Why issues cause Libs and Cons to react so strongly against each other?


View Poll Results: What issues do you strongly care about? (your profile will be kept secret)
Women's rights per their bodies 4 25.00%
Women's rights 2 12.50%
Women around the world & protecting them 2 12.50%
hunger and/or peace 4 25.00%
freedom of lifestyle including everything (religion, type of family, lifestyle, etc) 10 62.50%
Men's rights (equality, equal parenting, Due Process & protection -reversed prejudice 7 43.75%
Gun ownership rights 8 50.00%
Freedom from Big Govt. intruding into your life 9 56.25%
Abortion & right to life 6 37.50%
Protecting the Constitution (also preserving middle class, family, etc) 12 75.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
outlaw1 is offline outlaw1 Post #1  May 15,2009, 3:31pm

Time for the phalanx to go back to work...

Virtuoso

Joined: Jan 2009

NJ for now

Posts: 3,799

See profile

I got this idea (title of thread) from James. What issues do you think cause Liberals and Conservatives to react so strongly to each other today? Can anything be done about that or are we mortal enemies?

Would you stand up and "die"* for your cause? In a legal manner of speaking, while working within the system.

*Symbolic word that could also mean would you sacrifice your time, energy and some overall goals of your life to pursue justice? If you object to this word, please ignore it and answer the rest of the post! Thanks.
 
  Reply With Quote
outlaw1 is offline outlaw1 Post #2  May 15,2009, 3:45pm

Time for the phalanx to go back to work...

Virtuoso

Joined: Jan 2009

NJ for now

Posts: 3,799

See profile

Hear ye, hear ye, public eha discussion now in session. Come one, come all...can we agree to talk about this subject in an agreeable fashion?

What issues cause us to react so strongly? Have we gone so far that we can no longer agree? Or is this rift too deep, too long and too painful?
 
  Reply With Quote
outlaw1 is offline outlaw1 Post #3  May 15,2009, 3:50pm

Time for the phalanx to go back to work...

Virtuoso

Joined: Jan 2009

NJ for now

Posts: 3,799

See profile

The poll didn't have enough space to include other pressing issues. What do YOU think?
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #4  May 15,2009, 4:00pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

There are a few issues that I would fight for if put to the test.

The one that strikes a nerve the most is that of abortion rights for women. I loved hearing Rush Limbaugh making a complete b00b of himself on air just today about this very issue. He loses credibility when he chooses to make decisions for others & make judgements on an issue that is so highly personal to individuals. I cannot imagine how any woman in their right mind would be a fan of his as he is absolutely, positively anti-woman.

I am against exploitation of any kind.

I may also have to stand up against the geniuses that want to put tolls back on our highways in my state. Gee, I am a resident of this area & I WANT to pay to drive AND, more importantly, lose significantly more time on the roads every day. Our daily traffic is already insane but with those tolls it will back up the highway through 2 counties. Completely shortsighted individuals right there.
 
  Reply With Quote
D_Lion is offline D_Lion Post #5  May 15,2009, 4:31pm
D_Lion's Avatar

- Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Joined: Aug 2008

NJ

Posts: 30,743

See profile

My strongest issue – and I realize it’s not on your list – is that the political economy be managed in a technically-competent way so as to improve living standards for all, or nearly all, Americans who observe a certain minimum level of personal effort. I feel that the present system gives too much authority to people who possess insufficient expertise in the subjects over which they legislate.

I do believe that a basic level of quality of life can be maintained without undo disruption to personal freedoms and opportunity – and that this baseline is higher than is presently afforded to too many people.
[FONT=Arial]
 
  Reply With Quote
D_Lion is offline D_Lion Post #6  May 15,2009, 4:37pm
D_Lion's Avatar

- Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Joined: Aug 2008

NJ

Posts: 30,743

See profile

bigfincat,
[COLOR=black]
 
  Reply With Quote
Jacquesne is offline Jacquesne Post #7  May 15,2009, 8:16pm
Jacquesne's Avatar

knows the answer...42

Veteran

Joined: May 2008

Reno, NV

Posts: 1,357

See profile

Liberals and conservatives react so strongly against each other because both believe they know what the "other" group believes and then get mad when they're wrong. Why are they wrong? Because everyone has a different set of political views and different opinions on individual issues. Sure, some people tend towards trends. But the majority of people have both liberal and conservative ideas and when they meet and stereotype it causes a lot of anger.

