Also curious to hear people's explanations of what gives rise to those perceptions. Me for instance, I generally expect most educated, academic people to be left-wing, so philosophers and philosophy students would be no exception, but I've also seen online several run-ins between left-wing communities (especially trans communities) and philosophically inclined people, where it seems like lines are being drawn between "philosophically rigorous" and "socially inclusive" as though those are dichotomous categories. So I really just don't know anymore.

In honor of @Banno I have to ask who cares?

Hey Forrest, I couldn't participate because I'm a moderate independent. (We need more moderates in our political and religious institutions.)

on this forum they are typically more left wing. I don't know how they are on other philosophy forums. I consider myself by and large a fiscally conservative Libertarian but my political party is Shark Fighter Nation. #Shark_Fighter_Nation

Also curious to hear people's explanations of what gives rise to those perceptions. — Pfhorrest

I know that it's a currently discussed issue in Academia, and that statistically it is true that there are fewer conservative (especially socially) folks in academia generally, and strikingly in Philosophy. Scruton was actually known for being a relative outlier in his conservative political views.

But I think there's also some shifts and divides happening, because there are some parts of the humanities in general that adhere to identity politics and apparently don't mind cancel culture, whereas philosophers tend generally to balk at the core concepts behind those two phenomena. So, from a post-colonial theorist's view, philosophers might seem pretty conservative on the whole, but in comparison to the general population, they are not. If you aren't aware, you can read up on what happened with the Hypatia journal and the article defending Dolezal to see the tip of the iceberg of totally bonkers in-fighting.

Daily Nous and Leiter's Blog have both featured and commented on some of the drama about whether conservative students/faculty are treated unfairly... which I think might sometimes be true, but also sometimes is a result of feeling left out when you're the sole defender of traditional marriage or some such on an otherwise liberal campus.

Also, concerns have been raised that philosophical journals don't publish as many conservative articles.... which, y'know, is it bias? Or are the potential conservative papers just generally of poorer quality? Hard to tell from the outside.

I put right-wing for all four questions.

I understand and appreciate that most of the people in all categories are left-wingish. But they are AMERICAN left-wingish, and the left wing views in America would still be in the extreme right in 94 percent of the industrial countries.

Add to this that all totalitarian regimes, and hence, mistakenly, all socialist countries are considered right-wing according to the standard nomenclature of America, of which this is a website. So despite the most populous country, China, is extreme left-wing, in America the Chinese society is right wing.

Thisi s a distorted image, and the picture can't get out of the distortion, whether you view the topic with a lens made in America, Sweden, Japan, or Bangla Desh.

In honor of Banno I have to ask who cares? — frank

Do you have some problem with idle curiosity?

Hey Forrest, I couldn't participate because I'm a moderate independent. (We need more moderates in our political and religious institutions.) — 3017amen

You can still share your opinions on the other questions, even if you don't want to answer the last one.

on this forum they are typically more left wing. — christian2017

So far the results suggest otherwise. (EDIT: At the time I posted this, the results were predominantly left-wing for all questions but the last, which was predominantly right-wing).

socialist countries are considered right-wing according to the standard nomenclature of America, of which this is a website. So despite the most populous country, China, is extreme left-wing, in America the Chinese society is right wing. — god must be atheist

This seems completely backwards. China and all countries called "socialist" or "communist" in America are typically considered left-wing by mainstream Americans, but are officially state-capitalist by their own admission (capitalism generally being right-wing), with communism only a nominal future goal. Historically authoritarianism is also a right-wing position; there's a reason "liberal" and "left" have long been synonyms (though no longer everywhere).

The advantage of using a religious regulatory framework for morality, such as Jewish or Islamic law, is that left-wing versus right-wing does not even exist. There is simply no scope for that. Society is supposed to hang together through strong extended-family ties along with mandatory ("zakaat") and voluntary ("sadaqah") charity. The very fact that something like left-wing versus right-wing even exists, is considered to be a symptom of decadence and depravity.

on this forum they are typically more left wing.
— christian2017

So far the results suggest otherwise. — Pfhorrest

i guess.

That's because religious morality is inherently a right-wing thing. Of course right-wing religious moralists think the existence of liberal left-wing morals is a sign of decadence and depravity.

Much like how a "no-party state", made out to be such a high noble thing above partisanship, is actually just a state where nobody is allowed to disagree with the single de facto party.

