Frustration factor

[vraiblonde]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

 

[SamSpade]

And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

THAT one, I can answer. Generally, do not bother, but for a hard to describe but easy to observe reason.

It's kind of trying to prove mathematically there is or isn't a God. You can't. Math is not the language of religion. You might as well try to hear colors or taste sound. Religious folks by and large function by faith.

I was part of a religious group such as this for about ten years. Many of them were wonderful, hard-working, generous people. But most of them were also fairly immovable when it came to what their religion taught, and if they believed God said something, a discussion with you no matter how polite and reasoned won't change anything. To them, the matter is settled.

And they don't have to be "Christian". I worked many years with a Muslim from Jordan. Loved this country, wonderful, kind-hearted guy. Well, except regarding Jews. Had zero problem ridiculing just about everything they believed. I didn't know how to tell him I thought the idea that God doesn't want you to eat pork strikes me as laughably absurd. Why does God care what foods you eat?

And I mean, SETTLED, too. To try to convince otherwise is like convincing them the sun isn't in the sky.

For some liberals - it's similar. As I've said before, for many liberals, their politics IS their religion, and their behavior and devotion to it resembles faith.

 

[Oberon]

Try speaking with more reasonable people. The only truly bad political arguments I've had have been when I hear someone angrily ranting and I feel the need to respond. They're already mad so there's no way the conversation will end well. But when both people start level-headed, it's a lot easier to have a reasonable debate. And usually you know the kinds of things that will set the other person off, so you can be sensitive about them.

Regarding "nothing will be resolved," yes it's often the case that after the conversation ends, both sides will keep on believing what they already believe. But sometimes it's good enough to give them enough factual evidence that at least they might reconsider or doubt their position later.

 

[SamSpade]

There's also the idea of what you're trying to accomplish when you "discuss" (or argue) politics. Something I've said, many, many, MANY times over the years:

NEVER in all my years of arguing any subject has anyone suddenly had an epiphany and, smiling, admitted wow - I've been wrong - and you are right. How could I have been so wrong about this? Never ever happens. People don't do this. So arguing with the expressed intent to get them to admit they were wrong is certain to fail.

The very best I've been able to accomplish is, after careful, logical presentation of my opinion - well thought out, well crafted and researched - I was able to get them to change their mind, but always after the fact. Being the kind of sneaky Machiavellian I am, it works even better if you can get them to think they figured it out themselves, thus saving face and not having to admit they were wrong.

 

[Vince]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

Answer: DON'T. I keep out of the religious discussions for the most part unless someone pisses me off. The gay thing? Don't really care. Not gay, so it's not my concern. :shrug:

 

[ItalianScallion]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

As I've said to you before: Why do you persist in arguing in a category that you don't really understand? If you come there to learn, you should be more open minded to what is said. Not all of my beliefs are "set in concrete" but those regarding God "moral" laws are. Since God said homosexuality & gay marriages are wrong, why argue over it? It won't ever change.

As a Christian I see a real benefit in discussing why these things are wrong but, ultimately, the verdict is already in...

 

[drivingdaisy]

As I've said to you before: Why do you persist in arguing in a category that you don't really understand? If you come there to learn, you should be more open minded to what is said. Not all of my beliefs are "set in concrete" but those regarding God "moral" laws are. Since God said homosexuality & gay marriages are wrong, why argue over it? It won't ever change.

As a Christian I see a real benefit in discussing why these things are wrong but, ultimately, the verdict is already in...

The problem is that she probably believes what she believes just as strongly you believe what you believe. So there is no real discussion to be had between of you. She is allowed to have her beliefs and it doesn't mean that she doesn't have any understanding of a category because her beliefs are different than yours.

 

[vraiblonde]

The problem is that she probably believes what she believes just as strongly you believe what you believe. So there is no real discussion to be had between of you. She is allowed to have her beliefs and it doesn't mean that she doesn't have any understanding of a category because her beliefs are different than yours.

Exactly.

That's another thing that drives me crazy about the one-way crowd: you disagree with them, and they flurry you with opinion pieces because they think you just don't understand. When you assure them you do understand, but still disagree, they CONTINUE to insist that you simply do not have the facts. It's inconceivable to them that there might be a different opinion out there.

 

[SamSpade]

Exactly.

That's another thing that drives me crazy about the one-way crowd: you disagree with them, and they flurry you with opinion pieces because they think you just don't understand. When you assure them you do understand, but still disagree, they CONTINUE to insist that you simply do not have the facts. It's inconceivable to them that there might be a different opinion out there.

I know a lot of people out there like this - they think that once all the facts are laid out, there's only one rational conclusion.

If life were mathematics or physics or logic, that would usually be true. The reality is that the "facts" aren't always so factual, and the solutions aren't always realizable, and when it comes to some issues, it is impossible to have all the facts. You must use your own judgment and decide what and whom to trust, and people disagree over these kinds of things.

When it comes to politics, you and I know that a liberal tends to trust the government to effectively solve a problem - and we typically don't trust them, no matter what the facts are. That factors heavily into forming opinions about issues.

There are great similarities between a die-hard liberal and a religious fanatic. I've read arguments to suggest that for the non-religious liberal, politics IS his religion, and they tend to react to it similarly, defending dogma that cannot be reasonably defended, dismissing criticism and taking great offense when their gods are assaulted.

 

[Vale]

You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
The Serpent in "Back to Methuselah" by George Bernard Shaw.


Here we have the concise difference between two opposing visions. The constrained and unconstrained visions are the basis for all political conflicts in the West for the last 200 plus years.

Vrai, you may want to check out this book: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggle, Thomas Sowell


Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite authors. He was written many books, and in others he does take sides in the argument, but in this his goal is to explain how we have come to the argument, and why it is that almost no matter the subject, the same people end up on opposite sides. When we talk about "justice" or "equality" or "power", we may be using the same words, but with very different internal meanings.

Why do those on the left and right seem to be arguing not against the other but past each other?

Sowell's thesis is that prior to paradigms, world-views, theories or any rationally articulated models there is an underlying vision, defined (quoting Joseph Schumpeter) as a “pre-analytic cognitive act”. Sowell further defines a vision, “It is what we sense or feel before we have constructed any systematic reasoning that could be called a theory, much less deduced any specific consequences as hypotheses to be tested against evidence." A vision, according to Sowell, is our sense of how the world works and of reality and causation.

Visions are a sense of the possibilities of human reason and power to act purposefully to achieve desired ends and are broadly defined by Sowell as Constrained and Unconstrained.

Appreciation of the role of visions in shaping worldviews can help make sense of opposing views for those who disagree and shows us that opposing views are not capriciously chosen or necessarily stemming from ulterior motives, but are internally self-consistent within the framework of the underlying vision.

Just in case any liberals believe that this book is hard slanted to the right, here is what the New York Times had to say about it: "Extraordinary on several counts...There is nothing tendentious or one-sided about his argument... He makes his case fairly, lucidly, and persuasively." The New York Times Book Review



Sowell discusses this book in a series of interviews here:
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
(Part 5)

 

[aps45819]

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?


:

I have a progressive friend that thinks "rich" people don't pay their fair share of taxes and if they did we wouldn't have a federal deficit.
I had to de-friend him on facebook

 

[vraiblonde]

I have a progressive friend that thinks "rich" people don't pay their fair share of taxes and if they did we wouldn't have a federal deficit.
I had to de-friend him on facebook

I asked my progressive friend to specify what he meant by "rich" people. No response, just off on another tangent.

And I challenged my other progressive friend, who is quite wealthy and thinks she should be paying more in taxes, to write a check to the government for what she feels is her fair share. No response on that one, either.

 

[SamSpade]

I have a progressive friend that thinks "rich" people don't pay their fair share of taxes and if they did we wouldn't have a federal deficit.
I had to de-friend him on facebook

Which is similar to believing that the reason your spouse maxes out the credit cards is because they haven't raised the limit high enough.

Seriously, there's a person who honestly believes that if we just gave the government ENOUGH MONEY, they'd solve the problem of running a deficit?

 

[ItalianScallion]

The problem is that she probably believes what she believes just as strongly you believe what you believe. So there is no real discussion to be had between of you. She is allowed to have her beliefs and it doesn't mean that she doesn't have any understanding of a category because her beliefs are different than yours.