Likewise many people become accustomed to the assumption that their view is "true." When a "truth" becomes challenged they take it as a personal attack. The problem is that no opinion is true. What do I mean by that? You cannot prove an opinion. If it were provable it's a fact, not an opinion. "The sky is blue" is a fact. You look up and the thing is blue, unless it's night, then it's probably more of a blackish color, but now we're getting into details. "Killing is wrong" is an opinion. It's a statement of value. Statements of value are never facts.

This is a difficult concept. It sounds simple but it's not. Very few things are facts. They're easy to confuse. "The sky is blue" is a fact while "the sky is beautiful" is an opinion. Even if every person on Earth agrees that the sky is beautiful it doesn't make it true. It's why statistics are so often used to argue opinions. They cannot be proven with fact and thus it becomes "most people agree with me so it's true." That doesn't make it true. It just means a whole lot of people share your opinion.

It's really, really hard to admit that all your opinions are not facts. Yes, even for me. Is it hard for me to admit that my belief that abortion is murder is an opinion? I have a million arguments. I can say that a fetus has it's own DNA (a fact) and thus is not part of a woman's body. A kidney is part of her body. You do a DNA test on a kidney, or hair, or fingernail, or any part of a woman's body and it will come back as her DNA. You do that on a fertilized zygote and it comes back as "someone else." I can say that dependence does not equate ownership. An infant is completely reliant on outside care. If you just leave an infant lying there it will die. So is it still part of her body until it can walk and open the refrigerator?

Regardless there are millions of Americans out there who do not share my value. Likely the majority reading this right now do not share my belief. Unfortunately I have to admit that my opinion is a statement of value and that your opinion is valid. I don't agree with it. I don't believe I should be forced to agree with it (and forcing it wouldn't happen anyway). But if you tell me that you believe a fetus is just a collection of flesh there's really nothing I can say that proves you wrong. What defines a life is a statement of value. No fact can prove the value.

Now see how much you likely wanted to argue with my "points?" How you have your list of "facts" that disprove my own? The desire to convince others to share your opinions is strong and creates a lot of hostility when other people just don't "get" your value.

That being said all values are not created equal. While values cannot be proven or really disproved policy is a real construct and can be argued. For instance the majority of people agree that murder is wrong and should be punished. So we have a law against murder. If someone kills someone else and in their opinion it's no big deal that doesn't mean we just sit back and go "OK, well, that's your value so carry on." The basis of democracy is the idea that we put the power to decide such policies in the hands of the majority so that communities are allowed to decide on what values the group shares. Granted it's a bit more complicated than all this. I've already written half a book, not going to actually go through all of it. I guess you could say it's all my opinion anyway .

I can safely assume the majority of people never think about this stuff. They have their worldview, there are the "others" who think otherwise, those people are wrong, and they're happy with that. It's simple, it's easy to categorize, and allows them to do more important things like live their lives. People naturally gravitate towards others who share their values because it makes interaction easier. There's no culture shock, no confusion, and little misunderstanding because the people are coming from the same or similar perspective. It's one of the main reasons why people have always grouped into "ethnic groups" and the basis of nations and communities.

When people of different perspectives meet however they're forced to either admit their values aren't shared and accept that or just choose to believe they have the right way and the other guy is wrong (AKA ethnocentrism). The U.S. is ethnically diverse, in general, and thus these conflicts arise often. In countries where different ethnicities are rare, such as Japan, these conflicts are much less common. As communication becomes more globalized these conflicts become more obvious as people's basic opinions are challenged by more and more people who don't share those opinions.

And if you don't agree with any of that, well, you're completely, totally, one-hundred-percent wrong.

