Sometimes it is amusing to see ourselves as other see us. Sometimes it is amusing to note the two-dimensional view that others have of the world about them – and, in particular, those with whom they disagree. The “right”, the “left” and so on. Yet people are rarely so simple and uncomplicated for such labels to be accurate. Frankly, labels are pretty silly, which is why I have not adopted any in my own blogroll.
I noticed when browsing, that Neil has recently rearranged his blogroll. I am now labelled as of the Right.
Which is both interesting and amusing. I am neither of the right, nor the left. I take a view depending on the matter under discussion. Sometimes indeed this may be a right wing view – but it cannot be guaranteed. Nor, indeed, can it be guaranteed that my viewpoint will remain fixed. A decent argument with convincing evidence may persuade me. This, perhaps is why I tend to take a more right wing view of economic factors these days than I used to. The evidence persuaded me. On balance, though, I prefer “non aligned”. This is a more accurate description overall as I despise all political parties and politicians with equal vigour. A pox on all their houses. Maybe Mr Harding should have a label for political nihilists – now that would come close…
He has me as centre, which is a laugh as I consider myself way left of him. Oh well.
I think I may have offended him with my invective laden rant when my patience with his continued stupidity finally snapped. That or even Neil realised that he had based a whole series of comments on a false premise.
For myself, I avoid labels, they rarely fit well.
Interestingly that caused me to revist your post on Liberty and speeding (the one where the more you agreed with Neil, the more he villified you). He makes a claim that 100,000 people a day are being killed/injured on UK roads. That is total nonsense as far as I can see, so I have quoted the (presumably correct) ROSPA figures for 2006.
Yes, I noticed that. The figures struck me as a bit daft, but wading through so many strawmen meant that getting around to challenging them was one task too many. I presume that’s how he gets away with such falsifications; people become distracted by their own words twisted beyond recognition to the point where they either give up or start swearing at him. The figures themselves are then left to stand as a testament to Neil’s fertile imagination. It’s some years since I looked at the killed and seriously injured figures, but the ones you quote look about right to me – they correlate with the ones I was working with when risk assessing using motorcycles for rapid response in the mid-nineties.
The real corker was when he challenged me to explain why I was defending Liberty’s decision to take the case to court. As I hadn’t – and that was the point of the post in question – the petard was well and truly up. It’s all gone deathly quiet since. 😉
I too don’t like labelling (as you say they can be soon inaccurate) but you may be left on some issues but all the ones I tend to notice seem a bit right of centre so that is why I placed you there. I might re-re-arrange.
As far as the accident figures go, I had that figure in my head from somewhere so I stand corrected. I should have checked it properly. Of course the actual figures are far higher – 270,000 injuries and fatalities. Which of course makes my point about how are roads are too dangerous even more valid.
Finally, you may have (sort of) been agreeing with me that Liberty should not be spending their money defending speeding drivers like this, but you also did say they had a point of principle to defend however spurious about ‘not incriminating themselves’, so you (sort of) defended Liberty as well which is what I pointed out.
Just noticed that you say I put ‘injuries a day’ – if I put that, I of course meant to put ‘per annum’ which is what I thought I had put. 100,000 a day is obviously ridiculous. That honestly is a typing too fast error.
[Comment ID #2285 Will Be Quoted Here]
Well, that makes more sense.
And this is why I find talking to you so frustrating. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge that someone has a point to make without agreeing with their actions. I see the world in multi-dimensions – I don’t see it in simplistic right/wrong, left/right arguments.
Quite.
Just noticed that you say I put ‘injuries a day’ – if I put that
There’s no “if” – that’s what you wrote – why not just own up with good grace? It’s straightforward enough to check.