Maintaining Humanity During Disagreements

[ThreePointTakedown]

As the political season ramps up. It is important to remember those that may disagree with you are going through their own stuff that we might have a hard time understanding. Try to find empathy or sympathy for their journey.

Some may try to convince us that those, for whom we disagree, are doing so from a place of evil or villainy. If they stoop to refer to anyone as vermin or in any way other than a human being, they are trying to manipulate you and you should very carefully explore their motives for doing so. 

That which is proclaimed without evidence can be disregarded without evidence. 

If their idea is better they should have no problem proving it without name calling or the us e of any other rhetorical tactic. 

[mspart]

Says you!!   Nice post actually. 

mspart

[Bigbrog]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

Says you!!   Nice post actually. 

mspart

LOL....AI usually does have nice points when asked about a topic...

[neutral]

We are a polarized nation.  There is very little common ground between the opposing sides. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, neutral said:

We are a polarized nation.  There is very little common ground between the opposing sides. 

Although didn't the new speaker find some common ground?  Shouldn't we be celebrating this instead of hoping he is thrown out? 

[Bigbrog]

10 hours ago, neutral said:

We are a polarized nation.  There is very little common ground between the opposing sides. 

Herein lies the problem...when people can't see past their OPINION about things and instantly go to "little common ground between the opposing sides"...such weak and lazy thinking.   85% of the US probably agrees with each other on the main topics...it is the semantics and/or the solutions that people argue about.  And I hate the whole "sides" thing...one of the reasons I think we need to get rid of the bi-party so we get out of the thinking that we have to pick a "side".  People have different opinions...that is a good thing...if we would just try and understand the common ground on things we probably would compromise a lot more!

[neutral]

Except that there opposing sides and the differences are stark. 

[Plasmodium]

I think the de-facto two party setup we have works against us.  It emphasizes the differences and minimizes the similarities.

[uncle bernard]

3 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Herein lies the problem...when people can't see past their OPINION about things and instantly go to "little common ground between the opposing sides"...such weak and lazy thinking.   85% of the US probably agrees with each other on the main topics...it is the semantics and/or the solutions that people argue about.  And I hate the whole "sides" thing...one of the reasons I think we need to get rid of the bi-party so we get out of the thinking that we have to pick a "side".  People have different opinions...that is a good thing...if we would just try and understand the common ground on things we probably would compromise a lot more!

zero self awareness from one of the guys who accuses anybody critical of Israel as a terrorist sympathizer

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, neutral said:

Except that there opposing sides and the differences are stark. 

Are they, or is it the narrative made up by the media and in people's heads??  If I asked you what the stark differences are, you'd probably regurgitate a bunch of over-exaggerated tropes the divisive media pours down peoples throat when in actuality people like you and I, who probably lean in opposite directions a bit, agree on quite a bit of stuff...if both sides were willing to truly listen and not infer things or accuse the other of saying or meaning something other than they really do.

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

zero self awareness from one of the guys who accuses anybody critical of Israel as a terrorist sympathizer

Dude...I don't think I am the one who needs any self-awareness when it comes to the Israel/Humas crap...so go keep on keeping on with the pro-terrorist BS

[neutral]

One key difference between the two sides is how one views civil rights toward the lgbtq community.  Another is how civil rights in general is approached.  One side is very authoritarian and supported an insurrection on Jan 06.  Those are chasms that cannot be bridged.

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, neutral said:

One key difference between the two sides is how one views civil rights toward the lgbtq community.  Another is how civil rights in general is approached.  One side is very authoritarian and supported an insurrection on Jan 06.  Those are chasms that cannot be bridged.

Thanks for making my point....SMH

What you describe as a "key difference" is what you, for some odd reason, WANT it to be.  Guarantee 90% of the US doesn't care what people want to call themselves, who they sleep with, how they choose to dress, how they identify, etc...and if someone says that they would prefer a biological male NOT changing with or going to the bathroom with their biological female daughter, people like you start jumping up and down stomping their feet saying "SEE!!  SEE!  You hate the LGBTQ community!!"  Which is utter BS!  The issues isn't trying to withhold a "right" from one person over another, but rather we simply just need more unisex one stall bathrooms and changing areas.  Why does this make people mad?  How is this not "supporting the LGBTQ community"??

