USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Married? Again?
Go ahead, show me where I'm wrong.
Go ahead, show me where I'm wrong.
Re: Married? Again?
If you don't see it, I can't make you see it. Someday you may be able to step back a little bit and have a bit more balanced perspective.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Married? Again?
what would be the point? when you are wrong*, you generally respond that it doesn't really matter much because you meant well.
That seems to be the eternal divide between those labeled "conservative" and those labeled "progressive."
The "conservative" generally says, "try these, they've been time-tested and generally work out well in the long run."
The "progressive" says, "how can you be so heartless?"
* it's my understanding that all of us are wrong at one point or another, except of course for Rover.
Which raises an intriguing philosophical and psychological dilemma, because few people knowingly and deliberately espouse opinions that they know are wrong, the exceptions being sociopaths, flatterers, and demagogs.
So I know that I am likely wrong in one (or more...) of my opinions, somewhere, somehow. Yet I also know that I only adopt opinions which I genuinely believe to be right.
Hmm. Quite the paradox.
what would be the point? when you are wrong*, you generally respond that it doesn't really matter much because you meant well.
That seems to be the eternal divide between those labeled "conservative" and those labeled "progressive."
The "conservative" generally says, "try these, they've been time-tested and generally work out well in the long run."
The "progressive" says, "how can you be so heartless?"
* it's my understanding that all of us are wrong at one point or another, except of course for Rover.
Which raises an intriguing philosophical and psychological dilemma, because few people knowingly and deliberately espouse opinions that they know are wrong, the exceptions being sociopaths, flatterers, and demagogs.
So I know that I am likely wrong in one (or more...) of my opinions, somewhere, somehow. Yet I also know that I only adopt opinions which I genuinely believe to be right.
Hmm. Quite the paradox.
Last edited:
Re: Married? Again?
I was wrong to think the Vikings will win a Super Bowl in my lifetime. And that Norm Green meant well when he bought the North Stars.
Re: Married? Again?
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I think I can make a case for a conservative critique of same-sex marriage:
"we've had heterosexual marriages for tens of thousands of years, and overall it's worked pretty well. It's the foundation not only of the immediate family, but also the extended family which became the tribe which became the society at large."
"The idea of same-sex marriage is just a tiny blip on that extended timeline, a fraction of a fraction of a percent in the historical perspective. It might work out, it might not. Let's not rush into things too quickly until we have a better understanding of all the ramifications first."
As I said earlier, the state of heterosexual marriage is in such disarray right now, same-sex marriage is probably a net good thing for society, because anything that reinforces the notion of having a two-parent family instead of a single-parent "family" is probably better for the children's health and well-being.
If there are no children involved, then why not allow recognition of a committed partnership between two adults above the age of consent as long as no compulsion is involved?
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I think I can make a case for a conservative critique of same-sex marriage:
"we've had heterosexual marriages for tens of thousands of years, and overall it's worked pretty well. It's the foundation not only of the immediate family, but also the extended family which became the tribe which became the society at large."
"The idea of same-sex marriage is just a tiny blip on that extended timeline, a fraction of a fraction of a percent in the historical perspective. It might work out, it might not. Let's not rush into things too quickly until we have a better understanding of all the ramifications first."
As I said earlier, the state of heterosexual marriage is in such disarray right now, same-sex marriage is probably a net good thing for society, because anything that reinforces the notion of having a two-parent family instead of a single-parent "family" is probably better for the children's health and well-being.
If there are no children involved, then why not allow recognition of a committed partnership between two adults above the age of consent as long as no compulsion is involved?
Last edited:
Re: Married? Again?
Hypotheses (aka predictions), on the other hand, can definitely be right or wrong. "If we allow gay marriage, I predict an increased incidence of X, Y, and Z social ills," would be a testable hypothesis that could be wrong (or right), even if the only way to test it is to try it and see what happens.
Tangent, but I'll bite. I don't think opinions can ever be "wrong." I might have the opinion that the Bengals is the greatest program in the history of the NFL, and I might even be able to find a few reasons why I feel that way. I would probably find very, very few people who agree with me - but does that really mean I'm "wrong?"
Hypotheses (aka predictions), on the other hand, can definitely be right or wrong. "If we allow gay marriage, I predict an increased incidence of X, Y, and Z social ills," would be a testable hypothesis that could be wrong (or right), even if the only way to test it is to try it and see what happens.
Re: Married? Again?
Maybe I used the wrong word, then. "Positions" might be better. Maybe you have an even better suggestion than that?