It's not a matter of my opinion vs the others. It's about what is morally right & wrong. If God said it's wrong, it will be wrong forever. Morality NEVER changes.

Sure, we're all allowed to have our own beliefs but that doesn't change the absolute truth. If anyone argues FOR gay marriage or homosexuality, they are against God and that's dangerous. If someone doesn't believe that then they "don't understand" the seriousness of what's coming...

Exactly.
That's another thing that drives me crazy about the one-way crowd: you disagree with them, and they flurry you with opinion pieces because they think you just don't understand. When you assure them you do understand, but still disagree, they CONTINUE to insist that you simply do not have the facts. It's inconceivable to them that there might be a different opinion out there.

People's "different opinions" do not change the truth. If you really understood, you would choose the right and not argue against it...

 

[daileyck1]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?

Because you are ALWAYS wrong.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

Definition of an optimist! You are with hope!

It's what keeps me eternally interested in politics; the possibility, however small, that we, as a people, just may not be so dumb after all. And, hot on the heels of that, the possibilities for a better world.

Of course, hot on the heels of that is some vague awareness that I may well be dumb for thinking that in the first place.

 

[Larry Gude]

There's also the idea of what you're trying to accomplish when you "discuss" (or argue) politics. Something I've said, many, many, MANY times over the years:

NEVER in all my years of arguing any subject has anyone suddenly had an epiphany and, smiling, admitted wow - I've been wrong - and you are right. How could I have been so wrong about this? Never ever happens. People don't do this. So arguing with the expressed intent to get them to admit they were wrong is certain to fail.

T

Now THAT would frustrate me no end. I have come around on a number of subjects including gay marriage. Vrail got me on that one pointing out my faith in the constitution and asking just where my constitutional support against, federal opposition, to gays marrying might come from. Took her awhile but, she got me to see.

And I have had success, fairly often, in helping change someones mind. And I have enjoyed making an argument and gotten some brilliant insights from some folks as to why they see my point, actually agree but, they find the difficulty in HOW to get to, transition from their view, or as a society, to that, to my, view. That is the best. While agreement may not happen, or a change of mind, there was GREAT conversation.

The key for me is in, at the very least, being able to articulate and understand my own view and why I did or did not change my mind and having conversation where the other person, at the very least, understands their own view in some detail and why, or why not they have changed, or not changed, their view.

I could give a crap about changing peoples minds. I accept and expect differing views. What I don't do well with is when I haven't done a good job of making my argument, or they refuse to hear, and I am talking apples and they are talking oranges.

"Apples are good for you!"

"But, I don't like oranges!"

That is where it is no fun and very often I have leanrt that is was ME not communicating very well. I even enjoy that, if I can learn to make a better point or listen better.

 

[Larry Gude]

As I've said to you before: Why do you persist in arguing in a category that you don't really understand? ...

Good one! I've met people who think they know and understand more about the Bible than Vrai. And I've met people who, in actuality, only know more about their own bias'.

That might be the best one yet;

Why do you persist in arguing in a category that you don't really understand?

I'm gonna try that one for awhile.

 

[Larry Gude]

Just read a great post on another forum, dirt bikes, and one of the great controversies (holy war) is the pro neck brace crowd and the anti neck brace crowd.

A moderator dealt with one person who was clearly trying to agitate as to why a given tread was moved from a technical, ie, information section and moved to a conversation, ie, opinion section.

He said one of his rules of thumb as a mod was 'HOW something is being argued, not WHAT is being argued."
The agitator then found a way to argue with that and the mod said;

If you wish... I've seen discussion about if people prefer to install toilet paper to feed under or over the roll. Who am I to get in their way?

My take is that as long as both sides understand when it has become a matter of preference then, have at it all you like; you're having a conversation. The problem is unsustainable claims of righteousness, ie, ONLY over or ONLY under can be acceptable.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's not a matter of my opinion vs the others. It's about what is morally right & wrong. If God said it's wrong, it will be wrong forever. Morality NEVER changes.

Sure, we're all allowed to have our own beliefs but that doesn't change the absolute truth. If anyone argues FOR gay marriage or homosexuality, they are against God and that's dangerous. If someone doesn't believe that then they "don't understand" the seriousness of what's coming...

People's "different opinions" do not change the truth. If you really understood, you would choose the right and not argue against it...