Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. Reality isn't a simple dichotomy. If you do not try to understand the other side, then you spend your whole time yelling at each other/fighting and nothing gets done.
Not taking a side, but I believe his point can better be understood by using an example.
Would you be willing to compromise with terrorists on the subject of murdering nonbelievers?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Not taking a side, but I believe his point can better be understood by using an example.Would you be willing to compromise with terrorists on the subject of murdering nonbelievers?
While we first have to at least try and understand the opposing side of things, it doesn't mean we have to compromise to it if it is completely vile or evil. That is because there is no chance for any common ground to be found in this scenario.
Fact is, both sides of the abortion argument feel strongly about the sides they stand on and (if you really try and look) both sides have presented reasonable (<--- this is the important part) arguments about why they feel the way they do. They just don't agee.
That is when compromise becomes the best case scenario so that a reasonable common ground can be found.
Granted there are extemes for both sides of the argument but it should be up to the moderates, however, to try and find said common ground if it is at all possible.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
While we first have to at least try and understand the opposing side of things, it doesn't mean we have to compromise to it if it is completely vile or evil. That is because there is no chance for any common ground to be found in this scenario.Fact is, both sides of the abortion argument feel strongly about the sides they stand on and (if you really try and look) both sides have presented reasonable (<--- this is the important part) arguments about why they feel the way they do. They just don't agee.
That is when compromise becomes the best case scenario so that a reasonable common ground can be found.
Granted there are extemes for both sides of the argument but it should be up to the moderates, however, to try and find said common ground if it is at all possible.
As he seems to consider it murder and thus evil, what exactly do you want him to compromise on?
Originally posted by Robtard
I believe Adam's point is that if someone truly believes 'abortion = murder' as fact, how can that person then be open to compromise on what would be murder?
Exactly.
Originally posted by Robtard
I believe Adam's point is that if someone truly believes 'abortion = murder' as fact, how can that person then be open to compromise on what would be murder?
Originally posted by Silent Master
As he seems to consider it murder and thus evil, what exactly do you want him to compromise on?
As you both pretty much made the same points, let me address you both together:
That is why we shouldn't look at things in a dichotomous way. Reality has many levels and people don't all think the same.
When one "truly believes" without some sort doubt or skepticism, then one is a zealot (insert: terrorist) that can't really compromise anyway. Thing is, there are those of us can believe something more than we do its antithesis but do not completely dismiss the other side of the debate and can see the merits in it.
And then there are those that, even tho they are 99.999% certain in their belief, many of them can accept the fact that: without compromise, there can only be conflict. And that many of us can swallow something we do not like for the greater good or so that we can all move forward. Simple practicality.
I believe that the "moderate" side of each debate tend to fall in categories similar to the ones I described above. And that if we simply reach out and talk to each other with open minds, we might get lucky and find something we can both dislike but can live with.
To be specific-to-thread: pro-life might be able to compromise on special and extreme cases/circumstances such as rape and when there is a real threat to the mother's life and that child's has a reasonably low chance of surivival.
Fortunately, technology will eventually come to a point wherein the fetus can be extracted and grown outside the woman's womb. Thus the debate might eventually become obsolete.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
As you both pretty much made the same points, let me address you both together:That is why we shouldn't look at things in a dichotomous way. Reality has many levels and people don't all think the same.
When one "truly believes" without some sort doubt or skepticism, then one is a zealot (insert: terrorist) that can't really compromise anyway. Thing is, there are those of us can believe something more than we do its antithesis but do not completely dismiss the other side of the debate and can see the merits in it.
And then there are those that, even tho they are 99.999% certain in their belief, many of them can accept the fact that: without compromise, there can only be conflict. And that many of us can swallow something we do not like for the greater good or so that we can all move forward. Simple practicality.
I believe that the "moderate" side of each debate tend to fall in categories similar to the ones I described above. And that if we simply reach out and talk to each other with open minds, we might get lucky and find something we can both dislike but can live with.
Do you truly believe that it's wrong to torture,rape and murder?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Then by your own logic aren't you a zealot (insert: terrorist)?
Well, the difference is the above being wrong are established truths already ingrained in our society (or any civilized society) as wrong. We factually know them to be wrong. And I think, only the most extreme of societies could ever justify the above as something acceptable. While the world isn't a dichotomy, does not mean dichotomies (such as fact/not fact) don't exist in the world.
We are discussing beliefs that have not yet been established as factual truths. That is why the term "belief" is used.
