CDZ Have we literally lost the ability to solve our own problems?

[eddiew37]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

 

[eddiew37]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

the man has told more lies played more golf in one year than obama and gwb did in 16

 

[Mac1958]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

You can have honest discourse with almost anyone with some sincere effort.

Right wingers. Left wingers. They're very similar in their behaviors. It just takes patience, and maybe a little luck.
.

 

[DOTR]

Thanks. Well, this actually goes to a similar conversation I'm having right now in another thread. Political/partisan ideology, in my opinion, literally distorts both perceptions and thought processes. So the two sides can absorb the same information and derive absolutely opposite input, process it differently, and arrive at conclusions that are literally 180° apart. So each side is being absolutely serious and honest with their conclusion.

Is that what you mean?
.

Ill try to rephrase it one more time.

There are two sides
They argue
The argument is a result..not a cause...of there being two sides.

And so it is entirely possible, even probable, that one side is right and one wrong. You dont find truth by meeting in the middle. It is really a request for surrender.
However it may be politically expedient to meet in the middle. Entirely different thing.
And not recognizing that difference is one of the many reasons America is ungovernable.

 

[Circe]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

This is the category of disagreement in which you just cannot BELIEVE someone could think differently from your own holy ideation. And you become outraged that they don't accept what you tell them.

I would suggest an honest discourse would be giving all that up and just accepting that they do believe it and moving on politely to another topic. The problem lies in your trying to argue them out of their opinion.

 

[Mac1958]

Thanks. Well, this actually goes to a similar conversation I'm having right now in another thread. Political/partisan ideology, in my opinion, literally distorts both perceptions and thought processes. So the two sides can absorb the same information and derive absolutely opposite input, process it differently, and arrive at conclusions that are literally 180° apart. So each side is being absolutely serious and honest with their conclusion.

Is that what you mean?
.

Ill try to rephrase it one more time.

There are two sides
They argue
The argument is a result..not a cause...of there being two sides.

And so it is entirely possible, even probable, that one side is right and one wrong. You dont find truth by meeting in the middle. It is really a request for surrender.
However it may be politically expedient to meet in the middle. Entirely different thing.
And not recognizing that difference is one of the many reasons America is ungovernable.

That depends on the situation. Who is to decide who is "right" and who is "wrong", unless one side admits it and capitulates?

Sometimes side A will be right. Sometimes side B will be right. But when the two sides are at a stalemate, it's the responsibility of both of them to act like adults, check their egos, look for common ground, and find a way to build on it.

Sometimes you'll be happier with the outcome, sometimes I will be. We get over it, and we move on. But looking at problem-solving as a binary, zero-sum, all-or-nothing endeavor is simply not rational. As I mentioned before, thank goodness those who created the Constitution didn't look at things that way.
.

 

[DOTR]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

This is the category of disagreement in which you just cannot BELIEVE someone could think differently from your own holy ideation. And you become outraged that they don't accept what you tell them.

I would suggest an honest discourse would be giving all that up and just accepting that they do believe it and moving on politely to another topic. The problem lies in your trying to argue them out of their opinion.

Liberals suffer from both mental and moral weaknesses and so you will never change their minds. Beating them into the ground is the only solution. In the end it doesn't matter that some believe differently. It only matters that they be kept from power and starved of handouts.
Arguing with a Marxist is senseless except to the small extent that you show fellow men of good will that there is an alternative.

 

[eddiew37]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

This is the category of disagreement in which you just cannot BELIEVE someone could think differently from your own holy ideation. And you become outraged that they don't accept what you tell them.

I would suggest an honest discourse would be giving all that up and just accepting that they do believe it and moving on politely to another topic. The problem lies in your trying to argue them out of their opinion.

circe yes must agree If I see black and another white I guess it's time to move on

 

[eddiew37]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

This is the category of disagreement in which you just cannot BELIEVE someone could think differently from your own holy ideation. And you become outraged that they don't accept what you tell them.

I would suggest an honest discourse would be giving all that up and just accepting that they do believe it and moving on politely to another topic. The problem lies in your trying to argue them out of their opinion.

Liberals suffer from both mental and moral weaknesses and so you will never change their minds. Beating them into the ground is the only solution. In the end it doesn't matter that some believe differently. It only matters that they be kept from power and starved of handouts.
Arguing with a Marxist is senseless except to the small extent that you show fellow men of good will that there is an alternative.

yes dotr you continue to believe all trump lies It's senseless arguing with craziness

 

[dblack]

Liberals suffer from both mental and moral weaknesses and so you will never change their minds.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that a willingness to change is a sign of mental and moral strength?

 

[eddiew37]

how do you have an honest discourse with those who believe trump when he says his wanting to fire muelleur is false news?

This is the category of disagreement in which you just cannot BELIEVE someone could think differently from your own holy ideation. And you become outraged that they don't accept what you tell them.

I would suggest an honest discourse would be giving all that up and just accepting that they do believe it and moving on politely to another topic. The problem lies in your trying to argue them out of their opinion.

