Where is the Common Ground?

kellyb said:
You know this whole empathy mini-discussion is a result of Zig using a very "unconventional", almost unique to him definition of the word in order to argue that empathy is a very bad thing, yes?
Click to expand...

I said empathy is overrated, and I said that it's a bad basis for evaluating public policy. I never said it was a very bad thing. In fact, I explicitly said it was useful for personal interactions.

kellyb said:
What is that nonsense supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

You will need to further specify your confusion if you want additional clarification, because I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.

kellyb said:
Or maybe he actually hates empathy.
That is an actual distinct possibility, too.
That stuff is kind of a thing with libertarians.
Click to expand...

This is one of the ironies of this discussion: you're championing empathy in the abstract, but you can't manage to actually display any towards me. I'm not a libertarian, and I don't hate empathy.
 
JoeMorgue said:
When linguistic nuance is being used intentionally as an argumentative instead of arising naturally repeatedly stopping the conversation for clarification does not help, indeed it is counter productive.
Click to expand...


As I said, I think you're missing a lot in this particular case. But okay, take it back to what started the discussion of definitions. As an example of what I was talking about with the "empathy-apathy spectrum" might be Trump's Muslim ban. Can you put yourself in the position of being a Muslim living in America, perhaps not far removed from a foreign country, and the president is saying we don't want any more of your kind here? And what will his followers make of that, which might affect your well-being? I'm sure not all trumpers hate Muslims or any of the other groups that Trump does, but they also don't care what effect Trumpism has on them. Put whatever definition you want on that, and it's still the same.
 
One thing that can be very helpful to more discussion forward is to sum up what you think the other side is saying and see if they agree that you got their views right. This can actually be a pretty useful way of reaching common ground, at least as a first step toward that goal.

Can anyone sum up Ziggurat's views?
 
Ziggurat said:
I said empathy is overrated, and I said that it's a bad basis for evaluating public policy. I never said it was a very bad thing. In fact, I explicitly said it was useful for personal interactions.
Click to expand...

You said it (but not compassion) is "very bad" when used in policy formulation. Of course you think it's fine in personal stuff, because you're using that bizarre definition where it just means "empathy as in compassion (when it's a sympathetic sort) for members of your in-group and maybe a few exceptions, because that's the only sort of empathy that really exists."

You will need to further specify your confusion if you want additional clarification, because I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.
Click to expand...

You still won't tell me where you're getting your definition of empathy from.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

"Empathy is a complex psychological response in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others."
 
Roboramma said:
One thing that can be very helpful to more discussion forward is to sum up what you think the other side is saying and see if they agree that you got their views right. This can actually be a pretty useful way of reaching common ground, at least as a first step toward that goal.

Can anyone sum up Ziggurat's views?
Click to expand...

He thinks empathy is over-rated and "very bad" when used in the formulation of policies, because empathy is biased, and sometimes it results in bringing out people's drive to seek revenge on another's behalf if you see a victim. He thinks "compassion" is acceptable in formulating policy, though.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not a libertarian, and I don't hate empathy.
Click to expand...

I guess being a libertarian isn't like being pregnant or not. It's a scale.

On a 1 to 10 scale of libertarianism, where a one is someone who would be totally fine as a member of the ruling elite in Brave New World, and a 10 is Charles or David Koch, where are you?

I'm put myself at a... 4, I guess.
 
The reality is that there is very little common ground politically. Non-Politically there is a lot, both sides think that hot dogs are a perfect food for a baseball game, and for some reason believe that a Cheese pizza is actually something, rather than that it's missing the real toppings. They agree that you have Turkey on Turkey Day, and Parades and fireworks on Independence Day.

Sadly when it comes to Politics these just isn't the case. Over half of those voting in the 2016 General Elections reported via exit polling that they distrusted the party they didn't vote for to the point where they believed if that party were to gain power, they would destroy the US through their policies, and the difference in percentage between which party was voted for wasn't that significant.

When over half the country believe that their political rivals are so terrible that they are out to destroy the country, how can you find common ground politically? Sadly, I suspect that should this poll be conducted today, the stats would be even worse.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The reality is that there is very little common ground politically. Non-Politically there is a lot, both sides think that hot dogs are a perfect food for a baseball game, and for some reason believe that a Cheese pizza is actually something, rather than that it's missing the real toppings. They agree that you have Turkey on Turkey Day, and Parades and fireworks on Independence Day.
Click to expand...

Which is why the federal government should be reduced in size. The less important it is in our daily lives, the less consuming these political differences are.
 
We're breaking the government so compromise by doing exactly what we want and break it more! Even though that will give us more power over your lives by removing protections!

Such ground. Much common.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which is why the federal government should be reduced in size. The less important it is in our daily lives, the less consuming these political differences are.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, but I'd also like to point out that a lot of outrage seems to be based on a gross overestimation of how important the federal government is in our daily lives, even in its current intrusiveness.
 
theprestige said:
I totally agree, but I'd also like to point out that a lot of outrage seems to be based on a gross overestimation of how important the federal government is in our daily lives, even in its current intrusiveness.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Medicare and S.S. are referred to as the "third rail" in politics? If those checks stopped coming you would have a revolt.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Which is why the federal government should be reduced in size.
Click to expand...
Government bad, Anarchy good!

The less important it is in our daily lives, the less consuming these political differences are.
Click to expand...
Even if there was no Federal government, there would still be plenty of political differences.

Could be interesting though. No congress, no judiciary, no president! 50 individual states each with their own army - some with nukes. With any luck the political differences between them will spark a multitude of wars. Those of us who hate America say, bring it on!
 
Ziggurat said:
Which is why the federal government should be reduced in size. The less important it is in our daily lives, the less consuming these political differences are.
Click to expand...

Except that this isn't common ground either.The Right wants less Government Regulating Businesses, the Left wants more regulations protecting people from Businesses. The Left want the Government out of the bedroom and Toilets, the Right wants the Government to regulated who you can love, have sex with, marry and which bathroom you have to use.

Neither side really want less Government, they just want less Government control over their pet areas and more controls over the other side's pet areas.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Why do you think that Plato's Socratic Douchebaggery was a better way to explain your point of view, than simply explaining your point of view?
Click to expand...

Um, OK. This claim you made:
I totally agree, but I'd also like to point out that a lot of outrage seems to be based on a gross overestimation of how important the federal government is in our daily lives, even in its current intrusiveness.
Click to expand...

was wrong. It was wrong because government is HUGELY important in people's lives. People UNDERESTIMATE how important it is. I illustrated this by pointing out how important Medicare/S.S. are to a huge amount of people.

I could go on about other governmental programs, but you get the point now, right?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Um, OK. This claim you made:

was wrong. It was wrong because government is HUGELY important in people's lives. People UNDERESTIMATE how important it is. I illustrated this by pointing out how important Medicare/S.S. are to a huge amount of people.

I could go on about other governmental programs, but you get the point now, right?
Click to expand...
That's your claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom