Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8774)	12/6/2010 3:24:21 PM
From: Lane3	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

No I don't think any of those things. You are putting words in my mouth. I did not mean to do put words in your mouth. But in my post I claimed that the issue re climate change was not predominately about the science but, instead, it was about what to do about the problem identified by the science. Your reply to that was simply that we had a difference of opinion. Since you didn't specify the particulars of that difference of opinion, it was only reasonable for me to conclude that you disagreed with the point of the post to which you responded and that you did, indeed, consider it to be all about the science. What else could I have concluded? Yeah, the bit about magic was mocking, but the notion that science tells us all we need to know about this issue is eminently mock-worthy. <g> As I said in the beginning. We each live in another world. You have one perception of the world and I have another. So we talk right past each other. I don't recall you're saying that you and I live in different worlds. I recall you saying that liberals and conservatives are different subspecies but, as I posted upthread, I do not identify with either so that would not apply to me. So in your bifurcated world, where do I fit? I don't know the answer for the two populations to get together. I do. It's quite simple, really. Quit throwing spitballs and start listening actively. Take in interest in what the other side has to say. Try to rise above prejudice and hostility and show a little respect. It's an enlightening experience. I offered you my take on the conservative position on two topics. You claim an appreciation for enlightenment. Why have you rebuffed my overtures? I made clear up front that I can't relate to social conservatism or religious faith, indeed have some distaste for both, yet I here I was trying to explain to you their perspective on evolution as best I have come to understand it, as fairly and objectively as I can, in language designed to resonate with any allegedly scientific, logical liberal. Imagine that! To the extent that I do understand their perspective, it's because I have always made an effort see different sides of issues. That's what civilized people do in a mixed society. But no, you're apparently not interested in gaining understanding of alternative takes. For someone who claims to favor enlightenment, that's pretty, er, incongruous. (That's the most charitable euphemism I can come up with.) Well, I and almost all liberals consider both segregation and gay bashing pure bigotry You, sir, are in no position to make judgments about anyone's bigotry. When one has made up one's mind that some cohort is inferior and when one is not receptive to the possibility that his judgment might not be apt, and when one frames the two cohorts as them and us as you have, "subspecies," no less, that's called prejudice. And when one rebuffs efforts to provide a more balanced perspective, that's bigotry. Audaciously inserting references to the bigotry of others and invoking Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela only serve to highlight it.

To: koan who wrote (8774)	12/6/2010 5:14:55 PM
From: Oeconomicus	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"e.g. the earth is NOT at the center of the universe" If you're referring to the point of the "big bang" as the center, yeah, but from our perspective, the Earth is the center of what we know. We do know the sun does not revolve around the Earth, though. "blood letting is NOT a good medical process" Except when it is. ;-) "and our existence is NOT the result of some god, but rather evolution." Not mutually exclusive propositions. Evolution is compatible with many theories of existence that attribute a critical role to a deity. See, for example, theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism.

To: koan who wrote (8774)	12/10/2010 11:14:34 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

They voted en masse against everything the dems wanted to do. Considering what the Dems where trying to do, that is for the most part something to be said in favor of the Republicans (to the extent they actually did it, on a number of issues there where Republicans who did go along). As for DADT, or the earlier actual segregation policy, whatever their merits or demerits supporting either wasn't something that would rely on "gay bashing pure bigotry", which isn't to say that none of the support was based on that, but a lot was not. In another context a fair measure of the opposition to the civil rights act of '64, for example Goldwater's opposition to it, seems to have had no connection to bigotry (and to the extent it was based on bigotry or pandering to racists, it seems to have mostly come from the Dems). Over the years I have almost never seen conservatives convince liberals or vice versa. So debates just devolve into arguments and that is just a waste of time. Convincing someone on the major issues, at least if you mean actually changing them over to the other side, rather than just softening their position is rare, but it does happen some times. Softening positions is more common (although its also possible for debate to cause people's opinion to become more extreme or more set in stone), and the discussion may convince fence sitting "bystanders". Much more common than that is better understanding of where the other person is coming from and why, and I think that's a worthwhile goal. Also you can identify where compromise is possible, and where it isn't. And the discussion itself can be interesting. So even if people rarely do a 180 degree turn, that doesn't mean the effort is a waste of time. I would suggest however you might get more out of it if you assumed some good faith, rather than jumping to the idea that those who disagree with you on issues you hold dear are horrible ogres. But perhaps all your looking for is to toss mud around and generate more heat than light.