Wow, I realized something...

[Beancooker]

After reading many threads in this forum, I have come to one realization. No matter how hard one side argues their point, the other side will never agree.

This is no different than having a discussion about religion, and which religion is closest to God.

Discuss?

[AZhitman]

No.

[szh]

After reading many threads in this forum, I have come to one realization. No matter how hard one side argues their point, the other side will never agree.

This is no different than having a discussion about religion, and which religion is closest to God.

Discuss?

On politics, I consider myself a centrist - leaning towards conservatism on some topics. However, when I hear irrational stridency towards one side, then I start discounting everything that that person says. Even if I might have had some common agreement ground on a point or two that they made in the past.

Religion is quite different. There, it is a question of faith and beliefs - often deeply held core and personal beliefs - and it is very tough to have a discussion on those kinds of topics without intruding on such core beliefs of others.

So, it is best not to discuss religion here, IMHO.

However, if anybody starts spouting political views as if they were religious views, then I will continue to discuss - with rationality as much as possible. Because, that is not what politics should be about.

Z

[rn79870]

It's an election year Beanor. People have two candidates to choose from and opinions on why one is better than the other. When the election is over, we can start posting about how wonderful a job Obama is doing as POTUS.

Obama is about to speak. He has my undivided attention.

[AZhitman]

Obama is about to speak. He has my undivided attention.

Hero worship at its best. All hail the Messiah.

Make sure you squeal like a schoolgirl, he loves that.

[ishkabibble]

Not true. Despite our strong differences, Matt has changed my perception of global warming, various posters changed my perception of Obama, and I better understand where certain perspectives come from (though, I still disagree with many of them).

The only people I perpetually disagree 100% with are those who can't present their opinion with a rational foundation for their beliefs. I actually wish certain people from "the other side" that I always argue with would present their case in a more rational/analytical fashion; I'm willing to learn from them when they aren't in "troll mode".

[AZhitman]

I agree with ish....

I've learned a ton from Tariq and Z about ME culture, which gives me a greater understanding of the complexities of this war...

Bud is ALWAYS educating me on the 2nd Amendment and the history of eastern europe.

I've done a TON of reading in response to posts from Bob and Howie and ish that made me think, "Wait a minute - Let me read up on that."

I've learned from Steve and a few others that an 'independent' can be just as vehement and vocal as either traditional party.

I've softened my stance on many social issues and strengthened my stand as a capitalist.

I've learned that New Jerseyans are very similar to New Yorkers (center of the universe, anyone?).

I've accepted that stupid (and intellect) supercedes party affiliations.

[Jimefam]

When two rational beings discuss facts with the agreement of logic being supreme then one argument must be correct and the other flawed. Any reasonable person in search of truth will yield to it. The issue of irreconcilable positions arises when OPINIONS are debated or the above statement is not followed. This is why it is almost impossible to "win" religion based debates. The first things that are suspended in religion are facts, logic and reason.

[Beancooker]

So, it is best not to discuss religion here, IMHO.

Never wanted to discuss religion. I was just using it as a metaphore.

To my surprise, I guess a few ( a very select few) are learning from each other. That's awesome. If you read and don't really get involved (like me) it seems like one gigantic bytch fest in here.

Glad to see there is some good coming from this forum.

Obama is about to speak. He has my undivided attention.

Try using Novacaine, it relaxes the uvula. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.

[smockers83]

Yeah, pretty much beanor. I realized this a month or two ago. No matter how much we try and debate, especially this year, we aren't going to really change anyone's minds or who they side with and vote for. I don't think anyone here will help me make a decision on who to vote for, still undecided. The more prominent ideas followed here are either far left, far right, or just unfounded. Can't wait for the debates, I'm excited to see those.

Watched Obama's speech tonight. It was very good, very impressed. There were only two points that I had to play devil's advocate with him. One was he said he would back the troops and give them whatever they needed in time of war, yet he voted against that I believe. And he called upon McCain to not make decisions for political reasons, which Obama could be said to have done already just on energy.

[szh]

Never wanted to discuss religion. I was just using it as a metaphore.

Oh, I understood you! I just wanted to say that the analogy is not quite on point, since heated discussions on religion can feel/become very personal to an individual, but the heated discussions on politics don't (or certainly should not)!

And, it is possible to change/affect/influence viewpoints on politics, but not anywhere as easily on religion - that is too core a belief for each of us.

Z

[ishkabibble]

Faith is not something you can rationalize away. That's why most religious discussions don't go anywhere.

It's also why some political discussions don't go anywhere. Many of the people follow the Republicans simply because they are the "Christian" party.

