Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858

Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:34:09

In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11

I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children. Or that you do not endorse torturing small children. Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured. Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.

You're also allowed to present facts and allow others to draw conclusions (or to counter with facts they consider to have been missing from your post).

I can't find your post now, but didn't you say somewhere that if people looked at things without emotion, a consensus would be reached? Doesn't that imply a shared ranking of values? And a shared belief system about unprovables?

I can't share your opinion about consensus being inevitable, because while I think the majority of people value the same things, I think they may rank their values differently. And I also think different people have different world views, beliefs about human nature, etc.

I've often thought the major difference between conservatives and liberals isn't a difference in what they want. It's more a difference in belief systems about the strengths and weaknesses of man. I used to say that conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature, while liberals are optimists. But I think I was incorrect. I think they are optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature.

Now that would be an interesting experiment. Take people who are either self defined, or defined by external factors, as either conservative or liberal. And give them questionnaires that are neutral and not leading, but designed to assess their views on various human traits, strengths, and weaknesses, as they believe the human race as a whole exhibits.

Of course, I also believe that most productive dialog begins with an acknowledgement of shared values and goals.

For example, a discussion on the criminal justice system that begins "I know that we all want policies that enable us to live in harmony with a maximum of respect for the rights of others, and a minimum of violence in our society. And I know that we have differences in how we believe that ideal is best achieved. Now, my belief is that those goals are best met by..... And I'm very interested in how you think the goals are best met, so I'll let you describe those yourself. We can study the evidence, and the probably contradictory studies. And perhaps we can each contribute something that the other can endorse. If we put our minds together, perhaps we can come to a better system than the one we have now." would be better designed to reach consensus than one that starts in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live "Jane, you ignorant slut ...".

Sorry if that was uncivil Dr. Bob. I left the auto asterisking on and even spaced out the ... from the word.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:Dinah thread:621784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/622047.html