A lot of people can’t discuss things in a civil manner any more.

G

GP44

Member
I miss the kind of discussions that my Father had with friends and family before the national elections.
They had different opinions and they always discussed things in a civil manner and a lot of the time they threw in a little humor.
It is interesting, looking back at how right or wrong those opinions turned out to be.
Then I remember going to PTA meetings with our Mother where they discussed whether or not we should get the polio vaccine.
It was an all or nothing deal! We either all got vaccinated or none of us would.
Some people were afraid that the vaccine would harm us because the men who developed it had foreign names and it was still close enough to the end of the war where many people didn’t trust foreigners.
Thank God our mothers over came those kind of prejudices and decided what was best for us or God only knows how many of us would be crippled up or living in an iron lung.
You can’t discuss what a candidates stated position is today compared to that of his or her opponent without people getting upset and resorting to name calling and nasty remarks.
But everybody should be concerned about things like taxes and the economy because that affects all of us.
 

I feel responsible for the way our country operates. I can protest what I want, and then help candidates get elected, and then vote. There is not much else I can do personally. But, some people do take things very personally and make it their business to campaign for their cause. We could turn down the volume. It wouldn't stop the protests. But some of us have been listening to LOUD music for ages, so we don't need nobody screaming in our ear. :)
 
I think the reason why people can become so passionate about politics vs some other matters is because those choices can affect a person's finances, their health, security, general welfare, and even civil liberties and freedom. In short, it can alter one's life, so I think many people can feel threatened when those things are at risk.
 
Another reason is that we have entered a new era of getting our information. Not too long ago is was by the Television Networks. Which increasingly made it difficult for civil discussion. Now, in the current new era, we get our information from Artificial Intelligence. This has given us instant news and misinformation. Is there any wonder why we can't have civil discourse?
 
Pepper said:
Sometimes there is no common ground. i.e. slavery; women's suffrage; abortion. You're either free or you're not.
Click to expand...

What if you're free to have an abortion up to 12 or 14 weeks as is the case in Europe? Is that free or not free? Many abortion advocates in the US demand the right to terminate up until the day before birth, which seems barbaric to me.
 
Irishdude said:
What if you're free to have an abortion up to 12 or 14 weeks as is the case in Europe? Is that free or not free? Many abortion advocates in the US demand the right to terminate up until the day before birth, which seems barbaric to me.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I would think normally decisions about abortion would have been made way earlier than the day before birth. But in the case of a life threatening situation to the mother, would you want to legally close that option to the mother or her doctors?
 
JustDave said:
I don't know. I would think normally decisions about abortion would have been made way earlier than the day before birth. But in the case of a life threatening situation to the mother, would you want to legally close that option to the mother or her doctors?
Click to expand...
No, I think medically needed abortions should always be available.
 
This statement is an example, I don't care to discuss abortion in this thread. No direct response is required, just think about it.


"Many abortion advocates in the US demand the right to terminate up until the day before birth, which seems barbaric to me.'



Please define "many" and then post up a list of those advocates if you feel that statement is accurate. If one can't provide the "proof", "evidence", or "data" to back it up why would one write it?


Why is it necessary in a discussion to define a position that's not one's own and argue against it aka a strawman argument?


IMHO, it feels intentional, an intent to derail the convo into a food fight.


I realize this thread is not about abortion or any topic in particular other than discussions, the statement above is a case in point of how come discussions go sideways. Doesn't one think that basically charging the opposite view as being child murderers is going to be hurtful to some of the participants and actual discussion and just produce responses of anger and resentment?

Does anyone think that the vast majority of pro-choice folks think that an abortion the day before birth is something they advocate for or support?

If we all start w the position that the opposing view are all barbarians, murderers, extremists, or some form of horrible people, we'll NEVER get anywhere.

I spent 30 years mediating business disputes that were very often technical in nature, and sometimes w no clear evidence of responsibility of fault. Getting both sides to accept a resolution to resume normal business btwn the parties was a LOT easier when the parties liked each other.
 
Last edited:
againstthegrain said:
Doesn't one think that basically charging the opposite view as being child murderers is going to be hurtful to some of the participants and actual discussion and just produce responses of anger?
Click to expand...
So it's about choosing Orwellian double-speak to ease the consciences of the actors?

Of course the irresponsible guy who has fathered random children he has no use for would be "pro choice."
 
GP44 said:
You can’t discuss what a candidates stated position is today compared to that of his or her opponent
Click to expand...
A big part is most candidates state what they think the people WANT to hear. I'm so tired of hearing the continuous BS being spewed out.
We have a very dear friend that is on the opposite side of the fence, and we always discuss who we feel is the right person for the job and why.
I have to agree with him on some of his points, And he agrees on some of mine.... But in the end, we both maintain who we believe is OUR best choice. Then we enjoy a beer, fellowship and life goes on.
 
dilettante said:
So it's about choosing Orwellian double-speak to ease the consciences of the actors?

Of course the irresponsible guy who has fathered random children he has no use for would be "pro choice."
Click to expand...
No it's about having a polite discussion that leads people to have a deeper understanding of the other's issues.

It's NOT about throwing in some stupid lines, "word salad" if you will to throw the discussion off track as you're doing here.
 
An old Aunt of mine had a way of dealing with people who ranted in her face.
She would exagerate taking a deep breath, then giving the ranter a huge smile, then slowly turn her back on the ranter, walk a few paces, look over her shoulder and smile again, then walk away completely.
She had the most quiet and calm character, and usually stunned those gobby persons.
Over the years I've found myself doing similar as my old Aunt, and it does have an effect. 😊
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top