Where is the Common Ground?

[kellyb]

Now, how did I know Joe's post was going to mostly be chastising other people in the thread for not posting the way he wants us to?

 

[kellyb]

How much first-hand exposure have you had to the Kochs? Have much have you listened to what they say directly, as opposed to how other people describe them?

I've read a few interviews with one of them (the one who talks to the press more.) Obviously not a whole lot since I forget which one that is. LOL

I'm mostly judging their beliefs by the "propaganda" they fund.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

And where do you find a piece that aggressively explores the misinformation that fed into early reports? In the Washington Post.

‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie


Still:
This Post piece brought 5,000 comments. Not exactly an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

Would Fox or Breitbart works so hard to correct flawed initial coverage? I don't think so, but if you have examples I'd be happy to see them.

Meanwhile CNN is so "fake" that Trump is looking up 3-day-old CNN clips to feed his Twitter obsession

An article correcting the record 7 months after Mike Brown attacked Darren Wilson and tried to kill him was a bit late to unring the fabricated "Hands up, don't shoot" bell.

 

[WilliamSeger]

An article correcting the record 7 months after Mike Brown attacked Darren Wilson and tried to kill him was a bit late to unring the fabricated "Hands up, don't shoot" bell.

The news reported what the witnesses said. That's what they do.

 

[Garrison]

The news reported what the witnesses said. That's what they do.

Indeed, and its notable how the same people who have no problem with the garbage that spews from Trump get on their high horse about something like this.

 

[kellyb]

The news reported what the witnesses said. That's what they do.

The evidence that it was a lie is just the ballistics evidence, right?
The cops investigated themselves and cleared themselves of any wrongdoing?

 

[Ziggurat]

The evidence that it was a lie is just the ballistics evidence, right?

No. This isn't the thread for it, but there's more than just the ballistics.

The cops investigated themselves and cleared themselves of any wrongdoing?

IIRC, The DOJ investigated too, and while they found problems with the department, they didn't find anything wrong with that specific instance.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Indeed, and its notable how the same people who have no problem with the garbage that spews from Trump get on their high horse about something like this.

The Trumpist propaganda works well on some people with a simple misdirection: The news media "fabricated" the story, so see, not only can they not be trusted, they are scumbags, they are the Enemy of the People. That last one is actually true, but only for certain self-selected people.

 

[Fudbucker]

But see this is just it, you are so sure that you are right about where you stand on Abortion and Civil Rights issues, and yet so are those that are on the other side. What you see as the right of a woman to have control over her own body, they see as murdering another human. There is no common ground because you are diametrically opposed to each other's positions, and you both exclaim that you are the ones whom are right.

Case in point....



It's not about being wrong or right, the fact is that both sides claim to be the ones that are right, it's that as you yourself admit, there are lots of people that don't agree with you, and thus there is no common ground.

Yes, I am sure that government should respect bodily autonomy and separate-but-equal and discrimination was wrong and the Civil Rights Act was necessary. There is no debate on this (or at least, there shouldn't be).

 

[LSSBB]

I'm rooting for Havana to get an MLB team.

Me too!

Common ground.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, I am sure that government should respect bodily autonomy and separate-but-equal and discrimination was wrong and the Civil Rights Act was necessary. There is no debate on this (or at least, there shouldn't be).

There is debate though, because all of these things are subjective, not objective. You are arguing that respect for bodily autonomy in the preeminent right. Others would argue that the right to live is greater, and that the Government should protect the right of life to the unborn. Neither argument is objectively correct and neither is objectively incorrect.

This is the thing about politics, there are no objective answers, just different ways to try and solve the same problems. To believe that only your way of answering it the one and only true way to answer the problem is to fall into the trap of ideology and creates a closed mind.

Now yes, there are, IMO, better ways to answer these questions and solve the problems we have, but I also have to admit that they are only better IMO. Other people might have different answers that they believe to have superior results based on what they believe. I can't say that they are objectively wrong, but rather the I disagree with their solutions.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

There is debate though, because all of these things are subjective, not objective. You are arguing that respect for bodily autonomy in the preeminent right. Others would argue that the right to live is greater, and that the Government should protect the right of life to the unborn. Neither argument is objectively correct and neither is objectively incorrect.

