Aren't one's political beliefs the by-product of his or her philosophy of life, the nature of man, morality, etc? I can see someone shifting on a scale marginally as they go through life (more or less conservative/liberal, moderate conservative or liberal into libertarian, etc), I think all that relates to degrees of zeal, cynicism, and fervor most of the time. For a more drastic change to happen, I would think that the individual didn't really understand or believe their own philosophy in the first place, or they don't really understand or believe what they purport to believe now.

I'm not talking about this election or that election or tactics or things like that - I'm talking about the big picture items - dajafi and I have had numerous political discussions and more often than not, we'll come down to the point where he or I will say "ultimately I don't think people operate like that, and therefore...", ultimately nature of man kind of stuff. The "and therefore" is the politics part - I have trouble believing someone would change the first part substantially through life regardless of personal experience.

I'll use myself as an example. Over the past few years I've come to favor legalization of marijuana. I haven't changed my negative opinion of marijuana use, but I've come to believe that policing marijuana users is too great a burden on society, and I'd prefer the selling of pot to be moved from the streets to a balance sheet. I do see a great risk in the sale and trafficking of drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and the various chemical compounds, and I'd rather see law enforcement focus more on those matters than pot. I wouldn't take to the streets in protest one way or the other, because I still don't really approve of pot use and I certainly see it as a vice (like the other legal vices) that society would be better off without if that were possible, but because of my viewpoint on the nature of man, I don't see that nature of man changing - therefore we should find a better way to manage it. I don't think my core philosophy has changed, only the "and therefore".

It seems many of you despite a lot of thoughtful comment -- are missing the key thing that brought this query about ...

What exactly does anyone hope to accomplish in intense debate when before the discussion has begun, its pretty much a given, that not much will change in anyone's position?

There are requirements or even demands, that someone be persuasive, use as much fact and logic as possible, and yet, no amount of logic, fact and persuasiveness is going to move someone from there basic view of the world. And their affiliation. The way people talk about the other party is very close to the way a sports fan talks about the enemy team and their fans.

I find it interesting as well, that people form their views and alliances at such a young age with so much less experience and perhaps knowledge -- and then entrench for most of the rest of their life with a few exceptions that might change -- usually because they felt betrayed in some way. So if you were a stuanch Regan Republican and felt that the party moved way too far toward Palin, you might in disgust go rogue. Or if you were a staunch Clintonian, and learned of a bunch of stuff you MIGHT go farther to the left for a Green.

But a 30 year old man on BSG who has voted Republican since he was 18, and firmly believes that the Republican party has the right strategy to economics, smaller govt, limited regulation and taxes on big business -- whatever -- is unlikely no matter what happens in reality, and what facts are presented and who is making the case -- to go, "ya know what, after 12 years I've been wrong on a lot of stuff, I see things with new eyes, and these very smart articulate people in these threads I've been in for 7 years have finally brought me over to seeing the world differently".

It's still largely a brand affiliation and people are very brand loyal. Even if what they think the brand stands for, is not really what it is.

I think persuasive argument can get people to recognize their interests are better served by one set of policies rather than another. I also think argument can also persuade people that some things are, and other things are not properly matters of public policy.

For instance, I don't think anyone favors increased obesity. However, it remains an open question whether or not public policy should encourage healthier lifestyles. Twenty years ago, that was not really the case--obesity was an individual problem.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think persuasive argument can get people to recognize their interests are better served by one set of policies rather than another. I also think argument can also persuade people that some things are, and other things are not properly matters of public policy.

For instance, I don't think anyone favors increased obesity. However, it remains an open question whether or not public policy should encourage healthier lifestyles. Twenty years ago, that was not really the case--obesity was an individual problem.

But I haven't found too many people straying too far from the affiliation on any issue. yes, there are exceptions. Vox and the legalization of pot might be one sort of.

I guess that its curious to me that people spend so much time making their case knowing there is little chance of actually converting or changing anyone's fundamental views.

