Tolerance of opinion.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I was thinking today that the coarseness of politics is a bad thing. I know, I bait and fight with some of you on here so I shouldn't be lecturing on this, but here it goes:

I just wonder where the respect and honesty of the participants of any political stripe has gone. You look at the name calling in any major legislatures and you would think these people hate each other, yet one only has to see behind the facade to know there is a lot of friendships across party lines. NDP MP Peter Stoffer ( a left wing MP in Canada's Parliament) is infamous for his parties where people from all parties in the Parliament hang out during the winding up of affairs before Christmas. He gets people who I am sure he has crossed swords with in Question Period.

You see no congenality on the surface of things, and the media magnifies and adds to the coarseness. Right wing Talk show hosts I can find amusing and sometimes dead on the money, but I do think a lot of what they are saying is looking for fumes to put a spark to. I have heard Alan Colmes and some of the libreal talking heads and hear the same sort of naivety.

Here, in this forum, we often have differing view points, such as Eki and Janvan really going after me or Fousto or VOP, yet I suspect with Eki at least, I could probably sit in a pub with him and get along ok. Heck, Steve Spackman and I never agree on much, but I know we would get on great while arguing. I defend to my last breath their right to state their case in this forum or any other.

What I am saying I guess is I deplore the way political debate and debate in general both in the real world, and our little part of cyberspace has become almost like a blood feud where no side will admit anything the other guys say has merit. I find this sad, for I have tried on occasion to really try to see the other side, and agreed with Janvanurpa on some aspects of the Cuban Embargo. Never thought he and I would see something the same way, but on that narrow topic, yes we agreed.

I guess I am interested in how you guys see debate, and maybe ask you to be intellectually more honest than idelogical when approaching subjects that you in the past didn't agree with. I think it is healthy for the debate, and some of us may not change our minds completely, but it is a good intellectual exercise that forces you to re-evaluate your opinions.

Just curious...you guys have a take?

[SportscarBruce]

There exist a commonality between Dittohead Tea Party Conservatives and Ivy League Establishment Liberals, and it is this; neither has one iota of intellectual courage or honesty.

[Mark in Oshawa]

There exist a commonality between Dittohead Tea Party Conservatives and Ivy League Establishment Liberals, and it is this; neither has one iota of intellectual courage or honesty.

I don't think it is quite that simple tho. On some subjects, either can be right or wrong. It isn't that I disagree with your premise. On the whole, there are a lot of the Tea Party types who I think just don't grasp how fine a line they are treading towards being out to lunch, but I will also say the people who usually think they are smarter than the rest of us, aren't.

Still, there are members of both camps I wont put down as not being intellectually courageous or honest.

[Daniel]

I was thinking today that the coarseness of politics is a bad thing. I know, I bait and fight with some of you on here so I shouldn't be lecturing on this, but here it goes:

I just wonder where the respect and honesty of the participants of any political stripe has gone. You look at the name calling in any major legislatures and you would think these people hate each other, yet one only has to see behind the facade to know there is a lot of friendships across party lines. NDP MP Peter Stoffer ( a left wing MP in Canada's Parliament) is infamous for his parties where people from all parties in the Parliament hang out during the winding up of affairs before Christmas. He gets people who I am sure he has crossed swords with in Question Period.

You see no congenality on the surface of things, and the media magnifies and adds to the coarseness. Right wing Talk show hosts I can find amusing and sometimes dead on the money, but I do think a lot of what they are saying is looking for fumes to put a spark to. I have heard Alan Colmes and some of the libreal talking heads and hear the same sort of naivety.

Here, in this forum, we often have differing view points, such as Eki and Janvan really going after me or Fousto or VOP, yet I suspect with Eki at least, I could probably sit in a pub with him and get along ok. Heck, Steve Spackman and I never agree on much, but I know we would get on great while arguing. I defend to my last breath their right to state their case in this forum or any other.

What I am saying I guess is I deplore the way political debate and debate in general both in the real world, and our little part of cyberspace has become almost like a blood feud where no side will admit anything the other guys say has merit. I find this sad, for I have tried on occasion to really try to see the other side, and agreed with Janvanurpa on some aspects of the Cuban Embargo. Never thought he and I would see something the same way, but on that narrow topic, yes we agreed.

I guess I am interested in how you guys see debate, and maybe ask you to be intellectually more honest than idelogical when approaching subjects that you in the past didn't agree with. I think it is healthy for the debate, and some of us may not change our minds completely, but it is a good intellectual exercise that forces you to re-evaluate your opinions.

Just curious...you guys have a take?
Couldn't agree more. Though a lot of us disagree with each other on a lot of things I think we're all fairly decent people :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The problem with all polictics is that people allow their ideology overule their intelligence. This is my biggest criticism of the left wing in particular.

[Daniel]

The problem with all polictics is that people allow their ideology overule their intelligence. This is my biggest criticism of the left wing in particular.
I don't think this sort of thing is limited to one particular side of politics.

Anyone who's seen Cameron with one of his preposterous "dithering" attacks on Brown will know that a lot of politicians on both sides are more bothered about scoring cheap points than coming across as intelligent.

[wedge]

I don't mind internet forums debating politics because the MO of discussion boards is debate.

but I do have a problem when its between good friends. I have a certain friend who still reads the Daily Mail (without sounding too hypocritical I used to read it thinking its the thinking man's tabloid) and still has a bad habit of spouting right wing/racist diatribes when drunk in a taxi.