Jacquesne
 
  Reply With Quote
Jacquesne is offline Jacquesne Post #8  May 15,2009, 8:34pm
Jacquesne's Avatar

knows the answer...42

Veteran

Joined: May 2008

Reno, NV

Posts: 1,357

See profile

outlaw, if you're looking for a more specific rift within the United States as to the division between "liberal" and "conservative" the Civil War is a good place to start. The Republican Party of the time (which was interestingly the "liberal" party) disagreed with the Democratic party (the "conservative" party) over whether or not each state had the right to decide the legality of slavery. The Republicans believed they had the right to apply their value (slavery is wrong) to the entire country regardless of what an individual state decided. The Democrats believed that each state had the right to decide to make it illegal or legal based on their own vote.

The arguments on the Republican side are more convincing from today's perspective because of our value on the rights of the individual which was clearly being violated by the institution of slavery itself. But from the perspective of the time it was more an argument of whether or not the federal government had the right to make a global social policy decision or not which it had not done previously outside of constitutional amendments. Basically unless the Constitution stated something was forbidden, like the Bill of Rights, the federal government could not interfere with state laws on any issue which did not involve interstate issues. There was no feasible way to create this amendment because the slave states would not support it.

When Lincoln was elected the southern states viewed this as the end of their right to own slaves and make their own state decisions. They believed they had a constitutional right to secede as the "United States" was originally a volunteer union of separate states, not one nation. So they decided to secede and separate themselves from the policy decisions of this new federal government. In hindsight this was a too extreme and the emotional nature of the issue didn't help.

After a bloody war the states were "united" under the federal government and the rest is history. The precedent for federal policy decisions was established and the division between those who still believe this is against the Constitution and those who believe it's for the greater good exists to this day.

Considering an all out "brother vs. brother" war was fought over this exact topic I suppose it shouldn't be that surprising that liberals and conservatives react strongly against each other. Granted this conflict of mentality existed long before the Civil War but it's the one that arguably affects us most today. We think of it as a really long time ago but it's only a few generations back.

Something to think about.

Jacquesne
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #9  May 15,2009, 8:39pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

[quote=D_Lion;607672]bigfincat,
[COLOR=black]
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #10  May 15,2009, 8:55pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

Jacquesne backed up my whole point in how Limbaugh loses credibility. I wanted to call the show just to state that he was erroneously stating his opinion as fact. I would never call though because it isn't worth my energy. He would just restate his opinion & say that he won the debate anyhow.

Isn't it great when the overweight guy is telling other people how to live? I am not judging him on that. Just stating that it is inappropriate to state that you know how everyone should live when you in fact have some clear downfalls.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« GWB on billboard: "Miss me yet?" | Politics | Is MLK's (Dr. King) Dream Realized ? Where are we as a country, & how far do we have to go still? Open & honest comm. thread »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It's important to understand the way a site works. Rigidly assuming / insisting that eH works likes all the others you're used to isn't utilizing the site functions to your best advantage. No.... ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “First contact on eHarmony, smile, questions, email?” discussion

“ If you have yet to meet, you don't know him or whether you two will form a connection. Connections formed over e-mail tend to be fantasies. You will see this echoed over and over by experienced ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “How do i recoonect with him again?” discussion

“ Then it's a bit premature to worry about being friend-zoned. The first step is to go out on dates! What specific steps did you try? How many women did you ask out in person? Did you buy a ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “For women to answer: How to avoid the friend zone” discussion

“ This is an old thread. She asked this in 2010. By now they are likely very exclusive or very over. ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “is there a reason to ask if we're exclusive?” discussion

“ I'm sure he wouldn't get that. And I can't be sure that was the actual message. But it sems kind of likely to me.” –  boomer_gal

Join the “Why am I not successful?” discussion

“Hi eccemuliere and welcome to eHA.On an internet forum like eHA, you're going to get a wide variety of responses; some you'll like and some you won't. It's best to focus on the ones that speak to ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Being blown off, or something else?” discussion

“ Although I have ignored my gut at times, in hindsight it's always been right, in terms of recognizing bad choices. QUOTE] But once we realize our past mistakes, we can use our reason to clue us ... ” –  eccemuliere

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:03am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0