Liberals suffer from both mental and moral weaknesses and so you will never change their minds. Beating them into the ground is the only solution. In the end it doesn't matter that some believe differently. It only matters that they be kept from power and starved of handouts.
Arguing with a Marxist is senseless except to the small extent that you show fellow men of good will that there is an alternative.

maybe you should start your own party dotr call it white is right

 

[eddiew37]

Liberals suffer from both mental and moral weaknesses and so you will never change their minds.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that a willingness to change is a sign of mental and moral strength?

dblack I was a republican all my life even voted for gwb in 2000 Then I changed I think I did the right thing ,showed strength

 

[oldsoul]

I think the best, most long-lasting answers come from all sides. Kind of like our Constitution.

The whole point of the Constitution is to avoid situations like this. The founders knew that unlimited democracy inevitably devolves into mob rule. So they set down rules to ensure that the rights of the minority weren't subject to a vote. These rules made it possible to peacefully accept the election of a person or faction you oppose; the new leadership might appoint a postmaster you don't like, but they won't have the power to radically impact your life.

That's what's changed. We have government making way too many decisions in society. It can't be ignored. And that's the problem. I'll posit that in a healthy society, most people aren't interested in government, especially national government. They want to know someone trustworthy is in charge, but otherwise, (under proper constitutional limits) the national government has so little ability to impact on their lives, they really don't care.

Wow, wouldn't that be nice. Alas, it is but a pipe dream. It will never happen, there is too much power, money and corruption. I would take a national government you have to look for though, somewhere between "I see it everywhere", and "what Federal Government?" Somewhere around, "If you want to see the government, you have to go over there, where most people do not go." The state governments should be on the way to "over there" as well. I should have to look to find them as too. Local, well that is my neighbor, the guy (or gal) down the street whose kid baby sits for me. Who's lawn I used to mow in high school. That way, they have to live with the same laws and regulations I do. Makes it a lot harder to exempt yourself, when you live and work side by side with those you wish to lead.

 

[oldsoul]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

Did you even THINK about that statement before posting it? The government, in an effort to make the populace more self sufficient, should become even MORE involved in our lives? I can only assume you didn't think about it that way, otherwise you really are that short sighted.

How about this:
I think the government should scale back and expect people to become more self sufficient. We don't need another government program, we need fewer. That is what will get people to become more self sufficient.

It's called irony.

Sorry, didn't come through. I see it now though, thanks.

 

[oldsoul]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

Did you even THINK about that statement before posting it? The government, in an effort to make the populace more self sufficient, should become even MORE involved in our lives? I can only assume you didn't think about it that way, otherwise you really are that short sighted.

How about this:
I think the government should scale back and expect people to become more self sufficient. We don't need another government program, we need fewer. That is what will get people to become more self sufficient.

Perhaps FNCCEO was being sarcastic.

I believe that he was, now, because of post #39.

 

[RandomPoster]

I believe that many of the behaviors which society has deemed rude and are often described as acts of incivility are based on standards of human behavior regarding discourse and the exchange of ideas that has served society well and is the foundation of civilization itself. In short, they are about a lot more than manners. I believe that through the ages, successful, technologically advanced civilizations have, through collective wisdom based on countless public human interactions over centuries, developed a rough pattern of rules and a code of conduct in regards to decorum deemed appropriate for public discourse. This roughly defined set of rules of civil debate serves to do much more than merely reduce agitation and hostility. It also provides the best overall structure and environment that successful societies have come up with, agreed upon, and cooperatively set in place to further the exchange of ideas necessary for the advancement of civilization. As children, we are taught to follow these rules of discourse as we mature from ill mannered, emotionally volatile, unrepentant little sociopathic brats as toddlers into well-mannered, calm, reasonable, mature, and productive adults.

The only solution is to turn every debate into a public speaking contest with a focus on sportsmanlike behavior with absolutely no displays of emotion allowed. Additionally, we need to lower our sensitivity in regards to what we consider offensive and raise our sensitivity in regards to what we consider rude and unsportsmanlike. People today are not worried about being considered rude. However, if we assume someone is stupid and dismiss everything they have to say because they have to resort to shouting someone down, it would actually deter the behavior. Let's say a chess player intercepts one of his opponent's rooks in the middle of his opponent's move. If we simply called him rude, he isn't disqualified and the move is allowed to stand, what possible motivation would he have to fight fair? We need to regain our disdain for and dismissiveness of cheap, childish argumentation tactics with a sneering "That's the only way he can win an argument."

As with anything in life, there has to be a downside to the behavior or there is no reason not to engage in it.

 

[RandomPoster]

We are so convinced that our side is right and the other side is evil that we fail to investigate a situation, understand both sides, and talk with someone who
.

How about the possibility that one side is actually right and the other evil?

“Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy, and the golden mean fallacy—is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.”

I agree with this. However, I see it as more of an issue of not presupposing the truth from the start. In the absence of any attitude, emotion, or aggression, the correct side will always be revealed in the end.

 

[sartre play]

Yes a willingness to change is a sign of having a mind open to learning some thing new. that's a good thing.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes a willingness to change is a sign of having a mind open to learning some thing new. that's a good thing.

Kinda said that even needs to be said, y'know?
.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

This isn't about government, it's about culture.
.

Government is an extension of culture. Maybe that's why we have so much gridlock in D.C.? I hope you also realize that these trends tend to preempt revolutions.