[rn79870]

You know Smocky, if nothing else - people who read/post here are more involved and get a short synopsis of what the entire world is doing/saying with respect to the political situation.

I've tried to delete all insults and disparaging comments leveled towards posters, but take a close look at the people who are doing that and you'll see my problem. Even considering that this place isn't perfect, people still enjoy spending time here and getting their blood pressure raised.

Things will be different after we have a new POTUS. Then I suppose we'll go back to environmental and social issues instead of the election.

[HashiriyaS14]

And, it is possible to change/affect/influence viewpoints on politics, but not anywhere as easily on religion - that is too core a belief for each of us.

Z

I agree with this.

I think that ultimately, for MOST people, politics are innately the product of pragmatic and rational thought and thus viewpoints can be changed and examined intelligently.

The problem comes when people are debating the politics OF religion, which has become more common since the Moral Majority took over the GOP. It was actually a very bright move on the behalf of the right, as it instilled a religious-level conviction where it might not otherwise have existed (and where it should not exist).

[Beancooker]

Things will be different after we have a new POTUS. Then I suppose we'll go back to environmental and social issues instead of the election.

You'll still have all the smaller politics to debate. There will be people who will be pointing out everything that the new prez is doing wrong/right.

Remember, in 2 years, there will be elections for governors (some states) and there will always be the issues of welfare, healthcare, etc.

I've tried to delete all insults and disparaging comments leveled towards posters, but take a close look at the people who are doing that and you'll see my problem.

Is that the nice way of saying "The damn admins are insulting"?

[rn79870]

I never said "damn."

[szh]

since the Moral Majority took over the GOP.

It was a reaction to the Socialist Left, or should I say Communist Left, taking over the Democratic party.

...

Sorry, Chris, yours is too extreme a statement. Just like mine. Which was said deliberately to show you why I consider your statement - and mine - to be inaccurate and inciting.

Let's all be less sweeping with our generalizations.

Z

[srellim234]

Excellent pointson learning from everyone who can present it rationally.

I flashed back to my teenage years when our whole family was filled with Goldwater Republicans. We had a pair of customers (husband and wife) at my dad's pharmacy who were registered Communist Party members.

We used to have wonderfully challenging discussions about politics, obviously not changing our viewpoints drastically, but it forced us to research and THINK. For those people, not only we provided great customer service as a pharmacy, they often made it clear that they would not go to any other pharmacy because we were providing such great and challenging discussions.

Many times around the dinner table we would talk about that couple, and Dad always made it clear that it was people like that that we needed in our lives to constantly challenge our stances and force us to keep seeking additional knowledge. That we needed to be open to change our stances based on the new information, too.

The more rational people on this forum provide that challenge. The less rational practice "cut & paste" mindless drivel.

[smockers83]

You know Smocky, if nothing else - people who read/post here are more involved and get a short synopsis of what the entire world is doing/saying with respect to the political situation.

I've tried to delete all insults and disparaging comments leveled towards posters, but take a close look at the people who are doing that and you'll see my problem. Even considering that this place isn't perfect, people still enjoy spending time here and getting their blood pressure raised.

Things will be different after we have a new POTUS. Then I suppose we'll go back to environmental and social issues instead of the election.

Don't get me wrong, I love this forum and I love debating with you guys and premeditating a heart condition when I turn 40. I was just saying that probably 98% of us that post regularly here have already made up their minds for this year and there is no changing it. Specific, minute viewpoints may change, but in the grand scheme of things, it won't change too much.

[Jimefam]

The problem comes when people are debating the politics OF religion, which has become more common since the Moral Majority took over the GOP. It was actually a very bright move on the behalf of the right, as it instilled a religious-level conviction where it might not otherwise have existed (and where it should not exist).

I couldn't agree more. It is a move that works because although the "fanatics" represent the minority of that party they make their presence felt by voting 95% of the time. In presidential elections alittle less than half of the eligible population votes i believe. So having a large sect that votes 100% of the time gives them undo leverage. This is why every four years red states put gay marriage and other hot button issues to voters. Those issues make the religious right come out in droves and they vote for politicians while there at it. Its a great hustle just cant believe they haven't caught on yet.

It was a reaction to the Socialist Left, or should I say Communist Left, taking over the Democratic party.

Z

The old republican party WAS the counter to the communist left. They stood for the individual over the state, Small goverment with little bureaucracy and personal reliance over state run "social safety nets". These new republicans have created a much larger government with more bureaucracy than ever and our individual freedoms have been eroded(F*****g Patriot act).

