[Silver]

I read an interesting passage this week, one that wasn't meant to apply to the abortion argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it applies pretty well to both sides, IMHO:

"In their zeal to protect something precious, people sometimes decide to dig the moat too far out, thinking that it is safer to defend too much than risk defending too little. The result is that they end up trying to defend the indefensible, clinging to an extreme position that is actually vulnerable only because of its exaggeration."

D. Dennett

 

[Echo]

True. That could apply to just about any issue lately on both sides. What ever happened to moderation, discussion, and compromise? It seems like every year things get more polarized.

 

[mack]

System run time error. Failure to load prgm "fancy silver quote."

i dont get it. no wonder im failing english.

 

[Skookum]

True. That could apply to just about any issue lately on both sides. What ever happened to moderation, discussion, and compromise? It seems like every year things get more polarized.

i totally agree and i personally feel the reasons are because we're amidst a time of vast change. And there's a sense that decisions today can deeply effect tomorrow moreso than in recent history.

 

[HippieKai]

thats why i pride myself in being a "situationalist" (<--fancy word i made up) and being very gray on subjects. Not to say that i am wishy washy at all, but just that i think that comprimise and moderation should be used in every circumstance we encounter.
kai-

 

[Skookum]

thats why i pride myself in being a "situationalist" (<--fancy word i made up) and being very gray on subjects. Not to say that i am wishy washy at all, but just that i think that comprimise and moderation should be used in every circumstance we encounter.
kai-

cool can i steal your girlfreind and bike? ink:

 

[HippieKai]

how about i lend the bike to you, and let you flirt with the girl?

 

[DRB]

i totally agree and i personally feel the reasons are because we're amidst a time of vast change. And there's a sense that decisions today can deeply effect tomorrow moreso than in recent history.

From a political standpoint, times of great polarization are not uncommon in US history. Remember the late 60's - 70's. The late 30's. The 1860's. Hell even back to the very beginning there was huge polorization of thought about how to proceed with America. But is this polarization real or percieved?

There is an excellent book recently published called "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America". The author argues that our views are not necessarily that different but that they seem that way due to the rhetoric used by the extremes to frame each issue. He claims that the picture is being skewed by the two main parties that promote divisiveness as a way to energize supporters and vocal special interests that represent political views that are in the minority. Of course that divisiveness is also better for ratings.

 

[valve bouncer]

thats why i pride myself in being a "situationalist" (<--fancy word i made up) and being very gray on subjects. Not to say that i am wishy washy at all, but just that i think that comprimise and moderation should be used in every circumstance we encounter.
kai-

Crap. Everything to extremes, moderation is for monks.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think that quote would work well for everything BUT abortion...at least on the conservative side.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I think that quote would work well for everything BUT abortion...at least on the conservative side.

hahahaha, that was kinda a funny paradox.

 

[HippieKai]

Crap. Everything to extremes, moderation is for monks.

and hippie philosiphers

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

One of the frustrating things about US politics right now (and probably always) is that neither side is hardly ever right about an issue. The answer is almost always somewhere in the middle, but people are to unwilling to comprimise or admit that they might be just a little wrong to ever get anything accomplished. I usually end up looking like a liberal on this forum, mostly because I think conservatives are more wrong about several current issues that have been the popular debate topics lately. Going to war for example- certainly there is a time for diplomacy, and a time to put your foot down, the only real disagreement here is where that line is drawn. The anti-war people here in boulder that think that war is never necessary are merely ignoring history and human nature, unfortunately the conservatives have a war monger in office and for some god damn reason they are staying behind him no matter what he does. This fact is making the hippies look better, even though really their viewpoint contains no more logic than the opposite extreme. I had a teacher once that said that political viewpoints are not actaully on a line, right to left, it's more of a circle. Go far enough either way and you end up at the same place, shatsville.


"General, you are a buddhist, is there not a "middle way"?

"Must float like leaf on river of life... and kill old lady."

 

[Skookum]

From a political standpoint, times of great polarization are not uncommon in US history. Remember the late 60's - 70's. The late 30's. The 1860's. Hell even back to the very beginning there was huge polorization of thought about how to proceed with America. But is this polarization real or percieved?

There is an excellent book recently published called "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America". The author argues that our views are not necessarily that different but that they seem that way due to the rhetoric used by the extremes to frame each issue. He claims that the picture is being skewed by the two main parties that promote divisiveness as a way to energize supporters and vocal special interests that represent political views that are in the minority. Of course that divisiveness is also better for ratings.

Yes the current times are similar to the late 60's and 70's. i don't think the polarization is percieved in recent times and issues. i'm of the thought that in current times profound issues are moving with such action that decision or indecisions can have much more effect that what other issues may afford. Kind of like the steering wheel is gonna be alot more touchy, and the repurcussions will be evident for good or bad or both.
To expound a little on what i'm trying to express. What if the civil rights movement handn't have moved in the way it did.
i can see the general point from the basic premise you describe of this book. But i would retort not to necessarily discount any of it, but to say that men and women are actually very similiar. But as we all know we're completely different.

 

[Andyman_1970]

"General, you are a buddhist, is there not a "middle way"?

"Must float like leaf on river of life... and kill old lady."

I just watched that movie over the holidays, those Cohen brothers are too funny. They got the "being a Christian in the south" down pat.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Yeah that movie was great, not the big lebowski but still good.

btw, Austin Powers's father is named Nigel Powers