That's because religious morality is inherently a right-wing thing. Of course right-wing religious moralists think the existence of liberal left-wing morals is a sign of decadence and depravity. — Pfhorrest

Well, the undue influence on the culture and laws of society by corporations is considered evil by religious people, while both left and right are not only happy with the corporate stronghold on society, they even encourage it.

In fact, the left is completely beholden to having corporations around because they see society as the struggle between evil employers and exploited employees. Someone who is, for example, self-employed is not a worthy, exploited victim, and therefore does not even belong in their take on society.

All in all, the corporations need the left even more than the right in order to maintain their undue power, influence, and even for their continued survival. Since the system allows corporate interests to fabricate new laws to that effect, it is them who are the true beneficiaries of the fake antagonism between left and right. That fake conflict is just one big, manipulative lie.

True religion is a bulwark against corporate takeover of society, because it forbids a key pillar in their strategy: the usury-infested fiat bankstering system. Without usury, corporate interests would not be able to enslave their manipulated serfs.

Consumer debt, credit card debt, student loans, inflated mortgages ... are the tools that the oligarchy uses to enslave the manipulated masses. On the long run, religion will win, simply because paper money, that false god, is programmed to become worthless, making it impossible to collect usury payments with it. Good riddance!

I'm curious to know if there's anything in philosophy that has an effect on the left/right leanings of philosophers.

Personally, being left or right wing doesn't have philosophical underpinnings but I may be wrong. If you must know then isn't it quite obvious that everyone is a philosopher for all that's required to be one is an armchair and an average brain which is everyone, right?

It sounds like you have a strange perception of what "left" and "right" are. For one, it seems focused entirely on economics, ignoring social liberalism vs conservativism which is where I expected religious morality would have the biggest focus (religious moral codes being ancient and so typically conservative by modern standards). But even within the economic dimension, which is indeed a factor, it sounds like by "left" you're picturing maybe Democrats? They're only left in comparison to Republicans, and by international standards (and the standards of most self-avowed leftist people in America) are considered center-right. America has no mainstream left-wing party, and the left-wing people are avidly anti-corporate and terribly disappointed in the Democrats.

Also, it's not so clear-cut that corporations are considered evil by religious people. Consider for example prosperity theology.

everyone is a philosopher for all that's required to be one is an armchair and an average brain which is everyone, right? — TheMadFool

Everyone has the tools to be a philosopher, but not everybody uses those tools for that purpose.

Anyway, I guess it's insufficiently clear from context that by "philosopher" in the question, juxtaposed with "philosophy student" and "philosophy enthusiast", I mean someone who does philosophy professionally, publishing work that is read and commented on by other people widely reckoned as philosophers.

Everyone has the tools to be a philosopher, but not everybody uses those tools for that purpose.

Anyway, I guess it's insufficiently clear from context that by "philosopher" in the question, juxtaposed with "philosophy student" and "philosophy enthusiast", I mean someone who does philosophy professionally, publishing work that is read and commented on by other people widely reckoned as philosophers. — Pfhorrest

I haven't read a lot of philosophy to be able to comment but if allow me a guess I think philosophers would lean to the left but I heard Nietzsche, and he is a great philosopher I believe, had a "different opinion".

I am by no means the first person to point this out, but the 'left-right' divide is not fit for purpose, for all sorts of reasons. That is not to say that the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' do not have a purpose in political philosophy, but they cannot possibly stand for the entire 'spectrum' of political opinion (supposing that all political positions do exist on a spectrum, a claim of which I am doubtful).

Speaking from personal experience, I am often considered an extreme-right villain when in conversation with progressives, and a raving revolutionary when in conversation with conservatives. In terms of the left-right paradigm, I don't fit into a good box, ideologically. I'm anti-taxation, anti-regulation, anti-Welfare-State (making me the 'arch capitalist'), but I am also anti-war and anti-paternalism, such that I believe in the de-criminalisation of prostitution, recreational drug use and euthanasia (making me the 'arch hippie'). In older language, I am simply a liberal. But, with this term having been hijacked by social democrats, I have to call myself libertarian.

Maybe my inability to be pigeon-holed is a failure of philosophical consistency on my part. But I don't believe so. Indeed, I would argue that, if one is opposed the initiation of force and the invasion of private property, as the libertarian is, then one is committed to all of the positions just mentioned. So much the worse for the left-right paradigm!

