Respectful coexistence

Post Reply New Topic

It is always good to be reminded, from time to time, that there is more that unites us than divides us.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/fac ... le1824680/

Damn, it's times like these that I wish I had one of those "The More We Get Together" video clips from This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

Oh well, this'll suffice.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtU2cF_yGU4[/youtube]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a more serious note, I really don't see much point in the "trans-ideology" movement - which mainly comes from figures on the nominal left. I mean, sure, people have "more in common on basic, apolitical, matters" then we think, but how is that effective or even productive to note during the rhetorical and organizational clashes that occur during elections? Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy may have been best buddies, but Orrin Hatch's party knew that when they campaigned or were on the media it was not the time to "reach across the aisle" to try and hold hands with the other guy. In their private lives they may be aminable, but professionally politicians of opposing parties in a two-party syste should be making opposing cases and presenting opposing ideologies.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 07 Dec 2010, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, please, not Raffi - I can go as far as Mr Rogers.

I am ALL for peaceful coexistence and TOTALLY for respectful debate, and will happily discuss with someone who will talk nice.

But it is not universally possible - some people see me as an automatic enemy - and vice versa.

I do not know any tea partiers. I suspect, if I did I would be inadequately vociferous in the areas where we agree, not to mention places not.

Nothing to do with policy and stance, but style is a problem I have found that I am best walking quietly away from most vociferous people. Give me someone who disagrees with everything I stand for but can talk straight.

I think respectful coexistence is certainly an ideal to be worked for.

The problem as I see it, though, is can it be that we can peacefully coexistence AND maintain our present views?

Can, for example, a society that at the very least ALLOW for homosexuality/alternative lifestyles stand while at the same time allow for those whose religious freedoms allow for them to speak out against it? I'm just being honest here. I don't think it's something we can expect REALISTICALLY. I'm of the persuasion that if we Christians think there is something wrong with the way someone lives their life in such a way incompatible with Biblical teaching, we are to respond in a kind and loving way in accordance with scripture.

I repeat, I'm just being honest--I think that's the state of our society (in the USA). I'm the kind of person that can speak out against it (saying, "this is how I feel and this is why I feel that way) without resorting to being downright hateful. I mean, I CAN be for the sake of discussion, but in terms of where I personally stand, I bear no hatred towards those I disagree with. The problem is where you DO have people that harbor that kind of hateful thought process or truly hateful speach, i.e. carrying signs that says "God hates f@gz." You know I'm talking about Westboro, but by extension I could also refer to churches that advocate burning the Koran to make a statement. If Christians wish to reach Muslims, then engaging in the same kind of behaviors that extremists from the opposite side engage in is not the right way to go.

What I personally have a problem with are those of the opposition who take a more extreme approach. I do think that if it is the will of the people that a certain group NOT be considered part of a protected class and to not accept those kinds of ideas being pushed upon them, then in a free society votes that are meant to say as much ought to be allowed to stand, i.e. Prop 8 in California. Further, I think that certain issues such as anti-bullying laws or school regulations should take into account bullying as a whole, not simply a way to prevent people from speaking their mind.

I myself am not trying to push pro-gay, anti-gay kinds of ideas by saying this--I'm just saying that neither side is pure as driven snow when it comes acting in such a way as to fit within a peaceful coexistence. We all have to be able to speak our minds without impinging on another persons' freedoms. I think one of the most clear demonstrations of what I'm talking about had to do with media response to GW Bush right after 911. The media outlets were too scared to touch him, and it was only a few short weeks before members of Congress were speaking out. It took a long time, I'd say (to my best recollection) about 6 months before the media had turned against Bush again, but they had never been very favorable of him from the time he was elected. They were afraid, but the plain fact is that Bush did not overturn or rewrite the Constitution, and when people figured out it was still OK to be critical of the president, things went right back to the ways they'd been before 911 with the added criticism of whether he'd handled it properly. It was even worse with hurricane Katrina and whether the federal government had acted quickly enough. But in USA society, it's ok to be critical of others and speak/vote your conscience. But opposing something should not be seen as an outright attack upon it. My concern (and I hope I'm wrong) is that the prevailing attitudes seem to be anti-Christian and that, say, anti-bullying only applies to a certain group of people rather than benefiting all. As long as there are inequities in justice, whether real or perceived, there will be difficulties in peaceful coexistence.

I'm well practiced in what's being described in the article; I'm a libertarian living in a very liberal city with a liberal wife. I guess the real lesson is to not take this stuff (politics) too seriously, or at least learn to take it off at the door when interacting with people, I've found that politics has very little to do with whether or not I'll get along with someone. I tried to peddle a similar line over in Love & Dating the other day when people were listing their political affiliations as relationship "deal breakers", they weren't too receptive to the idea either.

polite people realize that discussing hot-button topics in mixed company is bad manners. it would be best [or at least more peaceful] if people stick to their own kind.

I dont like arguing politics with loved ones. These polititans(sp) dont care and dont care to know how many family relationships are destroyed by them. People seeking power are blinded by it.

But as far as the tea party goes...I am worried about their stance on the origional contitution WITHOUT the amendments.
That means elemenating any progress we have made as a nation to be more civil towards each other.
That means no women's rights (sorry women under the origional constution you would not be allowed to vote or have any of the rights we fought so hard for)
this means no civil rights what so ever even disability rights
Autistic kids will not have the right to an equal education or any education in some cases
not sure, if slavery abolishment was considered part of the origional constitution or not, I dont think so ...so that means...slavery will be allowed as well.

I actually think these people are freakish...they can say all they want about opposing big coorperate greed, but the people I know that are tea partiers...are neo nazi's

And talk about respecting people's views, one of my friend's is a neo nazi. I dont agree with it at all, but he is still a friend. I am what some would call a liberal...but I just happen to care about the suffering of others as I have seen so much suffering due to poverty.
I dont agree with dems on all issues...matter of fact I dont like them much more than republicans. I have decided that they are the same party like two sides of one coin. They fight it out like its the end of the world in the media...but then afterwards go grab coffee together and hang out. I know that the tea party seems like an answer in desperate times...but you never want to make a choice out of desperation...expacially the only choice that seems to be too good to be true. All I can say is beware of major shifts in government when the people are desperate. That is a good way to let in trojan horse....a neo nazi one at that

Anyway, I do think that respect will go a long way towards solving what is wrong with our nation.

I MOSTLY agree with this, and it's never my intention to offend anyone in a discussion. The one thing I think (hope) we can all agree on is that when confronted with the issues that an attack on an idea is NOT an attack on the person.

The tiny part I disagree here is whether "more peaceful" is really best. Compromise never really makes anyone happy, and complete division is harmful to society as a whole. People "sticking to their own kind" become resentful if they are isolated long enough, and I don't think anyone really wants to see that.

But bad manners? Probably. My step-father is a vehement racist, and next year my hometown is finally being forced (by the feds, no less) to consolidate their school district. They fought integration since its inception, and there have been so many budget concerns the county-wide district has not been able to effectively maintain its properties--especially the facilities. I interviewed for a job at the "white" school and was appalled at all the exposed plumbing, paint falling off the walls, and general disarray of a school that hadn't been maintained properly since probably the 1950's. On the western side of the county, you have the "black" school which is in similar or worse condition. In the middle you have the city school which benefits from a more affluent tax base and in the south you have another "black" school that has benefitted from government funding (the building is NICE--I interviewed for a job there, too). So it's no wonder that parents outside the city district do their best to send their kids to the private school. My step-father is going on and on about what's about to happen, throwing around the n-word every other phrase, and I'm slowly going nuts trying not to say anything. The whole time I'm thinking "it's about TIME they closed that stupid school down and bussed the kids to the city." But, of course, I can't SAY that.

The problem is I can't say that on account of wanting to be polite, but the problem is the company in which I'm in doesn't care about being polite, either. Where's the balance?

Sounds dreadfully bland to me.

ruveyn

I don't have a "kind" to stick to, and even if I did that would be incredibly limiting with no real pay off. Like I mentioned previously, my wife and the majority of my friends are quite different from me ideologically, yet we still manage to get along just fine despite our philosophical disagreements.

I will say that when I was dating I tended to play my cards close to the vest when I first met someone because so many people have preconceived notions about other groups, so by the time anyone realized that I was a gun toting cigar chomping libertarian they already liked me too much to care. It's sort of like the common story of an anti-gay bigot finding out a friend is gay, then realizing that it doesn't really change anything; in my case it's mostly been the gun owner stereotypes that I've circumvented by letting people get to know me before cluing them in.

bland and boring have been my best buddies for quite a while now.

Yeah. It shows.

ruveyn

I thought you wanted things to change. Adversity breeds innovation.

Don't knock it. There are worse ways to be boring.

Me, bland is fine - I rarely get bored, having interior resources

As long as people want to play nice and not try to kill everyone to somehow earn brownie points for, essentially, human sacrifices, living in peace is fine. However, when people actively attempt to kill others it's not a matter of just wanting to live in peace and harmony via flower power - that will only lead to pushing up daisies according to the intent of the aggressor. Neutralizing or inhibiting such threats is better than letting them run unhindered.

Two people, three arguments topic

I can be tolerant of other opinions, provided there is valid evidence for the other opinion, and compromises are made.

I can be tolerant if I have known the other person, and can understand the reasons for that point of view.

I can be tolerant if the other person has demonstrated behaviour and actions that are consistent and not hyprocritical.

I can be tolerant of another opinion if the opinion does not advocate or lead to counterproductive violence, or violence for its own sake.

(In Canada Stephen Harper is a conservative, but he would hardly be thought as republican in the US.)