What intrigues me mostly, is why and how people believe what they believe at all.

It's simple, PTK. The debate is useful to understand where the person who disagrees with you is coming from. It's not always about changing someone's mind - I think that's when you get into folly. But understanding why someone who disagrees with me does is good, and I hope to do the same in reverse. At the very least, one can hope to get to a point where both parties can say "I understand, but I still disagree". Maybe, occasionally, every once in a while.... when you get to that point, you might make someone think about a situation differently and possibly even change their mind (or, at the very least, back off on vitriol).

If I say "I think abortion is wrong" and you say "I don't think it's wrong" and we stop there and never dig deeper, we're wasting one another's time. If I explain why I believe abortion is wrong you may gain insight into my way of thinking. It may reaffirm why you believe you are right, or even hone your argument for disagreement. Hell, you may even gain respect for my position, even though you don't hold the same view. Ditto in reverse.

VoxOrion wrote:It's simple, PTK. The debate is useful to understand where the person who disagrees with you is coming from. It's not always about changing someone's mind - I think that's when you get into folly. But understanding why someone who disagrees with me does is good, and I hope to do the same in reverse. At the very least, one can hope to get to a point where both parties can say "I understand, but I still disagree". Maybe, occasionally, every once in a while.... when you get to that point, you might make someone think about a situation differently and possibly even change their mind (or, at the very least, back off on vitriol).

If I say "I think abortion is wrong" and you say "I don't think it's wrong" and we stop there and never dig deeper, we're wasting one another's time. If I explain why I believe abortion is wrong you may gain insight into my way of thinking. It may reaffirm why you believe you are right, or even hone your argument for disagreement. Hell, you may even gain respect for my position, even though you don't hold the same view. Ditto in reverse.

Yes, makes sense I guess.

but the larger extrapolation is that how do we move forwards as mankind? if people are entrenched -- all the civility in the world and all the respectfully disagree isn't going to get us past really large fundamental differences.

Ultimately, you cannot resolve an issue like abortion with, "well, we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree" ?

Isn't that what leads to the "Crusades"?

No, it isn't. You're exaggerating by a large degree. Mankind has never been unified on everything and never will (there's my state of nature bit, backed up by history). Even snark and sarcasm have always been part of politics, ditto for individuals who are unrelenting on their positions. A milquetoast middle solution is a horrible outcome, if you ask me. That doesn't disqualify compromise - but I love that there are varied opinions and approaches out there for problem solving and governance and I wouldn't do a thing to make that go away in the name of avoiding the threat of some made-up crusade.

VoxOrion wrote:No, it isn't. You're exaggerating by a large degree. Mankind has never been unified on everything and never will (there's my state of nature bit, backed up by history). Even snark and sarcasm have always been part of politics, ditto for individuals who are unrelenting on their positions. A milquetoast middle solution is a horrible outcome, if you ask me. That doesn't disqualify compromise - but I love that there are varied opinions and approaches out there for problem solving and governance and I wouldn't do a thing to make that go away in the name of avoiding the threat of some made-up crusade.

Let me ask you this. If you'd rather not have milquetoast middle solutions ... then you are ok with large large groups of people having policies or laws that go against them. And in some cases, have the minority rule?

Take abortion. Not everyone agrees on when life begins. Not everyone agrees on what rights if any, and unborn fetus has. Not everyone agrees whether its the mother's choice. Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder.

If you can't have a compromise, then someone has to prevail? I come from the "don't tread on me school" but that's a slipper slope because that's great unless someone else's tread is going over your back.

My assertion, is that mankind has to make a leap forwards with a paradigm shift and if not get agreeance in details at a mass scale at least sort of gain some consensus on things that make sense for the planet and the species.

I'm concerned that people are so entrenched. And seemingly reasonable people oftentimes have views that I consider extreme. And I'm lost to understand how to get a dialog or communication going that might allow people to form new viewpoints or come to some kind of consensus. Entrenched positions by their very nature are closed and limited because they cannot consider the possibility of something else.

