Can people be civil here?

regarding friar bobs question of can we be civil here:

My Mothers parents were catholics, and my dads side protestant. My dads mum still has problems regarding evolution. My mums side vote consevatively, my dads side liberally. Im the agnostic scientist amongst them who would prefer more moderate approach in some areas of government, a more liberal in others. I have had friends who are christian, muslim, buddhist, atheist, and a pastafarian. we all still manage to have regular discussions on politics, religion, and their place in life thanks to this simple edict. first, find a policy or politico you both/all dont like, then riff on him/it for the conversation. Eg in NZ, a man by the name of Winston Peters. dont matter how they vote, my family think he is an idiot. he may have had some good ideas, but we all still agree, overall he is a racist idiot.

Same with Dawkins. although as an agnostic, i admit he has some points, even my atheist friends agree with me that he goes about it in the wrong way. the chip he seems to have on his shoulder rubs to many people the wrong way, and turns people off his message. while you can catch more flies with honey then vinegar, vinegar sometimes has nothing on him. theres the polite way, and then theres the Dawkins way. i once saw a vid of him criticing the non conventional medication market, and while he was in some peoples businesses or homes interviewing them, it wasnt so much an interview as an attack. he even stated at one point that these people were deluded fools, in what comes off as a very snooty may. He gives agnostics and atheists a bad name.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would hope people can be civilized enough to keep the thread interesting because I am learning about parts of the world I, personally, have never been to. The ideas presaented and the politics discussed are giving me a different view than what our media portrays. Being reminded that everyone, including our allies, has a different take on our political process is not a bad thing. It needs to be taken into account when formulating forgien policy.

Speaking of which, New Zealand, Australian and Japanese policy concerning US warships bringing nucs into their harbors is, from personal experience, very understandable. Having been jerked from a sound sleep while in port because the roving deck watch found a suspicious package tucked into a nuc-capable missle launcher is a sobering experience. It was later determined to be a test by the US Navy ONI to see how hard it would be for a civilian contractor to do. That was not something we knew at the time so we were sweating blood until EOD removed it. The only saving grace was that we had already off-loaded all of our missles prior to going in for an overhaul period.

On the original topic, I wish I knew where more of the people on this forum were posting from, since some of you are obviously from Europe, the middle-east and of course NZ and Australia.

KNick wrote:I would hope people can be civilized enough to keep the thread interesting because I am learning about parts of the world I, personally, have never been to. The ideas presaented and the politics discussed are giving me a different view than what our media portrays. Being reminded that everyone, including our allies, has a different take on our political process is not a bad thing. It needs to be taken into account when formulating forgien policy.

Speaking of which, New Zealand, Australian and Japanese policy concerning US warships bringing nucs into their harbors is, from personal experience, very understandable. Having been jerked from a sound sleep while in port because the roving deck watch found a suspicious package tucked into a nuc-capable missle launcher is a sobering experience. It was later determined to be a test by the US Navy ONI to see how hard it would be for a civilian contractor to do. That was not something we knew at the time so we were sweating blood until EOD removed it. The only saving grace was that we had already off-loaded all of our missles prior to going in for an overhaul period.

On the original topic, I wish I knew where more of the people on this forum were posting from, since some of you are obviously from Europe, the middle-east and of course NZ and Australia.

Jeez. my grandad didn't have it that bad when he was in the navy, but he apparently still had some hair raising experiences during the Korean war. he was the radio noncom on duty when they were sailing into harbour to meet an American ship or two. He sent out the code words to confirm he was friendly, then about a minute later the bridge rang down to query if he had sent the codes as the Americans had started active tracking and had sounded GQ.

For the next little while, he was yelling blue murder into the radio, trying to prevent a blue on blue. he finally got the American ship to acknowledge and stand down. The bridge requested an answer as to why the US navy had prepared to fire on an ally. the embarrassed answer came back from the US ship that someone had broken out the next weeks code books early, as this had happened at about 11 at night, and so thought the NZ ship was a North Korean ship trying to get close before opening fire.

That was apparently one of the most interesting times of his life, and the closest he ever came to the fighting, if you can count staring down the barrel of a friendly ships main guns as close to the fight. the scariest thing was apparently the American ship had been within 10 seconds of firing before the US radio room realised the mistake and got their bridge to stand down.


He made damn well sure his subordinates double checked every time call after that.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FriarBob wrote

Of course it should be. But the tendency today is for both sides of most arguments to believe in the "obvious truth" with an almost blind faith and no evidence whatsoever, and any evidence to the contrary is just "made up" or "lies" or worse. And sadly in many cases this applies to BOTH sides of the argument.

I frankly would consider it wiser to just flat ban politics entirely. It won't happen of course, but there's just no way to have an intelligent, calm, and rational discussion between somebody who believes black is white and white is black vs somebody who believes orange is green and green is orange. The only time you will get those calm and rational discussions is between two people who agree that black is black... or at least they both agree that what they are calling black is actually black in both of their eyes.

And even when you find two people who agree on that, there will always be somebody else who points out that the emperor is naked. Whether he actually is or not.

I like to think of myself as someone trying to find out if my definition of white is the same as someone elses. I realize that I have lost touch somewhat with how other people define things and am trying to improve my understanding of the world. However, I think that it can be done without invective and harassment. Call me a Pollyanna but I still think the majority of the people in this world are reasonable and intelligent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I just try to keep in mind that just because someone is yelling loadly about a topic, it does not mean s/he is right or speaking for anyone other than him/herself (although women seem to be at least a little less strident than men).(At least on most topics.)