Nor does the political compass help very much. The kinds of questions you find on these kinds of tests are often prejudicial and simplistic. Far better just to do political philosophy properly, which involves developing a philosophical system by reasoning your way up from first principles.

Far better just to do political philosophy properly, which involves developing a philosophical system by reasoning your way up from first principles. — Virgo Avalytikh

And yet when pressed on the matter of...

if one is opposed the initiation of force and the invasion of private property, as the libertarian is, then one is committed to all of the positions just mentioned. — Virgo Avalytikh

... in an earlier thread, you just walk away.

The issue here with many of these ideologies is that suspicion falls when supposedly ideologically motivated policies all 'coincidentally' result in outcomes which match some far more common motivation.

Libertarianism, of the kind you endorse here, is of this nature. All its proscriptions just 'happen' to support the lifestyle of the currently wealthy and as soon as any fundamental principle (such as property rights) seem to undermine that position, the principles are hastily adjusted accordingly (or the issue is ignored entirely).

It makes it very difficult to believe the ideology is not just post hoc justification for the pre-determined conclusions.

... in an earlier thread, you just walk away. — Isaac

I am not sure what this is referring to.

I have defended libertarianism at length and in depth elsewhere. I have also challenged and rebutted the suggestion that libertarianism is somehow the philosophy of the wealthy (in fact, Statism is). If you wish to take issue with the case I have made in my own threads, you are free to.

If you wish to take issue with the case I have made in my own threads, you are free to. — Virgo Avalytikh

I did, as did fdrake far more substantially, here. I was interested to hear your response to both. As I said above, it's telling that the ideology is robustly defended until it leads to issue contrary to the interests of the (broadly Western) wealthy, when interest in its defence wanes.

It's not so much what your actual response would have been that interests me here (I've no doubt some post hoc restructuring of the theory would account for it), it's the fact that these things (positions on moot points, abandoning lines of argument, appeals to authorities etc) all seem to err on the side of some Randian fantasia on the American dream, and yet are defended as if motivated by nothing but theory.

I did, as did fdrake far more substantially, here. I was interested to hear your response to both. As I said above, it's telling that the ideology is robustly defended until it leads to issue contrary to the interests of the (broadly Western) wealthy, when interest in its defence wanes. — Isaac

fdrake and I have exchanged many thousands of words, and we both think that it is has been quite productive so far. The suggestion that I have 'walked away' from anything is ridiculous. Not that it is any concern of yours, but I happen to be unusually busy at the moment, and so I intend to return to my thread in due course. fdrake is aware of this, so you need not claim any kind of victory on his behalf. I will contribute just exactly as much as I want to contribute, at my leisure.

Besides my other commitments, which are considerable, I did not see anything in your contribution which particularly needed responding to.

It's not so much what your actual response would have been that interests me here (I've no doubt some post hoc restructuring of the theory would account for it), it's the fact that these things (positions on moot points, abandoning lines of argument, appeals to authorities etc) all seem to err on the side of some Randian fantasia on the American dream, and yet are defended as if motivated by nothing but theory. — Isaac

A strange suggestion, as I am neither an objectivist nor an American. There is no small amount of poisoning the well, here. If you have made up your mind in advance of the argument that any defence of libertarianism is a post hoc contrivance, then it is little wonder that you are not interested in hearing a response. At least you are honest about that. I certainly should not like to admit to closed-mindedness, if I were so.

America has no mainstream left-wing party, and the left-wing people are avidly anti-corporate and terribly disappointed in the Democrats. — Pfhorrest

Religion, more specifically, Islam is strongly opposed to usury:

Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury. — Quran: 2:275- 279

I strongly dislike corporations, especially the banksters, because they are usury-infested organizations and because they lobby the legislature to modify the laws to their benefit, and also because their mass-market messages are more often than not manipulative lies. They were supposed to merely trade and be engaged in commerce, instead of corrupting society's laws and culture.

Furthermore, with the school system manipulating their graduates into looking for jobs at these corporations, these corporations unduly make large numbers of people dependent on them for their livelihood.

Still, I cannot identify with left-wing politics, because it is mostly about redistributing income outside the religiously authorized channels of extended family and mandatory/voluntary charity. These left-wing people, in fact, also seek to change the laws in order to force and shoehorn everybody else into their state-run socialist utopia.

