political solutions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

philosophy -> political solutions (6/30/2007 12:37:14 PM)

.....it seems to me that most of the time when people disagree about politics on these fora, those disagreements come from the same place. For example i have cordially disagreed with Merc regarding universal health care, yet i feel confident we both actually want the same thing...for health care to be available to those who need it.
Do people have any theories about how when people start from the same position they can end up at diametrically opposed solutions?
i have a (not wholly worked through) hypothesis about this, but would value others thoughts on this........



NorthernGent -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 12:49:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.....it seems to me that most of the time when people disagree about politics on these fora, those disagreements come from the same place. For example i have cordially disagreed with Merc regarding universal health care, yet i feel confident we both actually want the same thing...for health care to be available to those who need it.
Do people have any theories about how when people start from the same position they can end up at diametrically opposed solutions?
i have a (not wholly worked through) hypothesis about this, but would value others thoughts on this........


At the root of much of the disagreement in the more serious threads is opposing views on human traits and behaviour.

The right tend to see humans as adversaries, the left tend to see humans as companions. The right are more suspicious, the left more trusting. These opposing points of view lead the right towards individualism and the left towards social cohesion.

Using your example:

The right: "if you can't afford health care, then tough shit, you should have worked harder".

The left: "there are external factors which influence peoples' lives, and working hard is only one part of the story".



charmdpetKeira -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 12:52:18 PM)

quote:

Do people have any theories about how when people start from the same position they can end up at diametrically opposed solutions?


I believe the problem starts, when one or both parties let, or fail to see, personal emotions influence their views of what is, and what should be done about it.
 
Sincerely,
 
k



uwinceismile -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 12:56:35 PM)

hey philo,
i congratulate you. you are one of the very few ive seen here who can actually :cordially: disagree .
i wish more here were capable . so much of what is disagreed upon is opinion, and not fact. and the ability to allow someone else to have an opinion, with out being sarcastic or condescending is the mark of intelligence. and you my friend possess that.
folks on the right and left, are usually not that far apart, but they let emotion get way to involved with thier argument. instead of having a good debate .... i would like to see more folks give thier thoughts, and not try to prove thier case with a lot of websites links etc.
dont tell me u are right because abc websight has the facts here.... tell me why you feel the issue doesnt set right with you as a person.
lets talk about that for a change. we can all find websites here on both sides to support our way of thinking, i dont care if you are a great researcher,,,tell me what you think...what you feel :)



Level -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:04:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uwinceismile

hey philo,
i congratulate you. you are one of the very few ive seen here who can actually :cordially: disagree .
i wish more here were capable . so much of what is disagreed upon is opinion, and not fact. and the ability to allow someone else to have an opinion, with out being sarcastic or condescending is the mark of intelligence. and you my friend possess that.


Agreed.
 
Excellent thread, phil. Hmmm....



Level -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:13:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The right: "if you can't afford health care, then tough shit, you should have worked harder".

The left: "there are external factors which influence peoples' lives, and working hard is only one part of the story".


NG, that's too easy an explanation, and only very partially correct.
 
Some, from both "sides", do indeed feel that way. But you can just as easily say:
 
The right: I believe a substantial amount of people take advantage of the social system that I, and others, work very hard to support with our taxes. Let's weed out the slackers. If we don't, the system is going to collapse under its own weight.
 
The left: Anyone against universal health-care is hateful, and greedy, no matter why they think they way they do. They don't deserve anything more than anyone else, no matter how hard they've worked, or what they've contributed to society.
 
Again, some think in those ways, but not all.



philosophy -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:19:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


At the root of much of the disagreement in the more serious threads is opposing views on human traits and behaviour.

The right tend to see humans as adversaries, the left tend to see humans as companions. The right are more suspicious, the left more trusting. These opposing points of view lead the right towards individualism and the left towards social cohesion.



......i can see what you're getting at here NG, but i have to admit that Level in his rebuttal also has a point. For example if you want pure unadulterated paranoia it's hard to beat a diehard group of Marxists.



NorthernGent -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:19:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

The right: I believe a substantial amount of people take advantage of the social system that I, and others, work very hard to support with our taxes. Let's weed out the slackers. If we don't, the system is going to collapse under its own weight.
 


Isn't this confirming my point, Level? i.e. the view from the right that those on social security are slackers and taking advantage of "hard working" people? and the solution is to "weed them out" rather than attempt to drill down into their situation to see if there is a pattern and external influences at play?

As said: the right more suspicious, the left more trusting. These basic characteristics go a long way in shaping politicial standpoint.



philosophy -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:22:52 PM)

Uwinceismile and Keira both point to emotion as a clouding effect, getting in the way of clear sightedness. i have to admit i'm not so sure of this. While i can see how too much emotion can be unhelpful when analysing politics (on either side of the left/right wing divide), isn't there a blance that must be drawn. Surely when it comes to human interactions then emotion, as that most human of affects, has a role to play......



NorthernGent -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:25:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


At the root of much of the disagreement in the more serious threads is opposing views on human traits and behaviour.

The right tend to see humans as adversaries, the left tend to see humans as companions. The right are more suspicious, the left more trusting. These opposing points of view lead the right towards individualism and the left towards social cohesion.