Originally posted by quanchi112
What is worse is isn't the difference of opinion but the mentality that people from states shouldn't have this right to determine their own abortion standards. He disagrees which is fine but his inability to respect the other side is blatant hypocrisy. Rob rage created this thread as well.
Yep, it's his way or the highway. I've always been honest with him and the one time I agreed with him he used that against me
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, the difference is the above being wrong are established truths already ingrained in our society as wrong. We factually know them to be wrong. And I think, only the most extreme of societies could ever justify the above as something acceptable. While the world isn't a dichotomy, does not mean dichotomies (such as fact/not fact) don't exist in the world.We are discussing beliefs that have not yet been established as factual truths. That is why the term "belief" is used.
So our society trumps their's?
Originally posted by Silent Master
So our society trumps their's?
If one society is a-ok about murder/rape/torutuee, we would think that we "trump" then about being civilized, don't you think?
Although, I shouldn't really talk as shit is happening in my country right now. That is why I detach myself from my home country's politics. Too upsetting right now.
Good thing my wife and daughter is American and I have a green card amirite?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
If one society is a-ok about murder/rape/torutuee, we would think that we "trump" then about being civilized, don't you think?Although, I shouldn't really talk as shit is happening in my country right now. That is why I detach myself from my home country's politics. Too upsetting right now.
Good thing my wife and daughter is American and I have a green card amirite?
I'll take that as a yes, now. would you be willing to compromise with such a society?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
If they are willing to stop/reconsider their killing/raping/torturing, why not?
You getting everything you want while the other side doesn't isn't a compromise. an example of a compromise would be they will only be allowed to kill, murder and rape 3 days a week, instead of 7.
Would you be ok with that?
Originally posted by Silent Master
You getting everything you want while the other side doesn't isn't a compromise. an example of a compromise would be they will only be allowed to kill, murder and rape 3 days a week, instead of 7.Would you be ok with that?
Then that would still fall outside my acceptable "compromise" threshold.
I would probably try and understand the fundamental reasons behind such behavior and try to tackle the source and not the symptoms of the problem. Then try to establish a compromise such as providing education/structure/etc if such is within my power.
The point here is to TRY and find something both sides can accept. Does not mean it can always happen, however. Especially when the differences are too severe.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then that would still fall outside my acceptable "compromise" threshold.I would probably try and understand the fundamental reasons behind such behavior and try to tackle the source and not the symptoms of the problem. Then try to establish a compromise such as providing education/structure/etc if such is within my power.
The point here is to TRY and find something both sides can accept. Does not mean it can always happen, however. Especially when the differences are too severe.
And if they absolutely insist they still be allowed to murder?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
As you both pretty much made the same points, let me address you both together:That is why we shouldn't look at things in a dichotomous way. Reality has many levels and people don't all think the same.
When one "truly believes" without some sort doubt or skepticism, then one is a zealot (insert: terrorist) that can't really compromise anyway. Thing is, there are those of us can believe something more than we do its antithesis but do not completely dismiss the other side of the debate and can see the merits in it.
And then there are those that, even tho they are 99.999% certain in their belief, many of them can accept the fact that: without compromise, there can only be conflict. And that many of us can swallow something we do not like for the greater good or so that we can all move forward. Simple practicality.
I believe that the "moderate" side of each debate tend to fall in categories similar to the ones I described above. And that if we simply reach out and talk to each other with open minds, we might get lucky and find something we can both dislike but can live with.
To be specific-to-thread: pro-life might be able to compromise on special and extreme cases/circumstances such as rape and when there is a real threat to the mother's life and that child's has a reasonably low chance of surivival.
Fortunately, technology will eventually come to a point wherein the fetus can be extracted and grown outside the woman's womb. Thus the debate might eventually become obsolete.
I still don't see how you can find compromise over something you see as being "murder" as fact. I'm assuming you still hold the belief of abortion = murder?
Fair enough on the mother's life being in danger, as that would fall under self-defense of sorts, but I don't see how you can agree with "murdering" someone because their father happens to be a criminal/rapist. Similar goes with a fetus deemed to have a low chance of survival, if killing it is "murder".
Originally posted by Silent Master
And if they absolutely insist they still be allowed to murder?
Then there doesn't seem to be any room to compromise was there?
I mean if they were willing to agree to limit it to instances of self defense, euthanasia, etc. I could get that.
Tho reducing the murder rate by 60% is pretty tempting, I gotta say. Gotta think about this more.
What is the alternative? Nuking them til they glow in the dark?