Also, it's not so clear-cut that corporations are considered evil by religious people. Consider for example prosperity theology. — Pfhorrest

Christianity is much more flexible in that regard than Islam.

Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders from various Christian denominations, including within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, who maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is contrary to scripture. Secular as well as some Christian observers have also criticized prosperity theology as exploitative of the poor. — Wikipedia on prosperity theology

Christianity is primarily a clerical religion. Morality is traditionally decided by the (centralized) living magisterium. Even though the Protestants were going to implement a sola-scriptura policy, they actually just kept the practices of the Catholic Church alive:

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition."[1][2][3] According to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the task of interpretation is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops.

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. — Wikipedia on magisterium principle

Islamic theology does not depend on the authority of particular, centralized clergy but first and foremost on deductive reasoning from first principles. There is no Pope and there are no bishops in Islam. Islamic law is very close to a formal system with mechanical verifiability of its moral rulings:

Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, [idʒ.tihaːd]; lit. physical or mental effort, expended in a particular activity)[1] is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning[2] or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question.[1] — Wikipedia on ijtihad

It is the very concept of the "Church" as a centralized organization and "magisterium" (personal clerical authority) that make aberrations such as the prosperity theology possible. Martin Luther's sola scriptura view has actually never been implemented in Christianity.

I intend to return to my thread in due course. fdrake is aware of this, so you need not claim any kind of victory on his part. I will contribute just exactly as much as I want to contribute, at my leisure. — Virgo Avalytikh

My comment has nothing to do with claiming victory on anyone's part, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. Nor am I proposing any requirement to proceed at any particular pace. What I'm disputing is the coincidence of the timing within the argument, and I'm disputing it theoretically (using your case as an example).

The point at which your other commitments prevented you from being able to continue, for example, coincided with the point at which your ideology lead to conclusions unfavourable to typical Western free-market interests. The extraneous comments you felt didn't require a response just so happened to be on the same point. The one time (in an otherwise first-hand argument) you merely appealed to authority also just happened to be on the same point.

Basically, the moment the fundamental flaw in your ideology is brought up you're either too busy to respond, appeal to authority or don't think the comment worthy of response, and you expect me to conclude that this is all just coincidence. It's a pattern I've seen in many situations and yours is just a case in point.

Detecting bias, post hoc arguments, altererior motives... all require analysis of context, and yet are essential parts of discussion. Either you allow meta-discourse factors to figure in, or you dismiss any such analysis and play to the flawed dogma that cold rational facts an constitue an argument alone.

If you have made up your mind in advance of the argument that any defence of libertarianism is a post hoc contrivance, then it is little wonder that you are not interested in hearing a response. — Virgo Avalytikh

So, an example here. If me having 'made up my mind in advance' with regards to the post hoc nature of your position is an accusation you can fairly level at me (and I agree it is), then how would I be able to defend myself against it if the evidence I've used to reach that conclusion (argumentative style, timing, etc) is off-limits?

I certainly should not like to admit to closed-mindedness, if I were so. — Virgo Avalytikh

Note I said "interests me here", not "interests me in general". Your actual response on that thread is not relevant to the topic of this thread, here. I'm still interested to hear what it is in the other thread, but I reserve my right to read into it that meta-data that I feel is appropriate to understanding it in context, if those terms are unacceptable to you then I suppose I'll have to just observe rather than take part.

The point at which your other commitments prevented you from being able to continue, for example, coincided with the point at which your ideology lead to conclusions unfavourable to typical Western free-market interests. The extraneous comments you felt didn't require a response just so happened to be on the same point. The one time (in an otherwise first-hand argument) you merely appealed to authority also just happened to be on the same point.

Basically, the moment the fundamental flaw in your ideology is brought up you're either too busy to respond, appeal to authority or don't think the comment worthy of response, and you expect me to conclude that this is all just coincidence. It's a pattern I've seen in many situations and yours is just a case in point. — Isaac

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that I am incapable of responding to the latest objections which my thread's dialogue partners have posed, such that I am compelled to find an excuse not to continue? You could not be so arrogant as to suggest this, surely, given that I responded to objections left, right and centre, thousands of words at a time. Of course, any point at which I happen to take a break could also be identified as the crucial 'weak point' which causes my entire position to come crashing down. This is not convincing.

