by nature favors change progress improvements and should resist nostalgic tendencies that exist in no small part due the right wing that creates these tendencies to romantically think of the Pantheon of those who have graced the Left in a long and glorious history that one can trace back to the Roman Republic and Empire where there were massive street riots between the Blues and the Greens circa 500 CE:


"The ancient Roman and Byzantine empires had well-developed associations, known as demes, which supported the different factions (or teams) under which competitors in certain sporting events took part; this was particularly true of chariot racing. There were initially four major factional teams of chariot racing, differentiated by the colour of the uniform in which they competed; the colours were also worn by their supporters. These were the Blues, the Greens, the Reds, and the Whites, although by the Byzantine era the only teams with any influence were the Blues and Greens. Emperor Justinian I was a supporter of the Blues."

As progressives by nature support all proper administrations of law, whereas the problem with rightists, reactionaries etc (have no respect for the rule of law) as they are so much inclined towards obstructing any proper administration of law as they are based on money power, and authority founded in the undermining of the law or destroying proper administration of the law.

As regards inflammatory language your insulting biased and slanderous remarks are more than sufficient to provoke anyone left wing as per se without cause you attack that label without defining it based on your fictitious formulations of selective uses of conjecture that dishonestly excludes your right wing associates as yours is a perfect example of reactionary language that regressively drives backwards:

So as to destroy all intelligent use of language in society as the modern barbarian you are.

Barbarian: A barbarian is a human who is perceived to be either uncivilized or primitive. *** In idiomatic or figurative usage, a "barbarian" may also be an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, and insensitive person. ( Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1972, pg. 149, Simon & Schuster Publishing)


us #1 Arms DEALER IN THE WORLD and #1 MILITARY EXPENDITURES BUDGET. Sounds like "brutal, cruel, warlike, and insensitive person" especially since they support TORTURE, oppose the rule of law, and appear all too often as the WWF.

For since you do not properly quote me, comment of what is said, and simply distort everything said there is no reason to discuss things as that is your intention. So please don't

[perardua]

You are in fact right.

I started my post thinking your writing was a jumbled mess leading nowhere, and that it was intentionally written that way. Coupled with your other posts, I took you entirely for a troll. I thus set about writing a snide reply.

Midway through though, I changed my mind. I decided I wanted to treat this as sincere. My post is thus double-minded, written in a mood wavering between those two positions - wanting to be catty and wanting to understand at the same time. So there is a smug and contemptuous tone overlaying it, no question.

Yes, I have reacted to your posts as being verbose, incoherent and pretentious. Those are my underlying moods.

Veiling insults though, is a base way to conduct discussion. I apologize for this.

Finally: All this being said, my post is completely sincere. I am not feigning ignorance. I truly do not understand what you mean, and the paraphrases are my attempt to summarize what I think I have read.

[Andrew_Zito]

Sorry though colloquially one can understand what those of your kind intend to say in your underlying emotional and intellectual problems of communication premised as you summarized them by stating "I" (YOU) "am not feigning ignorance", and "I" (you) "truly do not understand,":

As a matter of language that is in actually a paradoxical impossibility as there is nothing truly abstract in the universe and as such you negate everything you say in totally lacking credibility, for if there are matters in the abstract one would have to give them form so as to define / express them; and as such I find your doggerel in argument without any merit.

Also for if you and the other like you truly are not feigning ignorance as you say then you have nothing to complain of as you understand nothing so as to be able to complain about but your kind do so as to provoke others.


In actuality you represent the summary of a mindset of the "World's Greatest police State gulag" prying interrogating, pontificating, philosophizing in endless nonsensical arrays of verbal displays by which you pretend there is a meaning to your miserable existences when in actuality there is not though you refuse to be nihilists for there is no profit in that and so instead you vacillate between the many divisions and factions that represents the "World's Greatest police State gulag" so they bet the ponies or stock market buy hedging those bets in what you pompously play short or long, but never straight.

As you speculate as some always hedges and box their bets in picking numbers, as in the variations of the numbers 123, played out as 132, 213, 231, 312, 321, for the additional costs of six bets rather than one straight bet.


Where if you truly do not understand what is mean then you understand not one character nor one phrase, idea, and then it is truly what they call "Coso Mia" not "Cosa Nostra" which is a good thing as "I am" in what you negate and in doing so you are determined to be reactionary in character in first and foremost in your denial of the world around you by your denial of meaning content and character, and as such present yourself as dishonest deceitful sociopath and annoying much like the pundit talking heads of corporate think tanks who get over paid to create that sort of drivel so as to enable their masters in attempts to confuse the masses.

Please if there is nothing more and a hell go there and die as I find your the most boring sport of disingenuous hypocrisy banter at once speaking yet saying nothing as most SHYSTERS in their flimflam so as to confuse the jury and the court.

[Andrew_Zito]

The general premise is if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, as such Leftist does not mean Hillary Bill and Chelsea Clinton, Richard Nixon nor Donald Trump though at any given moment et in their consistent basis founded on capitalist inconsistencies they might express for a very brief moment a view that may be on the left of their fellow reactionaries.

But general the socialist Left consistently I imagine agrees that none of the aforementioned personalities is really "left" as it is expressed by the Corporate Media and its hacks The Washington Post and the New York Times are not Leftist publications as the John Birch Society National Review as well as Breitbart and Fox News and would claim so as to pressure them if ever so slightly even more toward the right though imaginable even they for a brief moment may perchance express for some opportunistic or strange reason express what may be thought of a "Left".


But the question is "To the LEFT of what?". President Obomber was not socialist in any proper socialist sense except by those capitalist CIA dupes like Norman Thomas that America will never willingly become socialist and that it will only become socialist by incremental means meaning reformist means of the most benign and harmless form that reactionaries through history have used to undermine real or true socialists as socialists must be prepared for the use if need be of what ever means may be needed though not by dogmatic and mechanical means.

In any case I have never heard reactionaries state that their views are derived at by scientific means where as Marxists often have done so, and when even anarchists have no made such suggestions that their views have some scientific basis as Marx and Engels proclaimed long ago in what distinguished them from the Anarchists and Utopians Socialist such as the Owenites and Dorothy Day.

Not everything perhaps is scientific but the methodology required in what was founded in dialectical and historical materialism is what distinguished them from the views expressed by the corporate capitalist press and the lack thereof what associates them with Anarchists in their varieties incorporating nationalist chauvinist fascist capitalist and utopian elements.

And that rhetoric which I find most suitable for use has much in common with the language of the courts for if we read and strike all those arguments as which maybe found objectionable in proper courts of law the arguments of the TRUMP BIRTHERS would never have gotten off as it did.

For intrinsically a LEFTIST POINT OF VIEW though some can present their views haphazardly is a view which is properly presented without the accouterments the irrational emotion common to the histrionic manner of the right called reactionary as they reaction as Trump Hitler and Mussolini in the political melodrama that is constructed that reasons like Kant on one end of the two extremes and on the other by blood lust passions.

[perardua]

Jesus. Forget I even tried.

Either you are indeed trolling or you suffer from a severe persecution complex.

Either way this is a waste of time. Rambles upon rambles.