......i can see what you're getting at here NG, but i have to admit that Level in his rebuttal also has a point. For example if you want pure unadulterated paranoia it's hard to beat a diehard group of Marxists.



I'm not quite seeing what you're seeing, Philosophy.

The end goal of Marxism is no government and people living in social harmony. That doesn't sound paranoid to me.

Yeah, they're anti-establishment, but then so are many Americans on this board and approximately zero of these posters are Marxists.



philosophy -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:29:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


I'm not quite seeing what you're seeing, Philosophy.

The end goal of Marxism is no government and people living in social harmony. That doesn't sound paranoid to me.

Yeah, they're anti-establishment, but then so are many Americans on this board and approximately zero of these posters are Marxists.


...i'm going on my own experience here NG....it may make people smile that, as a teenager, i was chucked out of a young socialist group for laughing [:D]. i remember going on CND marches back in the 70's and being far more scared of the scowling Spartacus mob than the skinheads chucking the odd rock. The latter group did so impersonally, the Spartacus group took everything personally.
i agree that the stated aim was far from paranoid, but in practise they seemed to become eaten up by fear of disagreement.



Level -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:33:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

The right: I believe a substantial amount of people take advantage of the social system that I, and others, work very hard to support with our taxes. Let's weed out the slackers. If we don't, the system is going to collapse under its own weight.
 


Isn't this confirming my point, Level? i.e. the view from the right that those on social security are slackers and taking advantage of "hard working" people? and the solution is to "weed them out" rather than attempt to drill down into their situation to see if there is a pattern and external influences at play?

As said: the right more suspicious, the left more trusting. These basic characteristics go a long way in shaping politicial standpoint.


I would say no, it doesn't confirm it, because there are those that are slackers, and users, so the suspicion isn't entirely invalid.
 
As for the left being more trusting, that trust seems to dry up when it comes to those that disagree with them [:D]



charmdpetKeira -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:36:05 PM)

Depends, do you consider compassion and emotion to be the same thing?
 
Also the type of emotional interference I was referring to, is the type that often puts the person in a position of looking out for #1. Claiming to share the road and then taking one’s half out of the middle.
 
Sincerely,
 
k



uwinceismile -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:43:25 PM)

well  said charmd :)
i have no issue with emotion...
but ill give u an example. the topic of  abortion.
very heated, very emotional topic.
nothing ever gets done when folks "debate" it.well,,aside from blood pressures rising on both sides ;)



NorthernGent -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:45:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I would say no, it doesn't confirm it, because there are those that are slackers, and users, so the suspicion isn't entirely invalid.
 


There will always be a section of a group who abuse a situation.

The question is: is this section the minority or the majority? The left say the minority partly because of trust, but also because of a willingness to look beyond face value rather than engage in reactionary politics.

It all depends on whether or not this suspicion that "isn't entirely invalid" is then used to arrive at a generalisation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

As for the left being more trusting, that trust seems to dry up when it comes to those that disagree with them [:D]



Not quite sure where you're coming from, here. Any examples?



NorthernGent -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:46:59 PM)

c



philosophy -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:47:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

Depends, do you consider compassion and emotion to be the same thing?
 
Also the type of emotional interference I was referring to, is the type that often puts the person in a position of looking out for #1. Claiming to share the road and then taking one’s half out of the middle.
 


...interesting point about compassion and emotion. i suppose i see compassion as an emotional response to other peoples needs.

As to what you call emotional interference, i think i'd define that as basic dishonesty. However some of those who claim to share the road take their half from the edge, and that goes equally for both left and right wingers in my experience.



philosophy -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:49:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uwinceismile

well  said charmd :)
i have no issue with emotion...
but ill give u an example. the topic of  abortion.
very heated, very emotional topic.
nothing ever gets done when folks "debate" it.well,,aside from blood pressures rising on both sides ;)


.......arguably this is one of those subjects where no clear consensus can ever be reached. However, why do you think people become so polarised on the issue? Where do those emotions come from?



NorthernGent -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:53:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


I'm not quite seeing what you're seeing, Philosophy.

The end goal of Marxism is no government and people living in social harmony. That doesn't sound paranoid to me.

Yeah, they're anti-establishment, but then so are many Americans on this board and approximately zero of these posters are Marxists.


...i'm going on my own experience here NG....it may make people smile that, as a teenager, i was chucked out of a young socialist group for laughing [:D]. i remember going on CND marches back in the 70's and being far more scared of the scowling Spartacus mob than the skinheads chucking the odd rock. The latter group did so impersonally, the Spartacus group took everything personally.
i agree that the stated aim was far from paranoid, but in practise they seemed to become eaten up by fear of disagreement.



'Can't dispute your personal experiences. I've never been politically active in the circles you mention. Surely, though, this spartacus group were a tiny minority of those on the left?




Level -> RE: political solutions (6/30/2007 1:54:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

As for the left being more trusting, that trust seems to dry up when it comes to those that disagree with them [:D]


Not quite sure where you're coming from, here. Any examples?



Well, I don't have a specific one off the top of my head, but when a Republican supports something, let's say, moderate, or even something generally considered a "left" issue (like the environment), I've seen some from the left still speak with disdain for that person. He/she is still a "right-wing asshole" or something like that. They think there is an ulterior motive.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.15625