For me, a lot of political debate is bogus because of the mis-information, propoganda, deception, hypocrisy and corruption. So we debate things within a framework as though there is some credible norm and things are either within that norm for debate and discussion or too extreme. But I find that to be a constructed and false reality.

There is information I was exposed to this week, that I believe the reasonable voices of BSG would not consider that I think speaks to a profound reality that needs to come out in to the light. But with people so entrenched and pre-determined I don't know how to get information, raw data out in to the sunshine and I'm not sure if it matters because people all have a reality and can dismiss anything that doesn't fit their notion of what could be real and is within reasonability.

There is some theoretical place where all people whatever their political view points would sort of assert, "well, that's just crazy" or "that isn't fair", but it's very hard to get that kind of broad consensus out of the very abstract because once you get in to a hot bed issue -- those "reasonabilities" don't matter anymore. People seem to ignore and filter as they need to and see fit to fit their ideas of reality. Facts don't matter in a way. What matters are people's belief systems.

Anyway ... I digress ....

Philly the Kid wrote:Take abortion. Not everyone agrees on when life begins. Not everyone agrees on what rights if any, and unborn fetus has. Not everyone agrees whether its the mother's choice. Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder.

Whats the compromise? Do women who call the coin flip right get to kill the baby? Ones for whom tails fails have to carry it to term?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Take abortion. Not everyone agrees on when life begins. Not everyone agrees on what rights if any, and unborn fetus has. Not everyone agrees whether its the mother's choice. Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder.

Whats the compromise? Do women who call the coin flip right get to kill the baby? Ones for whom tails fails have to carry it to term?

I'm not advocating a compromise. I'm just saying how do we step back from an entrenched position and talk about how we handle big issues where there is massive disagreement? Let's say in a country of 300million whatever percentage is adult -- that there is a 65-35 pro choice view. But that the Supreme Court stacked with Reagan Bush appointees over-turn Roe v Wade and the 35% gets their way. Too bad. Tough luck.

The 35% can't think that the 65% are going to just suck it up and say, "oh well, themz the breaks" or not see how the Supreme Court was rigged to gain that result.

Let's say its 50-50 on the issue. (not getting in to the minutiae that the issue has many layers too it and what people think is based on how the question is framed and their own personal experiences versus abstract beliefs)

Too bad for the half of people that lose?

If 50% that say I'm pro choice, don't tread on me -- will the other 50% say, we'll follow our beliefs, you follow yours? No. That's not how this works. As long as one person is trying to control another person ... so the goal it would seem -- is to find a way to handle complex issues at a higher level. I wouldn't start with abortion. Or issues tied to religion.

But pull back and talk about survival of the species and care for the planet. Start there. Look for a way to discuss things without bringing everyone's entrenched views. Try to find some higher level place where we can get mostly consensus across battle-lines and try to figure out policies and systems of organization that will support that consensus. And then hope, from there, to find new ways of discussing issues that its evolvling and productive and not just a fight between factions that are entrenched and unwilling to ever think another way. Consider another viewpoint.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Take abortion. Not everyone agrees on when life begins. Not everyone agrees on what rights if any, and unborn fetus has. Not everyone agrees whether its the mother's choice. Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder.

Whats the compromise? Do women who call the coin flip right get to kill the baby? Ones for whom tails fails have to carry it to term?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yer drunk

EDIT: for a guy who appears to read lots of high quality novels, you seem to miss the point of them a lot

VoxOrion wrote:It's simple, PTK. The debate is useful to understand where the person who disagrees with you is coming from. It's not always about changing someone's mind - I think that's when you get into folly. But understanding why someone who disagrees with me does is good, and I hope to do the same in reverse. At the very least, one can hope to get to a point where both parties can say "I understand, but I still disagree". Maybe, occasionally, every once in a while.... when you get to that point, you might make someone think about a situation differently and possibly even change their mind (or, at the very least, back off on vitriol).