So, an example here. If me having 'made up my mind in advance' with regards to the post hoc nature of your position is an accusation you can fairly level at me (and I agree it is), then how would I be able to defend myself against it if the evidence I've used to reach that conclusion (argumentative style, timing, etc) is off-limits? — Isaac

What are you talking about? I am not looking at your 'style', let alone your 'timing'. Try writing an essay for college in which you critique the 'timing' of an argument, rather than its philosophical substance. I grade undergraduate philosophy essays, and I can tell you that this does certainly does not cut it. I have simply taken my cue from your words: you have anticipated any libertarian defence against your objections to be post hoc contrivances, which means that you are not receptive to being persuaded by them, regardless of their soundness. This isn't a 'meta analysis'. I'm just pointing out that this is an implication of what you have said.

Are you suggesting that I am incapable of responding to the latest objections which my thread's dialogue partners have posed, such that I am compelled to find an excuse not to continue? — Virgo Avalytikh

No. I'm saying that you are displaying an example of a pattern in which one ideology is presented as the source of proscription when in fact another is the true source. In this case, a principle of non-aggression and natural property rights is presented as an ideological source proscribing a generally laissez-faire economic policy. Such ideology could also lead to redistribution of property on the grounds that it was obtained by aggression, or at least compensation due resultant from such aggression. It could also lead to supporting environmental legislation on the grounds of community claims to resist the aggressive misuse of joint resources.

Some of these possible consequences must be abandoned (we cannot simultaneously believe all possible proscriptions), but when all the possible proscriptions resulting from an ideology that are not rejected just happen to coincide with proscriptions of another (usually less favoured) ideology, I suspect post hoc rationalisation. Its not a random suspicion, nor is it unreasonable to search for evidence for such in the approach to discussion.

I responded to objections left, right and centre, thousands of words at a time. Of course, any point at which I happen to take a break could also be identified as the crucial 'weak point' which causes my entire position to come crashing down. — Virgo Avalytikh

That's rather the point. If you respond to every objection with thousands of word - except one - which you respond to with an appeal to authority, or a delay, or no response at all, it certainly raises a reasonable suspicion that there's something unique about that particular objection.

Try writing an essay for college in which you critique the 'timing' of an argument, rather than its philosophical substance. I grade undergraduate philosophy essays, and I can tell you that this does certainly does not cut it. — Virgo Avalytikh

Hopefully you're grading essays on the basis of how well your students have demonstrated an understanding of the issue, not on the basis of how much you think they 'really' believe them. I'm not talking here about the substance of your argument at all. The topic here is the political persuasion of academics. You proposed that you have no easily categorisable political persuasion and that one's political philosophy should instead be built from foundational principles. I'm disputing that that is the case, either with or others.

Notwithstanding that..

you have anticipated any libertarian defence against your objections to be post hoc contrivances, which means that you are not receptive to being persuaded by them, regardless of their soundness. — Virgo Avalytikh

I have not anticipated any libertarian defence as being post hoc, that's the point. I have determined some to be post hoc, but it is impossible to present evidence to justify that conclusion on the basis of the arguments alone. Post hoc is a description of the origin of the arguments, it can only be determined by reference to evidence of things like argumentative style.

, I have to call myself libertarian.

Maybe my inability to be pigeon-holed is a failure of philosophical consistency on my part — Virgo Avalytikh

No, you're just a Libertarian. Few people fit perfectly into any of these categories, so don't take it personally when it seems you have views "outside the mainstream."

No. I'm saying that you are displaying an example of a pattern in which one ideology is presented as the source of proscription when in fact another is the true source. In this case, a principle of non-aggression and natural property rights is presented as an ideological source proscribing a generally laissez-faire economic policy. Such ideology could also lead to redistribution of property on the grounds that it was obtained by aggression, or at least compensation due resultant from such aggression. It could also lead to supporting environmental legislation on the grounds of community claims to resist the aggressive misuse of joint resources.

Some of these possible consequences must be abandoned (we cannot simultaneously believe all possible proscriptions), but when all the possible proscriptions resulting from an ideology that are not rejected just happen to coincide with proscriptions of another (usually less favoured) ideology, I suspect post hoc rationalisation. Its not a random suspicion, nor is it unreasonable to search for evidence for such in the approach to discussion. — Isaac

Why are you making your objections here? If you want to debate the principles of libertarianism, do it in a libertarianism thread. I am happy to respond to objections, as I have been doing, at my leisure.