Other than that he's very sociable and a good laugh. If it wasn't for him I wouldn't have bothered meeting some of my school friends.

[Eki]

Anyone who's seen Cameron with one of his preposterous "dithering" attacks on Brown
Who's this Cameron and why is he attacking Jon? Is he someone here on the forum? Maybe he should be banned.

[Daniel]

Who's this Cameron and why is he attacking Jon? Is he someone here on the forum? Maybe he should be banned.
Couldn't agree more :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't mind internet forums debating politics because the MO of discussion boards is debate.

but I do have a problem when its between good friends. I have a certain friend who still reads the Daily Mail (without sounding too hypocritical I used to read it thinking its the thinking man's tabloid) and still has a bad habit of spouting right wing/racist diatribes when drunk in a taxi.

Other than that he's very sociable and a good laugh. If it wasn't for him I wouldn't have bothered meeting some of my school friends.

Yeah, some of my best friends are at the opposite end of the political compass to me. But we always have a laugh about are differences when we are talking about politics.

But some of the people on the forum (not just this one) seem to view people with the opposite political opinions as 'enemies' and have their views set in stone. These people can't understand that others have different opinions to them.

[Daniel]

Yeah, some of my best friends are at the opposite end of the political compass to me. But we always have a laugh about are differences when we are talking about politics.

But some of the people on the forum (not just this one) seem to view people with the opposite political opinions as 'enemies' and have their views set in stone. These people can't understand that others have different opinions to them.
and then there are some people who are surprised when one of these people who is on the other side says something they agree with.

[anthonyvop]

Funny thing is that in most issues I am conservative but in others I am what many consider ultra-liberal.
Religion and Abortions comes to mind.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Funny thing is that in most issues I am conservative but in others I am what many consider ultra-liberal.
Religion and Abortions comes to mind.

I am less conservative than you on a lot of things, but MORE on Abortions and as for religion, I think people making it a whipping boy while forgetting of course that freedom of religion is a paramount right in the US in particular, and most of the western world. It means you might have to tolerate some relgions you don't agree with. As long as they don't countervene the rights of others, I am all for it. Where people seem to get confused on religion is that religion has the right to NOT like some aspects of a libreal modern society. The Catholic Church does not approve of pre-maritial sex, gay marriage or abortion. I am fine with that as long as they don't impose those views on people forcefully. A woman in the US can still have an abortion, but not in a Catholic supported hospital. The woman can have pre-marital sex, but cant turn around and demand the Catholic Church support that, and a gay couple can get married in some civil jurisdictions, but they cannot sue to make the church officiate. Tolerance is a two way street.....

I am anti-abortion, BUT I would never advocate the state take that right away since it is only my opinion, and the realist in me knows that it will happen anyhow. If there is a higher power ( and I believe there is ) then he/she will make that judgement right?

I have great arguments on here, and I sometimes go too far in my debates online here, but I do respect those on the other side for the most part. Tolerence doesn't mean you agree, just understand you cannot win some arguments. Doesn't stop me from trying tho...lol

[Eki]

Tolerence doesn't mean you agree,

I hope you remember that the next time I defend Castro, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc. The fact that I see the logic behind their actions doesn't mean I agree morally with their actions or even that I agree their actions were the most efficient in achieving their goals.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I hope you remember that the next time I defend Castro, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc. The fact that I see the logic behind their actions doesn't mean I agree morally with their actions or even that I agree their actions were the most efficient in achieving their goals.

Eki, You go out of your way so often to agree with these mooks that I wonder about your morality at times. The logical part of me agrees that you don't condone these actions, but the zeal you go after Bush or anyone who even remotely looks like him says to me that your view of the world is so skewed you cannot be objective about the dictators and be defending them for the sake of defending them. I don't have a problem with understanding that the dictators see the world differently. Where you and I disagree is you can find merit in their arguments. I do not for the reason that their monstrous crimes against their fellow man makes their excuses or justifications to be purely superflous. There is no defense of true evil.

Bush on the other hand was a sometimes confused and morally challenged on some tasks at hand by a situation filled with a lot of grey's. Bush didn't set up a machine to kill people. The torture people accuse him of is non-lethal. What is more, he at least was elected and faced opposition in a democratic society for his government's actions. There is accountability for what he did in his own nation. He also didn't do it alone, and many other nations either signed on or tacitly approved. There is legal authority for his misjudged occupation of Iraq. It may not be what you want to hear, but my defense of a Bush is a heck of a lot more based in OUR values of democracy and tolerence than your defence of some really vile human beings Eki. I am not asking you to like Bush, love him or god forbid defend him. What I am asking you to grasp that your defense of Saddam for the regime he ran is a lot more silly to a rational mind than anyone's defense of Bush.

It is one thing to run a country after being elected to the post and stepping down when it is your time to go. It is yet another to run a regime dedicated to your unlimited rule, including taking way democratic rights, imposing a police state on its citizens, and torturing and killing those who oppose you or just happen to be from the wrong group. Chavez hasn't done the last part, but he is on his way with all the other's. You want to defend those people Eki, it is your choice, but please don't get mad when your vehement defense of these slimeballs can sometimes have me and others questioning your morality and tolerance...