If I say "I think abortion is wrong" and you say "I don't think it's wrong" and we stop there and never dig deeper, we're wasting one another's time. If I explain why I believe abortion is wrong you may gain insight into my way of thinking. It may reaffirm why you believe you are right, or even hone your argument for disagreement. Hell, you may even gain respect for my position, even though you don't hold the same view. Ditto in reverse.

I love it when the most reasonable people are in charge of a forum for discussion

I mean thsi. You have it just right here.

I'm just saying milquetoast solutions are dumb in a lot of issues, abortion among the dumbest. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue and all that.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm just saying milquetoast solutions are dumb in a lot of issues, abortion among the dumbest. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue and all that.

Damn, Hoya, I'm really not ready to picture you as Karl Hess

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Take abortion. Not everyone agrees on when life begins. Not everyone agrees on what rights if any, and unborn fetus has. Not everyone agrees whether its the mother's choice. Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder.

Whats the compromise? Do women who call the coin flip right get to kill the baby? Ones for whom tails fails have to carry it to term?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yer drunk

EDIT: for a guy who appears to read lots of high quality novels, you seem to miss the point of them a lot

Is this thread being compared to a high quality novel? I'm missing the point.

jerseyhoya wrote:Is this thread being compared to a high quality novel? I'm missing the point.

no, you're not

the point is that each of us live our lives independent of all the political bull shit; that when you get down to a level that's truly meaningful, each of us filters our experience in our own way; that all the parsing doesn't add up to doodly squat.

your reply to the Kid is just the politics talking. Imagine if you could let yourself say what you - YOU - really felt about the matter, rather than some weak echo of a political slogan

Obviously I can't say I understand from whence you come to the issue; but as someone who's had, let's just say, a personal connection to the issues involved, I can tell you you can't fit your REAL feelings into 2 or 3 fucking sentences

Abortion as a political issue ranks somewhere around US-Namibian relations with me with regard to my level of caring. I really, really don't care whether a politician is pro choice or pro life.

It's just a tough thing to compromise on. There's no good way to handle disagreement, because you're either murdering babies or trampling on women's rights. There's no in between and pretending there is if we just take a step back and consider the issue a little more carefully is fucking stupid.

Philly the Kid wrote:But that the Supreme Court stacked with Reagan Bush appointees over-turn Roe v Wade

Won't happen. A case would have to make it to the SC first.

I hate to say this, but those that think abortion may someday be outlawed and align themselves politically therein (either side) are kind of deluding themselves. Even if the WH, both houses, and SC were overwhelmingly pro-life, it ain't going to change. For one, it serves as a "quick definer" issue for candidates/politicos. It also serves as a means to sway election votes and to distract from other campaign time issues. It's a political tool that both sides use and embrace. There's no incentive to change.

Philly the Kid wrote:Let me ask you this. If you'd rather not have milquetoast middle solutions ... then you are ok with large large groups of people having policies or laws that go against them. And in some cases, have the minority rule?

Yes, depending on the circumstances. For a number of things - possibly even most things (if you consider the grand scope of society), majority rule is the best option available. But we have core protections in certain circumstances that prevent this because majority rule isn't the highest rule in the land - the constitution is, and the constitution protects individual rights. Now, protecting the 10% of Catholics versus the 90% of protestants (or whatever the imbalance was at the time of the revolution) could be viewed as minority rule, but that's a matter of perspective and usually based on a faulty premise to begin with.

Philly the Kid wrote:Take abortion. Not everyone agrees on when life begins. Not everyone agrees on what rights if any, and unborn fetus has. Not everyone agrees whether its the mother's choice. Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder.

If you can't have a compromise, then someone has to prevail? I come from the "don't tread on me school" but that's a slipper slope because that's great unless someone else's tread is going over your back.