By the way, care to define your use of civil rights versus equality??

[jross]

37 minutes ago, neutral said:

One side is very authoritarian

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Dude...I don't think I am the one who needs any self-awareness when it comes to the Israel/Humas crap...so go keep on keeping on with the pro-terrorist BS

right over your head lol

[mspart]

57 minutes ago, neutral said:

One key difference between the two sides is how one views civil rights toward the lgbtq community.  Another is how civil rights in general is approached.  One side is very authoritarian and supported an insurrection on Jan 06.  Those are chasms that cannot be bridged.

I think this is not an issue.   I don't think many people have a negative view on civil rights towards the lgbtq community.   They can choose to live how they want.   That does not mean I have to agree with their opinion, position, or delusion.   That does not mean I have to support them.   I can accept them without supporting them.  

They can do what they want as long as they are adults.   Moving to do gender affirming care with drugs and surgery on minors is a step too far and that is where the arguments are mostly at.   Minors are minors because they do not have the ability to think clearly on the consequences of their actions.   That is why they are minors.   This is clearly stated in the bodily and brain function sciences as well as behavioral sciences.  Yes, they say they want A, but tomorrow they may want B instead.   That is part of growing up and learning consequences for behavior.   It is morally wrong to inflict medicines that can cause irreversible effects  or surgeries that also do the same on someone who may live to regret it.   No one knows who those people are but it is demonstrable that they are there. 

This is no different that NC-17 or X ratings on movies.   This is no different than not selling tobacco to minors.  This is no different than keeping sudafed out of the hands of minors.   This is why guns are not sold to minors.  This is why alcohol and Pot are not sold to minors.  They are not equipped to make fully informed decisions about their life.    Clear and simple.  That's it.   That has nothing to do about civil rights, it has everything to do with protecting minors. 

If you want to whack off your junk and you are an adult, go for it.   Don't complain about it afterwards, it was your decision.   But don't put minors in a situation that does this because they can't make that decision.   I think this should be something that all people agree on.   Unfortunately it is not, because people take sides rather than ask what is the best thing for the minor child - not doing life altering things to them or doing life altering things to them.   I think the correct answer is clear.   But that is not a matter of civil rights.   If so, than other things prohibited to minors should also be considered a violation of their civil rights. 

mspart

[neutral]

From the looks of some of the hard right posts in this forum, I do not believe I have much in common with many of you.  I wish no ill will, but that doesn't mean I am going to break bread either.

[WrestlingRasta]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:05 AM, ionel said:

Although didn't the new speaker find some common ground?  Shouldn't we be celebrating this instead of hoping he is thrown out? 

We should. But they’ve told us that’s no allowed. We have been told to hate the ‘other side’ because they are responsible for anything that is not perfect in my life. 

[Paul158]

20 hours ago, neutral said:

One key difference between the two sides is how one views civil rights toward the lgbtq community.  Another is how civil rights in general is approached.  One side is very authoritarian and supported an insurrection on Jan 06.  Those are chasms that cannot be bridged.

Where did you buy the Kool aide your drinking. That is some really good stuff. Please tell me how the most intelligent, capable and sophisticated law enforcement agency's ( FBI and the CIA)in the world failed to protect the Capital building on January 6th. Anyone with half a brain knew there would be a large group of protestors on Jan 6th. Only one individual tried to secure the Capital and asked for additional security to be in place the day before Jan 6th . That was the Chief of the Capital Police. He was turned down multiple times.WHY? I know you will not give an answer. Because you are focused on the results of Jan 6th and not the cause. Again please tell me how could the worlds most powerful law enforcement agency in the world (FBI and the CIA) could fail to protect the Capital on Jan.6th. 