For example, I might initially have had the "position" that growing income inequality was a result of tax cuts for the rich, until I actually studied income distribution data and found that the pre-tax and after-tax income distributions were the same. Digging deeper into the data, I notice that the only population group that had a disproportionate gain in income distribution statistics were the college educated. I then modify my "position" to be that it was not tax cuts for the rich after all, it was instead superior educational opportunities for a portion of the workforce, that led to the growth in income inequality.
What I find particularly frustrating is when you have people, when facing evidence that their "position" is out of alignment with the empirical data, become even more insistent that their "position" must be "right" because of the nobility of their intentions, despite whatever harmful results ensue.
Maybe I used the wrong word, then. "Positions" might be better. Maybe you have an even better suggestion than that?
For example, I might initially have had the "position" that growing income inequality was a result of tax cuts for the rich, until I actually studied income distribution data and found that the pre-tax and after-tax income distributions were the same. Digging deeper into the data, I notice that the only population group that had a disproportionate gain in income distribution statistics were the college educated. I then modify my "position" to be that it was not tax cuts for the rich after all, it was instead superior educational opportunities for a portion of the workforce, that led to the growth in income inequality.
What I find particularly frustrating is when you have people, when facing evidence that their "position" is out of alignment with the empirical data, become even more insistent that their "position" must be "right" because of the nobility of their intentions, despite whatever harmful results ensue.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Married? Again?
I thought you were a progressive?
I can see where you made the mistake though. See, the progressive doesn't say "You're heartless," the progressive offers a solution. See, a conservative would say, "The iron lung works fine, let's not tinker around in a medical lab and play God," whereas a progressive might say, "Instead of an iron lung, maybe people can get this vaccination instead?"
A conservative might say, "Black people have been slaves for nearly three centuries, why stop now?" whereas a progressive would say, "Blacks are people, not furniture, and owning another person is wrong."
To bring this current, a conservative might argue that health care is best handled by a corporation that answers to shareholders whereas a progressive might argue that health care is best handled by a government that answers to the people, whether they own shares or not.
Or a conservative might say, "we've had heterosexual marriages for tens of thousands of years, and overall it's worked pretty well. It's the foundation not only of the immediate family, but also the extended family which became the tribe which became the society at large," whereas a progressive would argue that just because something has been wrongfully done in the past does not mean we should perpetuate it into the future. A progressive understands that part of evolution is that people change, attitudes change and society inevitably changes. Just because 15 or 15,000 years ago it was unthinkable that Adam would marry Steve doesn't make it right to continue to forbid it.
I would ask you to show me where this has happened, but I know you can't or won't, so let's move on.
I thought you were a progressive?
I can see where you made the mistake though. See, the progressive doesn't say "You're heartless," the progressive offers a solution. See, a conservative would say, "The iron lung works fine, let's not tinker around in a medical lab and play God," whereas a progressive might say, "Instead of an iron lung, maybe people can get this vaccination instead?"
A conservative might say, "Black people have been slaves for nearly three centuries, why stop now?" whereas a progressive would say, "Blacks are people, not furniture, and owning another person is wrong."
To bring this current, a conservative might argue that health care is best handled by a corporation that answers to shareholders whereas a progressive might argue that health care is best handled by a government that answers to the people, whether they own shares or not.
Or a conservative might say, "we've had heterosexual marriages for tens of thousands of years, and overall it's worked pretty well. It's the foundation not only of the immediate family, but also the extended family which became the tribe which became the society at large," whereas a progressive would argue that just because something has been wrongfully done in the past does not mean we should perpetuate it into the future. A progressive understands that part of evolution is that people change, attitudes change and society inevitably changes. Just because 15 or 15,000 years ago it was unthinkable that Adam would marry Steve doesn't make it right to continue to forbid it.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Married? Again?
NO matter what side they fall on they all have the same characteristic of not being able to actually look at an issue and critically think rather than be reactive. The difficulty with not being able to critically think is you are blind to the possibilities of glitches in and impact of a the proposed solution. Example- Theoretically there is no logical basis to bar same sex marriage. Acknowledging the same will necessitate changing a whole lot of regulations, laws, processes in our courts and society. This can effect government budgets, school processes, healthcare policies, etc. Just blindly stating something should or shouldn't be is not enough.
Put them on ignore.
I respectfully disagree. Some of the most narrow minded people I have ever met are not conservatives. Depending on where you live you can have a concentration of obnoxious people on either side of the the argument.