Yes. This is perfectly normal and by design. That's why we have election cycles. His or her political-perspective won (by majority) and tried all their dopey ideas and people get to judge them on their effectiveness/will of the people and decide whether or not to let that political-perspective continue to guide the show. Abortion is one of ten or eleven hot buttons that are "sort of" exceptions that make things complicated, but the rule still applies. States are still free to make a number of laws restricting abortion even within the "framework" set out by RvW. But even here, many believe the Supreme Court used faulty reasoning when it decided RvW - which is why there is a process to send it back again (though not in the identical original form). The Supreme Court is made of "men" and "men" are imperfect and our system allows for them to make a mistake and correct it. Again, by design recognizing the possibility. Most of the time it becomes unreasonable to expect change but channels exist. Gun rights are probably a better illustration of this point.

My assertion, is that mankind has to make a leap forwards with a paradigm shift and if not get agreeance in details at a mass scale at least sort of gain some consensus on things that make sense for the planet and the species.

This is a completely false dilemma. The idea that consensus is required for mankind to "leap forward" is (as Wiz would say), bullocks. Man has done nothing but leap forward despite its inability to have consensus on a mass scale. I do not believe the human animal is capable of what you pine for, it's against our DNA and very individuality. Unless you are talking forced compromise at the end of a bayonet dictated by Dear Leader. Yeah, that has worked for a time here and there... but I think that's be best you can hope for if you want to achieve your goal (and that isn't truly consensus).

I'm concerned that people are so entrenched. And seemingly reasonable people oftentimes have views that I consider extreme. And I'm lost to understand how to get a dialog or communication going that might allow people to form new viewpoints or come to some kind of consensus. Entrenched positions by their very nature are closed and limited because they cannot consider the possibility of something else.

I can't help but think that this is really a concern about people who have beliefs that you don't share, and you are at a loss for how to make them come to your side. They won't, just as you won't come to theirs. It's about many little compromises - whether agreed upon (we'll do this bit my way and that bit your way) or forced (our guys lost so they get to decide for a while and we'll get another chance to win next time). Yeah, a technocrat looks at this and says "but we'll never get my preferred grand scheme implemented like that because too many hands will be in the pot and no one will ever see that my grand idea is the right one!" Well, suck it, that doesn't happen.

For me, a lot of political debate is bogus because of the mis-information, propoganda, deception, hypocrisy and corruption. So we debate things within a framework as though there is some credible norm and things are either within that norm for debate and discussion or too extreme. But I find that to be a constructed and false reality.

And yet you argue from a standpoint as if there is a credible norm. I mean, I agree with you - my friends and I were laughing last night about a Facebook group called "Not all Muslims are Terrorists" - what a false nonsensical "dilemma" - it's a response to a a non-existent argument! But that's the way things are done in 2010. We call names - You're a racist! You're a communist! The solution is not to find a way to make everyone agree on most things (impossible) or to expect people to give up strongly held beliefs (also impossible). It's to stop acting like douche-bags.

There is some theoretical place where all people whatever their political view points would sort of assert, "well, that's just crazy" or "that isn't fair", but it's very hard to get that kind of broad consensus out of the very abstract because once you get in to a hot bed issue -- those "reasonabilities" don't matter anymore. People seem to ignore and filter as they need to and see fit to fit their ideas of reality. Facts don't matter in a way. What matters are people's belief systems.

That's because many things are just crazy or unfair. As far as we know now, fairness seems to be a greater motivator for people than their own well being. We have to conclude that that alone will prevent the consensus you seek. Facts aren't always facts, despite what you call them. Conclusions drawn on these "facts" are even worse.

jerseyhoya wrote:Abortion as a political issue ranks somewhere around US-Namibian relations with me with regard to my level of caring. I really, really don't care whether a politician is pro choice or pro life.

It's just a tough thing to compromise on. There's no good way to handle disagreement, because you're either murdering babies or trampling on women's rights. There's no in between and pretending there is if we just take a step back and consider the issue a little more carefully is $#@! stupid.

we agree - because belaboring it as an issue rightly resolved by people most of us are hesitant to entrust with decisions about whether or not to endorse a new hockey arena is also stupid.

Not everything is fucking politics