[Paul158]

19 hours ago, mspart said:

I think this is not an issue.   I don't think many people have a negative view on civil rights towards the lgbtq community.   They can choose to live how they want.   That does not mean I have to agree with their opinion, position, or delusion.   That does not mean I have to support them.   I can accept them without supporting them.  

They can do what they want as long as they are adults.   Moving to do gender affirming care with drugs and surgery on minors is a step too far and that is where the arguments are mostly at.   Minors are minors because they do not have the ability to think clearly on the consequences of their actions.   That is why they are minors.   This is clearly stated in the bodily and brain function sciences as well as behavioral sciences.  Yes, they say they want A, but tomorrow they may want B instead.   That is part of growing up and learning consequences for behavior.   It is morally wrong to inflict medicines that can cause irreversible effects  or surgeries that also do the same on someone who may live to regret it.   No one knows who those people are but it is demonstrable that they are there. 

This is no different that NC-17 or X ratings on movies.   This is no different than not selling tobacco to minors.  This is no different than keeping sudafed out of the hands of minors.   This is why guns are not sold to minors.  This is why alcohol and Pot are not sold to minors.  They are not equipped to make fully informed decisions about their life.    Clear and simple.  That's it.   That has nothing to do about civil rights, it has everything to do with protecting minors. 

If you want to whack off your junk and you are an adult, go for it.   Don't complain about it afterwards, it was your decision.   But don't put minors in a situation that does this because they can't make that decision.   I think this should be something that all people agree on.   Unfortunately it is not, because people take sides rather than ask what is the best thing for the minor child - not doing life altering things to them or doing life altering things to them.   I think the correct answer is clear.   But that is not a matter of civil rights.   If so, than other things prohibited to minors should also be considered a violation of their civil rights. 

mspart

Excellent. Well said. There was a time when you would be arrested and locked up for doing these unthinkable, horrific things.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Paul158
missed a word

[Lipdrag]

11 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Anyone with half a brain knew there would be a large group of protestors on Jan 6th. Only one individual tried to secure the Capital and asked for additional security to be in place the day before Jan 6th . That was the Chief of the Capital Police. He was turned down multiple times.

I think the Commander in Chief also requested additional security including the National Guard and was turned down.  Citizens roaming about and taking selfies in the capitol on that day happened because the Dems wanted it to happen.

[Lipdrag]

22 hours ago, neutral said:

From the looks of some of the hard right posts in this forum, I do not believe I have much in common with many of you.  I wish no ill will, but that doesn't mean I am going to break bread either.

  I think your statement of " . . . do not have much in common with  . . .  wish no ill will, but . . . "  is quite reasonable.  However, if someone not from your side of any issue so much as hesitates a second before lavishing slobbering wet kisses on child mutilators and does not want porn in kindergarten libraries then he has "fears", is a phobist, and is accused of violating the civil rights of half the country's population.  Can lose his job.  Be assigned re-education.  And there are even laws being passed that could put him in jail.

If we apply the same rules to your very benign and reasonable statement then your sentiment makes you a hater and a conservaphobe.  Imagine worrying that if someone here sent your statement to your HR office you could very probably lose your job.  I am not being dramatic.  I personally know of a person who ventured an opinion in an opinion forum outside of work in which he disagreed with the virtuous nature of chemical castration of children.  Person was fired from his company for it.  The company makes components for trucks, cars, trains, etc.  Fired.  Not much humanity in that disagreement, was there?

[flyingcement]

No Man Is an Island

No man is an island,

Entire of itself;

Every man is a piece of the continent, 

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less,

As well as if a promontory were:

As well as if a manor of thy friend's

Or of thine own were.

Any man's death diminishes me,

Because I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

It tolls for thee.

[Paul158]

7 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

I think the Commander in Chief also requested additional security including the National Guard and was turned down.  Citizens roaming about and taking selfies in the capitol on that day happened beca/use the Dems wanted it to happen.

Bingo. Yes it was a setup. It was the final piece of the coup. It was to distract us from their real misdeeds. They succeeded.

[WrestlingRasta]

Good God