NO matter what side they fall on they all have the same characteristic of not being able to actually look at an issue and critically think rather than be reactive. The difficulty with not being able to critically think is you are blind to the possibilities of glitches in and impact of a the proposed solution. Example- Theoretically there is no logical basis to bar same sex marriage. Acknowledging the same will necessitate changing a whole lot of regulations, laws, processes in our courts and society. This can effect government budgets, school processes, healthcare policies, etc. Just blindly stating something should or shouldn't be is not enough.
Re: Married? Again?
There wouldn't be much left to view on a lot of these threads. Seriously.
Re: Married? Again?
I thought it would happen when they blocked Ray Guy's punt, but no. That's when I decided that either there is no god or there is a god and Bud Grant ****ed him off at some point.
I thought it would happen when they blocked Ray Guy's punt, but no. That's when I decided that either there is no god or there is a god and Bud Grant ****ed him off at some point.
Last edited:
Re: Married? Again?
And so there we have it. Conservatives ignore greed, gluttony and wrath. Liberals ignore sloth, envy and lust. And both are too proud to admit it.
P
Priceless
Guest
And the eighth deadly sin is pizza!!
Re: Married? Again?
I thought it was going to be against the Steelers, when every Steeler score was off an strange bounce of the football. Of course then there was the year when they were probably at their best in that era, and Drew Pearson got away with "The Push." I should have known at that point they were doomed.
I thought it was going to be against the Steelers, when every Steeler score was off an strange bounce of the football. Of course then there was the year when they were probably at their best in that era, and Drew Pearson got away with "The Push." I should have known at that point they were doomed.
Re: Married? Again?
which half the time, if not more, doesn't work.
You are not really describing conservatives, you know. You are only describing a caricature of a conservative.
One wonders if you have any interest in a constructive dialog when you won't even describe accurately the viewpoint of someone with whom you disagree.
No one doubts the progressives' good intentions: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, end all war, elevate the down-trodden. We get it.
We may even share those goals, too. You'll find us running soup kitchens and clothing drives, our donations help maintain shelters, we volunteer as Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
Abundant questions remain about the methods, which somehow never quite get fully discussed, and questions about the actual outcomes seem to be completely ignored in their entirety. "How can you question results when my intentions are so noble?" is about the extent of that conversation.
The best analogy I've heard involves parenting.
-- The Progressive parent doesn't want his/her child to suffer; and tries to shelter the child accordingly.
-- The Conservative parent does not want his/her child to suffer either; however, s/he accepts that suffering is inevitable and tries to train his/her child to learn constructive ways to cope with suffering.
All children, from a young age, will say "Mommy / Daddy, I want to do it myself!"
-- The Conservative parent thinks "good"; while the Progressive parent is conflicted: "but are you ready yet?", s/he thinks.
which half the time, if not more, doesn't work.
You are not really describing conservatives, you know. You are only describing a caricature of a conservative.
One wonders if you have any interest in a constructive dialog when you won't even describe accurately the viewpoint of someone with whom you disagree.
No one doubts the progressives' good intentions: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, end all war, elevate the down-trodden. We get it.
We may even share those goals, too. You'll find us running soup kitchens and clothing drives, our donations help maintain shelters, we volunteer as Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
Abundant questions remain about the methods, which somehow never quite get fully discussed, and questions about the actual outcomes seem to be completely ignored in their entirety. "How can you question results when my intentions are so noble?" is about the extent of that conversation.
The best analogy I've heard involves parenting.
-- The Progressive parent doesn't want his/her child to suffer; and tries to shelter the child accordingly.
-- The Conservative parent does not want his/her child to suffer either; however, s/he accepts that suffering is inevitable and tries to train his/her child to learn constructive ways to cope with suffering.
All children, from a young age, will say "Mommy / Daddy, I want to do it myself!"
-- The Conservative parent thinks "good"; while the Progressive parent is conflicted: "but are you ready yet?", s/he thinks.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Married? Again?
"You may only be 5, but Fishy says you're ready to do it yourself, so here are the keys. Drive safely. Be home by 10."
I applaud your courage in finally admitting that you aren't a progressive. Now to just admit you're a conservative will be a real breakthrough.
Right. Because modern Republicans have been on the forefront of the Civil Rights debate.
That depends upon whom the dialogue is with. If it's with an honest disagreement, sure. If it's with someone who pretends to be a liberal but is really a concern troll, then the answer would be no.
"You may only be 5, but Fishy says you're ready to do it yourself, so here are the keys. Drive safely. Be home by 10."
Re: Married? Again?
Yah, if only they'd developed a time warp to travel back to the 60s and join the fight. Shame on them for failing to do so.
Yah, if only they'd developed a time warp to travel back to the 60s and join the fight. Shame on them for failing to do so.