That's rather the point. If you respond to every objection with thousands of word - except one - which you respond to with an appeal to authority, or a delay, or no response at all, it certainly raises a reasonable suspicion that there's something unique about that particular objection. — Isaac

Only if you're intent on disbelieving me when I say that I am not at my leisure to respond at the present time. You are at liberty to craft whatever meta-narrative you like, and I will continue to do philosophy.

Hopefully you're grading essays on the basis of how well your students have demonstrated an understanding of the issue, not on the basis of how much you think they 'really' believe them. — Isaac

Sure. That is what I am paid for.

I'm not talking here about the substance of your argument at all. The topic here is the political persuasion of academics. You proposed that you have no easily categorisable political persuasion and that one's political philosophy should instead be built from foundational principles. I'm disputing that that is the case, either with or others. — Isaac

Not exactly. I do have an easily categorisable political position. I am just not easily plotted on the left-right spectrum, which is what this thread is about.

I have not anticipated any libertarian defence as being post hoc, that's the point. I have determined some to be post hoc, but it is impossible to present evidence to justify that conclusion on the basis of the arguments alone. Post hoc is a description of the origin of the arguments, it can only be determined by reference to evidence of things like argumentative style. — Isaac

That's right: an accusation of post hocery, whether justified or not, has no bearing on the philosophical substance of an argument, and is concerned only with its origin. What this means is that, if it is used as an objection, it is a kind of fallacy (a genetic fallacy, specifically). I would certainly mark down a student for a fallacious argument.

I don't fit into a good box, ideologically. — Virgo Avalytikh

I'm in the same boat Virgo.

Because I don't believe in killing; war's, capital punishment, and abortion. Rather, I believe in a non-cushy prison life as a deterrent; the adoption option (or the abortion/exception in the case of endangering the mother's health, etc.), and war's as a clear defensive strategy (as apposed to an offensive one). In America, as leaders of the free world, you can wish for peace or free-democracy all you want, but if the indigenous peoples are against it, it makes little sense to waste resources on an interminable resistance, particularly where other countries do not separate church from state-third world; Syria, Iraq, etc..

Even the sensitive 2nd amendment gun rights legislation, I view it as public safety. Using the automobile analogy and treating like case likely; different cases differently, we have speed limits for a reason. We don't allow dragsters on the highway and limit them to the racetrack. Similarly, assault weapons should be as paramount to public safety.

I could go on about the virtues of being a Moderate, as I view it as common sense reasonableness, as I draw from both sides. I take a page from Aristotelian logic there :wink:

Do you have some problem with idle curiosity? — Pfhorrest

No. You explained your curiosity by pointing to other online commmunities and something about rigor. What's the connection?

Why are you making your objections here? If you want to debate the principles of libertarianism, do it in a libertarianism thread. — Virgo Avalytikh

These are not the principles of libertarianism. That's the point here on this thread as this thread is about the political affiliations of philosophers. I'm saying that many people claiming to follow some ideology (libertarianism for example) do not, in fact, follow such an ideology, but rather select an ideology to fit the preferences they already have, usually toward selfishness. Your posts gave me a perfect example as your ideology was defended robustly as such until it lead to conclusions which clashed with your preconceived ideas. It's not just a failure to respond (that could be anything and wouldn't be enough to raise suspicion on its own) it's the coincidence with appeal to authority and hesitation. As you said yourself, every other objection was responded to with vigour, for one particular objection to not be treated the same way in three separate instances raises suspicion about the treatment of that particular case.

an accusation of post hocery, whether justified or not, has no bearing on the philosophical substance of an argument, and is concerned only with its origin. — Virgo Avalytikh

Absolutely. Which is why its relevant here, in a discussion about political affiliation (which biases arguments) and not on the other thread, which is about the actual argument itself.

Alright, well have fun doing whatever this is you're doing.

could go on about the virtues of being a Moderate, as I view it as common sense reasonableness, as I draw from both sides. I take a page from Aristotelian logic there :wink: — 3017amen

Moderation for the sake of moderation seems nonsensical. What's the middle ground between slavery and abolitionism? And also, as others have pointed out, a typical American liberal seems moderate in other countries. So your choice of being moderate by American standards versus German or Russian or Chinese or just international seems relatively arbitrarily determined by the place you happen to live. That's certainly not what Aristotle had in mind....