Everyone should be able to remember that compromise accomplishes more than radicalism of any stripe. It is sad to think that what should be intelligent converstions can lead to violence and hatred. Of course, accurate reporting of actual events and the facts behind them would help. When I am seeking information I want truth, not sensationalism. The less injected bias the better. Accuracy on both sides of the story is always better than one-sided reporting.

KNick wrote:Everyone should be able to remember that compromise accomplishes more than radicalism of any stripe.

I can't agree with that.

Teach the Controversy is an excellent example of something that's more mainstream than most non-American westerners would believe possible in a first world country. (Wikipedia description)

One side says that Intelligent Design should be presented as an equally valid alternative to evolution, which since it is merely a theory should not be confused with actual fact. The other side says that this is thinly disguised Christian Creationism, and religion has no place in science education.

There's no compromising there. Either kids are being brainwashed into believing that evidence-based science can actually explain things and casting their immortal souls into Hell in the process, or you have a bunch of zealots evangelizing, promoting ignorance and attempting to use the government to further their religious goals.

There are a LOT of issues similar to this out there where compromise simply isn't possible.

That is not politics. That is religion brought into politics. My personal opinion is that any religious organization that attempts to bring a matter of faith into a political debate should loose their designation as a church and instead be clasified as a political party with the loss of all the benifits that a church normally enjoys. Especialy the tax exemptions. I am sure that a lot of municipalities could use the extra income.

Beyond that, instead of a BBA, I would prefer to see a Deficit Reduction Amendment passed. (I know, I know, I'm an unrealistic dreamer).If that would mean a smaller government, I could live that.

One way to accomplish that would be to reduce the number of conflicting laws the govern businesses. It is hard to do anything when anything you do or don't do breaks the law. When one law says you must do A and another law (sometimes from the same agency) says you must not do A, it becomes impossible to avoid that. One set of laws that cover a business or occupation that is simple to understand and follow would make it easier for people to do business. Easily understood guidelines would make it easier to regulate and inspect for compliance. That would mean fewer inspectors. Fewer inspectors would require fewer office staff. Lower numbers of office staff would lead to the need for less office space. All of that would mean lower federal budgets. But that's not going to happen either.

As far as the original topic "Can we be civil here?" question.

The best way I have found to create such an environment is the private message option. Calling someone out in public is generally counter productive.

Yep as a fairly often and serious offender there were numerous times when namelessfly/others and myself exchanged e-mails. Having someone tell me quietly that you are being a "butthead" is generally much more effective than standing on a rooftop and shouting it. At least to me and others in my experience.

As Honor says "praise in public, criticize in private".

Of course that is my opinion and worth as much as it takes to read it.

Have fun,
T2M

Edit: Feel free to call me whatever you like, threaten whatever you like in a PM (which I check everytime I log on) not like many know enough here to actually find me and do such things to me. If some one does spend the effort well I do have to die at some point and if you relly think my extinction is worth the chance of losing 7 years of your life well "that's the way the coockie crumbles."

Yep I only ride a motorcycle and it really wouldn't take much to cause me to die in an accident. Back to my favorite deal about personal responsibility.

KNick wrote:That is not politics. That is religion brought into politics.

You see that statement right there are your big black blinders. Everyone's personal religion IS brought into politics. Politics ARE an extension of WHO/WHAT you are. There is no such thing as being separate.

You/me/we cannot claim to be an Atheist/Christian/Budhist etc and not bring your values and world view into politics. What you are arguing for is a split personality.

For this reason is why people get mad when talking politics as there are many issues where there is no such thing as compromise. Either you are right, and you feel all fuzzy and warm because the majority agree with you, or you are wrong because the majority do not agree with you. It is why they are called, wait for it, wait for it, PRINCIPLES, VALUES, MORALS.

PS> Why on earth do you believe a 501c organization of any strip, matter, or creed, should not be able to have free speech? Guess, you believe that only those who agree with you should be protected by our constitution eh? See how uncompromising such a statement is? Gets rather personnel.

KNick wrote:That is not politics.

California's Proposition 8.
Abortion.
Legalization of gay marriage in Washington, Maryland, Maine and Massachusetts.
Constitutional amendments against gay marriage in many other states.
The war against the "Islamo-fascists".
Woman's suffrage.
Enslavement of "The race of Cain".
Sex education for teenagers.
Access to birth control medication, morning-after pills and condoms for teenagers or adult women without a perscription.
Immunizing children against common but potentially life-ending diseases.
Accepting the teaching of science in the classroom.
Accepting the idea the earth travels around the sun.
Crusades.
Jihad.
That guy over there worships a funny-looking god, and we should kill him and rape his wife for it.

All of the above have been political issues. All of them have had religious involvement. There is no magic wand to make it stop.

KNick wrote:Beyond that, instead of a BBA, I would prefer to see a Deficit Reduction Amendment passed. (I know, I know, I'm an unrealistic dreamer).If that would mean a smaller government, I could live that.

How would this "Deficit Reduction Amendment" work? How would it deal with things like the Great Depression, 'Great Recession', major wars or events of a similar magnitude? How would we (or would we at all?) make exceptions for those situations? How would this differ from our current situation, except to make a legislative supermajority required for budgetary issues?

Nothing wrong with requiring a supper majority to authorize borrowing money. Hey I liked Robert Heinlein's idea (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) where it takes a 67% majority to pass a law but only a 34% minority to repeal one. Our problem IMHO is not enough laws and regulations, but too many.

Poker

Next month you get to start paying for the Obama care you will maybe get in two years, enjoy y'all.