[Beancooker]

Oh, I understood you! I just wanted to say that the analogy is not quite on point, since heated discussions on religion can feel/become very personal to an individual, but the heated discussions on politics don't (or certainly should not)!

And, it is possible to change/affect/influence viewpoints on politics, but not anywhere as easily on religion - that is too core a belief for each of us.

Z

Z, you're one of the minority, that is a true believer of their religion, and have complete faith in it. So swaying your political belief would be easier than your religious belief.

However, the majority of youth today, are 6 day sinners, and repent on Sunday, just to start the vicious circle again on Monday. Lust is confused with love... Enough on that...

My point is, that although I think that faith in religion is on the decline, political faith is nearly as strong, and to many, stronger. Look at how fired up some people get about using test pipes on your car. Not just the "enviromental impact", but "oh noes, it's against the law"...

Then you have guys like me, who don't really care who is president. Both choices are terrible. They are both professional politicians. Professional politicians are equal to that of "ambulance chasing attorneys" and used car salesmen. They are all liars.

I don't think that there will be a really great president, until a few things change.

First, do away with electoral votes. Let the majority rule by the true numbers. Electoral votes worked well, when communication was not what it is today. Now I feel it's a sham.

Second, and most important I believe. Cap the amount of money allowed to be spent on a campaign. If each person was capped at no more than say $3 million, it would let a lot of people who are not professional politicians run for POTUS. There are people who have been really sucessful at running large corporations. They are unknown in the political world, but *could* make a great POTUS. They won't ever waste the time or money trying, since they are unknown.

So guys like me, you won't be able to sway my vote one way or another. I won't vote for the POTUS, but will vote on some of the smaller issues.

I have more to say, but breaktime is over....

[C-Kwik]

Don't expect someone to agree. Especially not right off. Sometimes it needs to sink in. Think of it like when your parents tell you something that you don't believe is true. Then years later, it dawns on you how right they were about it. Just think of it like planting a seed. Sometimes, you just need to wait.

[rn79870]

Sorry, Bob, yours is too extreme a statement. Just like mine. Which was said deliberately to show you why I consider your statement - and mine - to be inaccurate and inciting.

Let's all be less sweeping with our generalizations.

Z

I wish I knew which two comments you were referring to Z.

[szh]

I wish I knew which two comments you were referring to Z.

Oh, sorry, I meant "Chris", not "Bob". I will edit it and fix.

I was referring to his Moral Majority comment and my Communist Left comment.

Z

[rn79870]

My point is, that although I think that faith in religion is on the decline, political faith is nearly as strong, and to many, stronger. Look at how fired up some people get about using test pipes on your car. Not just the "enviromental impact", but "oh noes, it's against the law"...

....

Seriously Beanor, allowing people to pick and choose which laws they like and therefore will obey is a little far fetched. You can't be serious about that.

[C-Kwik]

I think his point had to do much more with one critisizing someone who breaks a law based the law itself ratehr than the intent ogf the law. I.E. would you argue that its wrong to kill someone because its against the law or because it is taking away someone's right to live?

[Soravia]

I learned how Pony the Liberals' argument on ANWR is. I was thinking of the bears and the deers and the fisheries.

There's NOTHING like that in the proposed area. Nothing but rock and ice.

[rn79870]

I think his point had to do much more with one critisizing someone who breaks a law based the law itself ratehr than the intent ogf the law. I.E. would you argue that its wrong to kill someone because its against the law or because it is taking away someone's right to live?

It's a multifaceted issue and answering that is really a matter of addressing both the moral issue and the legal issue. They really aren't divisible as such. In his example there is both a moral (your responsibility to the environment) and the legal (the consequences of the wrongdoing). So the answer to his question is really "both." IE, you screw up the environment and you (may) get a hefty fine.

[C-Kwik]

It's a multifaceted issue and answering that is really a matter of addressing both the moral issue and the legal issue. They really aren't divisible as such. In his example there is both a moral (your responsibility to the environment) and the legal (the consequences of the wrongdoing). So the answer to his question is really "both." IE, you screw up the environment and you (may) get a hefty fine.

I wouldn't call it multi-faceted. They are tied together, but the underlying reason for the law to exist is BECAUSE of the environmental impact. His point as I interpret it is that there are those who will be critical of someone as a matter of law and not the intent of the law. The former being of no relevance without the latter. Its a kind of cart before the horse issue...

[OriginalWheelman]

I've learned that New Jerseyans are very similar to New Yorkers (center of the universe, anyone?).

Is that directed at me?