This is the thing about politics, there are no objective answers, just different ways to try and solve the same problems. To believe that only your way of answering it the one and only true way to answer the problem is to fall into the trap of ideology and creates a closed mind.

Now yes, there are, IMO, better ways to answer these questions and solve the problems we have, but I also have to admit that they are only better IMO. Other people might have different answers that they believe to have superior results based on what they believe. I can't say that they are objectively wrong, but rather the I disagree with their solutions.

I am all for common ground, but if the disagreement is to big, there is no common ground. And, yes, no human is objectively wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a point of view.

 

[uke2se]

I am all for common ground, but if the disagreement is to big, there is no common ground. And, yes, no human is objectively wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a point of view.

Plenty of humans are objectively wrong. Some people believe the Earth is flat. They are objectively wrong. That's not a matter of opinion.

There is an objective reality. Some people need to realize this.

 

[llwyd]

I am all for common ground, but if the disagreement is to big, there is no common ground. And, yes, no human is objectively wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a point of view.

Common ground is usually pretty easily to be found but in times of internal crisis it tends to disappear.

I remember from my ancient American Studies seminar (I was a strange Finn) where I had to write an essay about 1850's political rhetorics how the Southern position finally evolved into "yeah, you can give us everything we want down from Mason-Dixon to Antarctica, but if you in the innermost heart think that our heavenly Peculiar Institution is the slightest bit evil, we will never settle with you". I mean Lincoln came into office as a known opponent of slavery who still had not the slightest intention of abolishing it in the South and with no means whatsoever of accomplishing it even had he wanted to. But his mere election was too much. I think the modern day Trump core is pretty much as radicalized.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Common ground is usually pretty easily to be found but in times of internal crisis it tends to disappear.

I remember from my ancient American Studies seminar (I was a strange Finn) where I had to write an essay about 1850's political rhetorics how the Southern position finally evolved into "yeah, you can give us everything we want down from Mason-Dixon to Antarctica, but if you in the innermost heart think that our heavenly Peculiar Institution is the slightest bit evil, we will never settle with you". I mean Lincoln came into office as a known opponent of slavery who still had not the slightest intention of abolishing it in the South and with no means whatsoever of accomplishing it even had he wanted to. But his mere election was too much. I think the modern day Trump core is pretty much as radicalized.

Yeah, they "the modern day Trump core" in effect don't view some humans as humans and thus there is no common ground.

We are all parts of reality and we are all humans. The moment you functionally have a world view, where some humans are not humans, you don't share common ground with me and we have nothing to agree on.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is debate though, because all of these things are subjective, not objective. You are arguing that respect for bodily autonomy in the preeminent right. Others would argue that the right to live is greater, and that the Government should protect the right of life to the unborn. Neither argument is objectively correct and neither is objectively incorrect.

I am waiting for forced kidney donations on that rational.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I am waiting for forced kidney donations on that rational.

From a purely socialistic pov, making everyone with two good kidneys be willing to donate one is needed would make sense. Similarly from a purely capitalistic pov allowing anyone to sell their kidneys would also make sense.

Neither is objectively right or wrong, though my own beliefs and pov would say that both are wrong.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Plenty of humans are objectively wrong. Some people believe the Earth is flat. They are objectively wrong. That's not a matter of opinion.

There is an objective reality. Some people need to realize this.

Things are objective in science, but politics isn't science. There are no absolute truths in political policies.

 

[llwyd]

Things are objective in science, but politics isn't science. There are no absolute truths in political policies.

But there really are empirical facts, and there basically is no rational argument whatsoever to be had which side so much more relies on those empirical facts and which side on the cynical and totally shameless distortion of them.

 

[Darat]

Tommy Jeppesen- Take your discussion of philosophy to the appropriate section of the forum and do not derail this thread into a discussion of your personal philosophy.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat