Samnell and CourtFool in Compromising Positions


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

CF wanted another thread, so here we go. The topic, I think, is the issue of compromise vs. polarization, or perhaps partisanship vs. bipartisanship in the informal sense, as a means of achieving change. A nerve (positive, I hope!) was struck. So here we are. :)


Compromise

First, let me admit that I have a tendency to want to put things in extremes. So I must be conscious not to take what someone says, expand it to its obvious extreme, and then assume that the person also agrees with that outcome.

Samnell wrote:
When one of my major principles is the avoidance of hypocrisy, not really. That another is non-violence pretty much seals the deal.

So you have never called someone that disagreed with you a bigot, because my understanding of the definition could just as easily apply if you are intolerant of their view point.

Samnell wrote:
I think a great deal of common ground seeking actually impedes the frank exchange of views and attempts to resolve, or even honestly approach, very serious and fundamental differences in the body politic.

I am unconvinced. How I envision seeking common ground necessitates an exchange of views and attempts to resolve and honestly approach differences. It is really compromise if you think lose/win or is it just 'giving in'? I do not think anything can be won by just 'giving in'. Both parties need to budge.

Samnell wrote:
There are differences in value structures that themselves are a grave problem and require some kind of arrangement for peaceful coexistence, and we're not going to get there by trying to act as though deep down we all fundamentally agreed.

The language 'arrangement for peaceful coexistence' almost sounds exactly like what I am talking about. Are you with me or against?!

Again, to find common ground we first need to discuss our differences. One has to express their desire for the other to know where it is you are trying to get to. I seriously do not think you can do that if everyone just pretends to agree. You can hope things might just work out for you, but that kind of leads to manipulation if things don't, doesn't it?

Samnell wrote:
I do not have an identical value structure to people with whom I have serious disagreements.

Fair enough. So we are not talking about a rules dispute over grappling with friends here. However, I think we can find things we have in common with people with whom we have serious disagreements. I bet Osama bin Laden loves his children (he has them, doesn't he?). Is there not some way to work from this (example)?

Samnell wrote:
But no, you're not going to achieve a lot of change by compromising with yourself, then compromising with the other guy, then compromising some more.

Again, I think this is lose/win thinking. Giving in with the hopes the other person will also, at some later date, give in magnanimously is equally counter-productive. Both sides must honestly express their desires and walk away with something they are happy with.

I can not argue with your example. Nor am I sufficiently educated to counter with one of my own. I know slavery did not disappear over night and took a civil war to finally bring about real change which I think makes a statement for your position. I am still considering that.

Samnell wrote:
I hope it's a good kind of nerve.

It is a frank exchange of views, no? How can that be bad? If your position has merit, as an honest intellectual (yeah, I did just label myself an intellectual :P ) then I should change my position, right. And likewise.


CourtFool wrote:
Samnell wrote:
I've come to the opposite conclusion.
And you see no danger in becoming what you detest?
I can't imagine wanting to just invite them in and let them integrate (especially not in an open door manner). Poisoning the well and all that.
CourtFool wrote:


…and the opposition maintains the same mind-set. So do we just kill everyone who does not agree with us? That is a bit extreme…how about we just kill everyone who does not agree with us on really important issues.

It is not that I do not understand where you are coming from. I think everyone can. It just seems there is a long history of polarization not working for the most part. I suppose you could argue civil wars 'worked', but I am not sure I want to go down that road.

No the opposition has the "my way or the no way" mindset. Open arms is inviting destruction in my opinion. But violence and genocide are not real options, even if one was so inclined to attempt them (which I'm not).

If you care to note:

ArchLich wrote:


I can't imagine wanting to just invite them in and let them integrate (especially not in an open door manner). Poisoning the well and all that.

If the door is open and there are no restrictions on their behaviour or promises they must make (about playing fair, not promoting hate, etc) then they don't get to play. If they don't like this, tough.

Education and information almost always win over brow beating and out dated traditions.


So we can all agree that just laying down does not work?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, but it's also not compromise. In European politics, compromise is an everyday, non-controversial occurrence with both sides giving things up to get other thingas that are more important to them. That's compromise. Shouting "My way or the highway" or pretending your opponent has no good ideas at all si not compromise any more than abandonning everythign and letting your opponent do whatever they like is.

I think america is so partisan at the moment that compromise is impossible as both sides feel the wqay of Samnell and Archlich: Any concession is a sign of weakness and must be avoided even if it actually improves things.


CourtFool wrote:
So we can all agree that just laying down does not work?

I'll agree it doesn't work as well as digging a hole in the sand and inserting your head.


Curiously I find myself agreeing with the principal that samnell laid out in many regards. I think compromise is over rated, and I find many political and ideological compromises produce poor outcomes that don't really further the goals of either side. I've used the example of the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution in another thread as an example of this. I think it still holds.

I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.


Paul Watson wrote:

Yes, but it's also not compromise. In European politics, compromise is an everyday, non-controversial occurrence with both sides giving things up to get other thingas that are more important to them. That's compromise. Shouting "My way or the highway" or pretending your opponent has no good ideas at all si not compromise any more than abandonning everythign and letting your opponent do whatever they like is.

I think america is so partisan at the moment that compromise is impossible as both sides feel the wqay of Samnell and Archlich: Any concession is a sign of weakness and must be avoided even if it actually improves things.

Oh,.....teach us, Europe.

Teach us your wise, and ancient ways.
*schnichnk.k.errr*


re: compromise......it all depends.
there's a time to every purpose under heaven.


CourtFool wrote:

Compromise

First, let me admit that I have a tendency to want to put things in extremes. So I must be conscious not to take what someone says, expand it to its obvious extreme, and then assume that the person also agrees with that outcome.

So do I. But we can try to ward against it. I often fail, but so it goes.

The talk about striking a nerve, I wanted to say right off, was in the sense that I hoped I was being interesting and not annoying. I realize (a few minutes later, naturally) my post of *applause* could have been taken as boorish crowing. My intention was just to admire the paradox in your line about how you thought maybe I had something of a good idea, but could not agree for fear of compromise. It's a little fun conversational irony, not a victory lap. :)

CourtFool wrote:


So you have never called someone that disagreed with you a bigot, because my understanding of the definition could just as easily apply if you are intolerant of their view point.

By the dictionary definition, sure. But the dictionary definition is pretty much never what people use. Bigot usually means, informally, "you're a prejudiced jerk".

What about tolerance, though? I think it's an important value, but it applies to people. Ideas and actions are rather different. Even there, tolerance invites a paradox. If one tolerates intolerance, than one has essentially ceased to be tolerant. Toleration of intolerance will allow the intolerant to subvert the structures of an open society to create its opposite. Yet if one does not actively oppose intolerance, than can one really be tolerant? Because of this, I tend to view tolerance as a sort of bounded virtue. It's often good, but not always.

That's aside things that I don't think anybody should tolerate at all, of course.

CourtFool wrote:


I am unconvinced. How I envision seeking common ground necessitates an exchange of views and attempts to resolve and honestly approach differences. It is really compromise if you think lose/win or is it just 'giving in'? I do not think anything can be won by just 'giving in'. Both parties need to budge.

Someone is always going to lose. Someone is always going to win. If that were not the case, there would be no controversy at all. I advocate accepting this. I don't want to lose at all on any issue of significance, and I don't want my opposite number on any issue of significance to win at all. Or more broadly, I accept that maximizing my winning means minimizing the other guy’s. To want one is to want the other.

Let me put it to you this way:

Walter wants there to be no executions.
Andy is a huge fan of the death penalty.

Where's the middle ground? Either there is going to be a death penalty or there is not. That's just the nature of reality. One of these guys would still have to lose and the other consequently win. There are always winners and losers in changes of any significance.

Samnell wants same-sex marriage.
X does not.

Where's the room for compromise? Should same-sex marriage be denied in some places or to some same-sex couples, but permitted in others and to other same-sex couples? That might qualify as some kind of compromise in the minds of some, but to me it would still represent capitulation.

As I'm a big believer in the universalization of human rights, I think that their abuse anywhere is a loss. That one is not executed in America for being gay doesn't help those who are executed in Saudi Arabia for the same. If it's wrong and should not happen here, it's wrong and should not happen there.

CourtFool wrote:


The language 'arrangement for peaceful coexistence' almost sounds exactly like what I am talking about. Are you with me or against?!

I don't know?! :)

But peaceful coexistence means that the values of the people who want it have to prevail over the values of those who do not.

CourtFool wrote:
Again, to find common ground we first need to discuss our differences. One has to express their desire for the other to know where it is you are trying to get to. I seriously do not think you can do that if everyone just pretends to agree. You can hope things might just work out for you, but that kind of leads to manipulation if things don't, doesn't it?

In my experience, a great deal of compromise-seeking amounts to pretending there are no differences on one side and the other side kicking the first guy in the junk and running away with his wallet. I’ve seen it in the political arena and I’ve seen it on a personal scale. I thus think that a lot of middle ground seeking is manipulation in itself. That's not to say that it all is, of course.

In the same-sex marriage debate, I’ve been told that most of the opponents would go home and not care if the legislature passed a law instead of things being accomplished by a court ruling. But they didn’t. Instead when the legislature started passing same-sex marriage, they decided that it wasn’t enough and there had to be a referendum on it instead. Most of them were obviously lying even before this when they supported anti-marriage amendments to state constitutions that prevented the legislatures from doing what they claimed they could accept. So all the appeals to majority rule and against judicial activism were lies. If I’d ever actually fallen for them, I’d say I’ve been played.

CourtFool wrote:


Fair enough. So we are not talking about a rules dispute over grappling with friends here. However, I think we can find things we have in common with people with whom we have serious disagreements. I bet Osama bin Laden loves his children (he has them, doesn't he?). Is there not some way to work from this (example)?

No, it’s not grappling rules. I’m as familiar with, and guilty of, nerdrage as anybody. But I’m talking about stuff that really matters.

I will agree, of course, that we can find things in common with people with whom we have serious disagreements. What I deny is that these things we have in common are likely to be very relevant to the issues of contention. Osama may love his children, but it obviously didn’t stop him from getting some guys to drive planes into buildings. Furthermore that he loves his children doesn’t mean he gives a damn about anybody else’s.

So I don’t really see a lot to work with. Even if Osama and I agreed that fathers love their children and that’s a wonderful thing, it’s also true that he knew that every person who worked at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon had a father too. I think it’s tempting to try to go from these fairly irrelevant commonalities and try to make something substantive, but the potential is pretty lacking. It feels good not to be outraged or arguing all the time, to get along, and so forth. These are narcotics that can seduce us into blindness towards the real and serious disagreements.

It’s fine to, as a recreational thing, seek out commonalities. But the differences are what really matters and what we must truly grapple with.

CourtFool wrote:


Again, I think this is lose/win thinking. Giving in with the hopes the other person will also, at some later date, give in magnanimously is equally counter-productive. Both sides must honestly express their desires and walk away with something they are happy with.

This is fine for issues that nobody much cares about, for which the outcomes are consequently irrelevant. But that describes no issue of any significance with which I am familiar. When parties want opposing things, that’s the end of it. Only when parties are fundamentally and genuinely agreed as to their goals and priorities are both sides really going to be able to walk away happy.

I do wish that both sides would be honest about their desires, but that’s really rare. Candor doesn’t poll very well, though it’s not hard to find a revelatory position or two if one starts looking closely. Getting people to admit to them after the fact is just as hard as getting it before, though.

CourtFool wrote:
I can not argue with your example. Nor am I sufficiently educated to counter with one of my own. I know slavery did not disappear over night and took a civil war to finally bring about real change which I think makes a statement for your position. I am still considering that.

Not all issues are slavery, of course. (Though I do think that a huge load of American politics remains devoted to grappling with it, and not very successfully. Many conversational taboos have been forced into the debates that prevent getting serious.)

But I do think that issues of significance inherently map to similar fundamental differences. (These are not always binary differences, of course. Nor are they always readily apparent.) I would even go further and say that these differences correlate very strongly with one another, to the degree that we can separate out historical and momentary contingencies of politics and examine the values themselves. Worldviews do not come out of nowhere, but arise from and are influenced by, and in turn influence, our values and from them we derive our issue preferences and positions.

I think it’s far more often the case that both parties do not fundamentally agree, either in goals or priorities, than that they do. I’m not sure how we would end up with any meaningful controversy if everyone agreed on that sort of basic level. Every question would simply be one of expediency and efficiency.

Consider the debate over abstinence-only education. This is a simple, empirical issue. We can run the studies and find out exactly what kinds of education do the most to prevent and/or delay pregnancy. In fact, we’ve done them. So there should be widespread agreement, since both sides want to prevent and/or delay pregnancy in teenagers. But that’s not the case.

I am concerned in the long run about a sort of slavery-style progression, though. As long as no powerful alternative is posed to one side simply demanding more and more, that side is simply going to win more and more all the time. It’s going to get more and more extreme, crazier and crazier, and harder and harder to deal with constructively. Trying to find middle ground against this kind of progression, in the absence of an extremely vigorous and equally committed ideological counterweight isn’t going to accomplish much. It’s done fabulously at making what used to be the more leftist of the two dominant American political parties swing very far to the right, though. In matters of economic policy, such conservative stalwarts as Eisenhower and Nixon are far to the left of Obama. Pretty good for the most crazy radical socialist fascist that ever congealed out of pure evil to pick the pockets of Ayn Rand’s heroes, eh? :)

CourtFool wrote:


It is a frank exchange of views, no? How can that be bad? If your position has merit, as an honest intellectual (yeah, I did just label myself an intellectual :P ) then I should change my position, right. And likewise.

Quite right. This is a case of my thinking you mistook me and in so doing mistaking you, as mentioned above. :)


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Curiously I find myself agreeing with the principal that samnell laid out in many regards. I think compromise is over rated, and I find many political and ideological compromises produce poor outcomes that don't really further the goals of either side. I've used the example of the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution in another thread as an example of this. I think it still holds.

I almost used, for extra irony points, the example of Solomon offering compromise to two women claiming to be a single baby's mother. He suggested cutting it in half.

The Exchange

Bookmark just so I can laugh at the Irony.


Samnell wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Curiously I find myself agreeing with the principal that samnell laid out in many regards. I think compromise is over rated, and I find many political and ideological compromises produce poor outcomes that don't really further the goals of either side. I've used the example of the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution in another thread as an example of this. I think it still holds.
I almost used, for extra irony points, the example of Solomon offering compromise to two women claiming to be a single baby's mother. He suggested cutting it in half.

I find your post above this one to be disturbingly compelling and well reasoned for someone with a substantially different political and social view.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Bookmark just so I can laugh at the Irony.

Could you be more specific?


Bitter Thorn wrote:


I find your post above this one to be disturbingly compelling and well reasoned for someone with a substantially different political and social view.

I like it when others find me disturbing. :)


Samnell wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:


I find your post above this one to be disturbingly compelling and well reasoned for someone with a substantially different political and social view.
I like it when others find me disturbing. :)

LOL! :)

Liberty's Edge

What kind of lube does one use for mental masturbation again?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
houstonderek wrote:
What kind of lube does one use for mental masturbation again?

IQ Jelly

Liberty's Edge

Paul Watson wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
What kind of lube does one use for mental masturbation again?
IQ Jelly

Hehehehe :)

The Exchange

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bookmark just so I can laugh at the Irony.
Could you be more specific?

No not really. I would rather watch the mental masturbation then participate.


I'm feeling a little distrubed.....

SPLUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRCH!

BLEEEEEAAAAAAARRRRGH!

GLUUUUUUUUURRRRRF!

The Exchange

Vomit Guy wrote:

I'm feeling a little distrubed.....

SPLUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRCH!

BLEEEEEAAAAAAARRRRGH!

GLUUUUUUUUURRRRRF!

See.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Oh,.....teach us, Europe.

Teach us your wise, and ancient ways.
*schnichnk.k.errr*

Right, because we could never learn anything from anyone else.

Samnell wrote:
It's a little fun conversational irony, not a victory lap.

That is how I originally meant it and assumed you were intelligent enough to pick up on that. I assumed you were applauding me for my witty riposte.

Samnell wrote:
Because of this, I tend to view tolerance as a sort of bounded virtue. It's often good, but not always.

I can agree with this. No tolerance for intolerance!

Samnell wrote:
Someone is always going to lose.

If the positions are always completely binary. I believe my fear is demonstrated by Crimson Jester.

Crimson Jester wrote:
No not really. I would rather watch the mental masturbation then participate.

It seems to me that since CJ disagrees with you so strongly on at least a few issues, he is willing to disregard whatever you have to say out of hand without considering it on its own merit.

Samnell wrote:
Even if Osama and I agreed that fathers love their children and that’s a wonderful thing, it’s also true that he knew that every person who worked at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon had a father too. I think it’s tempting to try to go from these fairly irrelevant commonalities and try to make something substantive, but the potential is pretty lacking. It feels good not to be outraged or arguing all the time, to get along, and so forth.

Perhaps, then, it is not so much compromise I am thinking but a willingness to listen openly to the other side's position. If Osama could be stopped and made to consider that people in the tower had children and that all of them were children of someone and reminded of his own love for his children he would reconsider his actions.

Surely you can agree that picking a side and never re-evaluating that position is dangerous.

I admit this is not what I originally communicated nor that it was what I originally meant. I am more working this out as I go along.

Samnell wrote:
I think it’s far more often the case that both parties do not fundamentally agree, either in goals or priorities, than that they do.

So there is no room for fundamental differences? It is survival of the ideological fittest? Should the US attempt to conquer every other country in the world since we believe our way of doing things is the best? Obviously, we need to take over Europe as Sparky was kind enough to point out how painfully ignorant they are.

Samnell wrote:
This is a case of my thinking you mistook me and in so doing mistaking you, as mentioned above.

No, I think it is more of a case that I have not fully formed my own thoughts on this. What I am 'hearing' is compromise = bad and I am not sure I buy that. You have some very valid arguments, in my opinion. I think there has to be some compromise for a civilization to flourish, otherwise, would we not just fall into might makes right? And maybe it is not compromise so much that I am attempting to defend as both sides trying to honestly understand where the other side is coming from.

The Exchange

CourtFool wrote:


Samnell wrote:
Someone is always going to lose.

If the positions are always completely binary. I believe my fear is demonstrated by Crimson Jester.

Crimson Jester wrote:
No not really. I would rather watch the mental masturbation then participate.

It seems to me that since CJ disagrees with you so strongly on at least a few issues, he is willing to disregard whatever you have to say out of hand without considering it on its own merit.

Positions do not need to be binary. I have been for lack of a better word frustrated by the conversations for some time now, simply because i feel I am being pigeonholed into one category. Being told I am unable to reason or think for myself because I simply do not agree with the other party. I am willing to listen to any reasonable civil discourse but honestly there has been little or none of it, with the excuse, as far as I can tell, that my opinion is the wrong one, because I disagree.

Ok fine if you have noticed I am not posting on CRD thread. There simply is no longer a reason to.

Sorry if you disagree with me or feel I was not trying. I was, I am tired of being belittled simply for being fairly moderate in my views.


I’m writing this in MS Word, so sorry if the formatting gets a bit off. I’m trying to get in the habit so I feed less to the post monster.

Quote:
That is how I originally meant it and assumed you were intelligent enough to pick up on that. I assumed you were applauding me for my witty riposte.

That was my initial read, but then I got to thinking that my response could have been jerkish. I mostly see the phrase “struck a nerve” for something that really annoyed somebody. This is the kind of contortion I get to when I try to be considerate. I’ll eventually give up and get the blue screen of death. :)

Quote:

Samnell wrote:

Someone is always going to lose.
Quote:
If the positions are always completely binary.

Agreed. I think most issues resolve down to mutually exclusive value structures. They may not all be binary, though. There would be any number of mutually exclusive systems in play. We’d be lucky if they were mostly binary. The world is quite diverse enough to come up with many different ways to be wrong. :)

Quote:
I believe my fear is demonstrated by Crimson Jester.
Quote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

No not really. I would rather watch the mental masturbation then participate.
Quote:


It seems to me that since CJ disagrees with you so strongly on at least a few issues, he is willing to disregard whatever you have to say out of hand without considering it on its own merit.

I certainly understand the temptation, since I feel much the same way. (Well I don’t think I loathe him like he loathes me, but I’m hardly unbiased.) I try to police it by asking him for evidence and doing my best to explain myself and what I see as flaws in his thinking. I quite understand why he doesn’t like me, but I’m pretty comfortable with not being liked on a personal level. I’ve done my best to get over any need for the personal approval of others. I care far more for how my thoughts are received than my personality. I’m a human being; I’d like to be thought well of. But it’s far too costly to hang too much up on that. I know; I tried.

When I feel my animosity for someone really getting the better of me, I do my best to just leave it and not post. Clearly I’m not very good at that.

Quote:


Perhaps, then, it is not so much compromise I am thinking but a willingness to listen openly to the other side's position. If Osama could be stopped and made to consider that people in the tower had children and that all of them were children of someone and reminded of his own love for his children he would reconsider his actions.

I’m not sure how we would accomplish getting Osama to stop and consider that. Nor how we could get him to care if he did. It’s a nice thought, but those facts really are as plain as day. Osama thinks he’s at war and has a pretty casual attitude towards collateral damage, even if he views the people who were working at the WTC as unacceptable targets.

Quote:
Surely you can agree that picking a side and never re-evaluating that position is dangerous.

Certainly. I consider doing that to be the most basic and elemental act of personal and intellectual irresponsibility. Doing so is like opening up with a machine gun in a crowded shopping mall while blindfolded, intellectually speaking, or taking a power drill to your brain. If there’s no way a person can be convinced that they’re wrong, then they’ve got no reason to think they’re right either. Nobody should be expected to respect that kind of behavior.

Quote:
I admit this is not what I originally communicated nor that it was what I originally meant. I am more working this out as I go along.

That’s ok. I’ve been guilty of the same.

Quote:

Samnell wrote:

I think it’s far more often the case that both parties do not fundamentally agree, either in goals or priorities, than that they do.

So there is no room for fundamental differences? It is survival of the ideological fittest? Should the US attempt to conquer every other country in the world since we believe our way of doing things is the best? Obviously, we need to take over Europe as Sparky was kind enough to point out how painfully ignorant they are.

Not quite. There are ways we can accommodate people with fundamental differences living together, but there are limits. Not all fundamental differences are created equal and in any controversy, someone’s values are going to prevail. Those may or may not be the values most conducive to peaceful coexistence. And we may not always want those values to prevail even if they are the more conducive sorts, going back to the paradox of tolerance. The kind of fundamental differences that, for example, lead to lynchings or covering up for serial child molesters, however, simply cannot be accommodated.

Quote:


No, I think it is more of a case that I have not fully formed my own thoughts on this. What I am 'hearing' is compromise = bad and I am not sure I buy that. You have some very valid arguments, in my opinion. I think there has to be some compromise for a civilization to flourish, otherwise, would we not just fall into might makes right? And maybe it is not compromise so much that I am attempting to defend as both sides trying to honestly understand where the other side is coming from.

I absolutely understand and share your concern about this all devolving into a kind of Hobbesian war of all against all. I’m always a fan of intellectual honesty and taking the chance to conceive that one might be wrong. But, and this posterior is large, I think a lot of this language is routinely re-purposed by the advocates of really grotesque intolerance and absurdity as a cudgel to use against their critics. They want to play this kind of moral equivalency game where anybody who disagrees with them must be just as bad as they are: They’re intolerant of intolerance. They’ve got faith too. Atheism is a religion. I’m sure we could fill pages and pages with this stuff, for as long as our stomachs held out.

It’s not faith or arrogance to presume that we might be right, only that we could not possibly be wrong.

Separately, I think a lot of people are persuaded to a kind of intellectual indolence. Both sides are presumed to have good points, which are rarely enumerated, and bad points. So why not throw up one’s hands and give up on the whole project of figuring out what’s the case? Or they’ll decide that everything would be fine if nobody got what they wanted and the status quo persisted forever. Or that the best solution to a controversy is to pick one from column A and one from column B. (Obama seems to think like this.)

The problem with the above being, of course, that sometimes one party or another is simply wrong. We have a responsibility to determine if this is the case and if so to do our very best to be sure that this party does not prevail as a matter of principle. Throwing up our hands and declaring both sides suck, or that there’s some kind of golden middle that will always give us the best solution, might work as a coping strategy but it amounts to crap thinking. Doing nothing only accomplishes nothing.

The Exchange

Samnell if you think I Loathe you, you must not understand me in any way shape or form. You frustrate me, yes. I have often wondered if you could truly be so closed minded. I do not now nor have I ever actually loathed you. I may pity you from time to time. I have prayed for you. But loathe you, no.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Samnell if you think I Loathe you, you must not understand me in any way shape or form.

I went through several adjectives, none of which seemed quite right. I don't think you hate me, but from this side of the screen it looks like more than mild dislike too. However it's best described, we're not each other's fans. :)

Crimson Jester wrote:


You frustrate me, yes.

You frustrate me too. This revelation will shock no one, but I actually have a really low tolerance for frustration. It frustrates me.

Crimson Jester wrote:


I have often wondered if you could truly be so closed minded.

I don't see how I'm at all close-minded. I mean, I keep asking you for evidence. If I'm so close-minded, why am I doing that? I really don't get it. To me this is the absolute opposite of being close-minded. Frustration aside, I want to do this CJ. I'm here right now ready to reconsider my opinions. That's being pretty receptive to new ideas and information, isn't it?

Crimson Jester wrote:


I have prayed for you.

I have tried to persuade you.


Samnell wrote:
Agreed. I think most issues resolve down to mutually exclusive value structures. They may not all be binary, though. There would be any number of mutually exclusive systems in play. We’d be lucky if they were mostly binary. The world is quite diverse enough to come up with many different ways to be wrong.

In my experience, the truth is often a matter of perspective. Think the five blind men and the elephant. I suspect you may disagree and we may just have to leave it there.

Samnell wrote:
I certainly understand the temptation, since I feel much the same way.

I meant this in a broader sense than just CJ. I was only using him as an example. I recently stumbled on the following quote:

"When we see a man of contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves." - Confucius

Remember that abhorrence for hypocrisy you have? I would like to think I have it as well. So when I encounter someone I strongly disagree with, I try to understand where they are coming from. What is the reason(s) they speak/act/think the way they do? Am I wrong?

Anyone who has tried this knows how difficult it is. Ego is difficult to overcome. Whenever I achieve some manner of success in this, I do find that the other person has reason(s) even if they are not very 'good'. They are certainly valid to that person. How arrogant is it for me to say that my valid reasons are better than someone else's valid reasons?

Samnell wrote:
I’m not sure how we would accomplish getting Osama to stop and consider that.

Acknowledged. There is something deeper motivating him beyond the 'evil' of killing innocents. I bet most Americans would consider the American Revolution was for a 'good' cause. And I am sure plenty of innocents lost their lives in that.

Samnell wrote:
...I think a lot of this language is routinely re-purposed by the advocates of really grotesque intolerance and absurdity as a cudgel to use against their critics.

I certainly hope you do not think I was advocating it for this reason.

Samnell wrote:
Atheism is a religion.

I am sure, from their perspective it appears such. Remember, they are viewing it from their own past experiences and perspective. Are we not as stubborn in our position as they are in theirs? We may see a difference which, to them, is simply not there. And saying, "...Ah! But we are right." is nothing more than their, "You just lack faith."

Samnell wrote:
Both sides are presumed to have good points, which are rarely enumerated, and bad points.

I try not to presume. I would hope that you know me enough not to suggest I would accept someone just telling me they have their reasons. I think I made that clear in the Civil Religious Discussion.

Samnell wrote:
The problem with the above being, of course, that sometimes one party or another is simply wrong.

And to come full circle, I do not see the world quite so black and white. I do not think it is always a case of one side is simply wrong and the other is simply right.


Quote:
In my experience, the truth is often a matter of perspective. Think the five blind men and the elephant. I suspect you may disagree and we may just have to leave it there.

Perhaps we must.

These five blind men may be groping around different bits of the elephant, but it is a trivial exercise for them to compare notes and come around and feel each other’s portions to develop an increasingly accurate understanding of what they’re feeling. I think we’re both into that kind of thing. What are we doing except for our best to wring every bit of perspective and subjectivity we can out of the business so we can actually ascertain the truth?

So no, I don’t think anything that deserves to be called truth entails perspective. I think of that more as a contaminant. I don’t know if you read my miracle testing batteries from the other thread, but one thing I talked a bit about in there was doing everything I could to remove the human element. People, even smart people, are really easy to fool. It’s even worse if they’ve got a stake in the outcome.

Quote:
Remember that abhorrence for hypocrisy you have? I would like to think I have it as well. So when I encounter someone I strongly disagree with, I try to understand where they are coming from. What is the reason(s) they speak/act/think the way they do? Am I wrong?

Sure. I like to think I’ve done a fair bit of that, large Charisma penalty aside.

Quote:
Anyone who has tried this knows how difficult it is. Ego is difficult to overcome. Whenever I achieve some manner of success in this, I do find that the other person has reason(s) even if they are not very 'good'. They are certainly valid to that person. How arrogant is it for me to say that my valid reasons are better than someone else's valid reasons?

I don’t really view validity as a subjective quantity. Reasons are either valid or invalid for all people at all times. Otherwise anybody can go out and construct any kind of silly set of rationalizations for anything and we’ve got nothing we can use to reason with them. They’re in the set that’s declared themselves incapable of being wrong. Neither of us cares for that in the slightest.

Quote:

Samnell wrote:

...I think a lot of this language is routinely re-purposed by the advocates of really grotesque intolerance and absurdity as a cudgel to use against their critics.

I certainly hope you do not think I was advocating it for this reason.

Goodness, no. I should have done better to clarify that the conception I have of compromise is tainted by this kind of baggage, not that you’re necessarily trying to sneak it up the back stairs. :)

Quote:
I am sure, from their perspective it appears such. Remember, they are viewing it from their own past experiences and perspective. Are we not as stubborn in our position as they are in theirs? We may see a difference which, to them, is simply not there. And saying, "...Ah! But we are right." is nothing more than their, "You just lack faith."

But we have tools by which we can determine who is right. It’s quite easy to do, in fact. We can assess what is meant by the words and then examine the universe and run down the list of characteristics. “Atheism is a religion” does not differ from “humans are vertebrates” insofar as we can run the check and come out with a good answer.

Quote:


I try not to presume. I would hope that you know me enough not to suggest I would accept someone just telling me they have their reasons. I think I made that clear in the Civil Religious Discussion.

I don’t want to. It doesn’t seem like you. Maybe I’m not getting what you’re trying to say, or have forgotten something important you said in the other thread. But considering truth merely as a matter of perspective seems to lead that way to me. If truth and validity are nothing more than a set of opinions, and there’s no way to determine who has the better opinions (and if the first is the case, how do we escape the second?) then do we not end up with effectively that? I don’t see a way to avoid it. It ends up postmodernism all the way down.

Quote:


And to come full circle, I do not see the world quite so black and white. I do not think it is always a case of one side is simply wrong and the other is simply right.

I don’t mean to say that it is always the case, only that we should not be hesitant to accept that it’s so if that’s what the investigation bears out. And of course when that’s the case, we should ignore any insistence that we do otherwise. Sometimes we can’t meet each other in the middle. There may literally be no middle. The middle may simply be unacceptable for many reasons. What good is half a baby? Or if someone’s been fast and loose with the facts or such we may have to eschew the middle as a matter of principle.

The Exchange

CourtFool wrote:


"When we see a man of contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves." - Confucius

good quote.


Samnell wrote:
These five blind men may be groping around different bits of the elephant, but it is a trivial exercise for them to compare notes and come around and feel each other’s portions to develop an increasingly accurate understanding of what they’re feeling.

That is exactly what I am saying...I think. But if Ear Blind Man tells Leg Blind Man he is a fool. It is obviously flat and what kind of moron would call it thick, they are never going to realize the other's truth. The part that Ear Blind Man has is flat. And the part that Leg Blind Man has is thick. Both are right.

Samnell wrote:
So no, I don’t think anything that deserves to be called truth entails perspective.

It is easy for us to consider the blind men and laugh knowing it is an elephant. Science has given us pieces before and I daresay continues to give us pieces. We do not have the entire elephant. So I am not convinced absolute truth is quite so easy to come by.

Regarding most religions, I agree with you in that I prefer to predictability of science's answers to religious answers. I believe Science is giving us more pieces of the elephant why religion still insists it is an aardvark.

Samnell wrote:
I don’t want to. It doesn’t seem like you. Maybe I’m not getting what you’re trying to say, or have forgotten something important you said in the other thread. But considering truth merely as a matter of perspective seems to lead that way to me. If truth and validity are nothing more than a set of opinions, and there’s no way to determine who has the better opinions (and if the first is the case, how do we escape the second?) then do we not end up with effectively that? I don’t see a way to avoid it. It ends up postmodernism all the way down.

I believe I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with your point...as long as we have the whole elephant.

Samnell wrote:
I don’t mean to say that it is always the case, only that we should not be hesitant to accept that it’s so if that’s what the investigation bears out.

But investigations are often flawed. We know that the observer affects the observed. I am not saying we can not trust anything. Obviously, to make any progress we have to make some assumptions.

Samnell wrote:
Or if someone’s been fast and loose with the facts or such we may have to eschew the middle as a matter of principle.

And that is my concern; that we become so biased to our side that we will not honestly consider the other side as a matter of principle.


Crimson Jester wrote:
good quote.

I am not talking to you.

Spoiler:
Yes, I am being ironic.


CourtFool wrote:


That is exactly what I am saying...I think. But if Ear Blind Man tells Leg Blind Man he is a fool. It is obviously flat and what kind of moron would call it thick, they are never going to realize the other's truth. The part that Ear Blind Man has is flat. And the part that Leg Blind Man has is thick. Both are right.

Both are a little bit right. Both together are more right.

CourtFool wrote:


It is easy for us to consider the blind men and laugh knowing it is an elephant. Science has given us pieces before and I daresay continues to give us pieces. We do not have the entire elephant. So I am not convinced absolute truth is quite so easy to come by.

Absolute truth? I wish we had that. :) But a cumulatively improving, self-correcting engine for generating an increasingly accurate understanding of the universe is, I think literally, the next best thing. We may not have the entire elephant, but we can gather more and more pieces of it. It's not that we'll never come to an incorrect understanding. It's that when we do we'll have the means to correct it as new information comes in.

CourtFool wrote:


I believe I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with your point...as long as we have the whole elephant.

Aren't we unlikely, barring personal omniscience, to ever have the whole elephant? I'm not suggesting we should throw out tentative conclusions because they're tentative. I'm saying that we can keep the good tentative conclusions, subject to further investigation and revision by new evidence, and throw out the bad ones on the same grounds. We don't have to keep them all no matter what nor do we have to throw them all out no matter what. We have a method to filter them which, if imperfect, will catch its own mistakes.

CourtFool wrote:


But investigations are often flawed. We know that the observer affects the observed. I am not saying we can not trust anything. Obviously, to make any progress we have to make some assumptions.

I'm not sure. Firstly, as I'm sure you agree, we can catch the flaws of our investigations. If we do not, some other scientist will come along and do it for us. :)

But while I could agree in a weak sense that assumptions can be useful, they themselves are subject to being analyzed and rejected or maintained based on evidence. So are they really assumptions in the same sense of being dogmas? I don't think so. Everything is up for grabs in the light of new evidence, no matter how fundamental or cherished.

CourtFool wrote:


And that is my concern; that we become so biased to our side that we will not honestly consider the other side as a matter of principle.

There will always be fools. I would class a person who becomes so biased as you say as a part of the problem. He or she has decided that being wrong is a personal impossibility and therefore who needs evidence? Or to reconsider when new information arrives? But I think that quite different from saying "your experiment has these flaws and thus its findings are no good" or "your argument is riddled with errors of fact and logic and thus dismissed". The latter type are what I meant to refer to.

Liberty's Edge

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Curiously I find myself agreeing with the principal that samnell laid out in many regards. I think compromise is over rated, and I find many political and ideological compromises produce poor outcomes that don't really further the goals of either side. I've used the example of the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution in another thread as an example of this. I think it still holds.

I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

I agree, compromise in the American Political sense is not actually compromise. Just look at the healthcare bill. Love it or hate it, it had the potential to be exactly what dems wanted. They had a supermajority. All they needed to do was close the door to repubs and come to a concensus within their party (which would have been laborious in and of itself given the blue dogs). Chances are it would have had a public option among other things. Instead, they started trimming things in order to appease republicans in hopes that they would vote for it. What was the end result? A big steaming pile of sh!t that accomplishes very little (if anything) that either side wanted.

EDIT: and I really don't see why they didn't ammend a health insurance law that's already on the books (HIPAA). That law deals with health insurance, the final product that passed dealt solely with health insurance...i'm not seeing the disconnect here. Surely it must be easier to amend a bill than to pass a new one.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

Curiously I find myself agreeing with the principal that samnell laid out in many regards. I think compromise is over rated, and I find many political and ideological compromises produce poor outcomes that don't really further the goals of either side. I've used the example of the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution in another thread as an example of this. I think it still holds.

I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

I agree, compromise in the American Political sense is not actually compromise. Just look at the healthcare bill. Love it or hate it, it had the potential to be exactly what dems wanted. They had a supermajority. All they needed to do was close the door to repubs and come to a concensus within their party (which would have been laborious in and of itself given the blue dogs). Chances are it would have had a public option among other things. Instead, they started trimming things in order to appease republicans in hopes that they would vote for it. What was the end result? A big steaming pile of sh!t that accomplishes very little (if anything) that either side wanted.

Agreed.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:


I agree, compromise in the American Political sense is not actually compromise. Just look at the healthcare bill. Love it or hate it, it had the potential to be exactly what dems wanted. They had a supermajority. All they needed to do was close the door to repubs and come to a concensus within their party (which would have been laborious in and of itself given the blue dogs). Chances are it would have had a public option among other things. Instead, they started trimming things in order to appease republicans in hopes that they would vote for it. What was the end result? A big steaming pile of sh!t that accomplishes very little (if anything) that either side wanted.

Amen. That's part of the baggage the concept carries for me, and I had health care and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell fiasco in my mind when writing about the series of compromising with oneself, then compromising more, then compromising some more so nothing ever gets achieved.


Samnell wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:


I agree, compromise in the American Political sense is not actually compromise. Just look at the healthcare bill. Love it or hate it, it had the potential to be exactly what dems wanted. They had a supermajority. All they needed to do was close the door to repubs and come to a concensus within their party (which would have been laborious in and of itself given the blue dogs). Chances are it would have had a public option among other things. Instead, they started trimming things in order to appease republicans in hopes that they would vote for it. What was the end result? A big steaming pile of sh!t that accomplishes very little (if anything) that either side wanted.
Amen. That's part of the baggage the concept carries for me, and I had health care and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell fiasco in my mind when writing about the series of compromising with oneself, then compromising more, then compromising some more so nothing ever gets achieved.

Good examples.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

I was going to avoid it, until I saw that.

SITUATION 1:
Okay, let me go back to the example of radical Islam. The attempted murder of Danish cartoonists has shown pretty clearly that there exists a large group of people who will NOT compromise, no matter what. Offer them Sharia law in Britain, in parallel to civil law, and they greedily accept. Offer them citizenship and jobs, and they grab them. But ask them to assimilate a bit, and instead they upgrade from headscarves to full ninja costumes. Ask them to chill out on the cartoons, and they declare Fatwa. Q: "Dual states of Israel and Palestine, side by side?" A: "No, Israel must be wiped off the map." Etc. The ONLY thing these people will accept is total dominance or total submission -- they will not even entertain the notion of anything in between.

At that point, compromise has been forcibly removed from the table, and not by our own doing. Any further attempts at throwing them bones is simply lying down, because we know from experience that rather than offer concessions in return, they'll fly more planes into buildings. Attempting to compromise at that point is a lost cause. It's a total loss for us, no gain.

SITUATION 2:
Contrast this with, say, separation of church and state in the U.S. We're in a situation now in which it's OK to offer all kinds of benefits to religious organizations, but in which those same organizations aren't allowed to blatantly lobby for specific politicians without losing their tax-exempt status. That's a state of compromise by its very nature -- and there's some room to give and take in either direction, by tightening and/or loosening the restrictions, without being absolutist about it. Pretend Samnell is elected President, and his clones to Congress, and they decide that all compromise is bad and therefore polarization is the only alternative. Ergo, they remove tax-exempt status from all churches. Then the churches have to respond by cutting all the charities they can't afford, and the Samnell and clones pick up that slack by raising taxes for everyone.

At this point, everyone loses. All taxes go up, some programs still get cut in the meantime, and churchgoers are all pissed (and a lot of them start aggressively practicing tax evasion in protest).

--------------

Therefore, where compromise is possible, I'm usually in favor of it as involving the least amount of net loss. When compromise is attempted but is not possible, so be it -- some people cannot be reasoned with, and respond only to force.

EDIT: More examples.

  • Slavery isn't an issue susceptable to much compromise, because either humans can be owned, or they cannot -- that's a binary proposition, "3/5 Compromise" and other lame historical attempts to sidestep the issue notwithstanding.
  • Gay marriage is not binary -- we could easily divorce the religious rite of marriage from the state benefits of domestic partnership for all people, gay or straight, for example.
  • Even abortion isn't totally binary -- exceptions for rape/incest, first trimester vs. third, etc. all come into play.
  • Don't Ask/Don't Tell: This pretends to be a compromise, but isn't. Before it passed, gays serving in the military had to hide the fact that they were gay -- they got kicked out if discovered. After it passed, gays could serve in the military, unless someone found out that they were gay, in which case they got kicked out. That's not a compromise at all, from that standpoint. Either gays are kicked out, or they are not.
  • Health Care: Unwillingness to compromise a pre-existing condition ("Death Panels! Communism!"). Result: bill that fails to accomplish anything good. Why? Compromise declared impossible in advance, but it's attempted anyway, knowing full well it would fail.

  • Liberty's Edge

    Xpltvdeleted wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:

    Curiously I find myself agreeing with the principal that samnell laid out in many regards. I think compromise is over rated, and I find many political and ideological compromises produce poor outcomes that don't really further the goals of either side. I've used the example of the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution in another thread as an example of this. I think it still holds.

    I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

    I agree, compromise in the American Political sense is not actually compromise. Just look at the healthcare bill. Love it or hate it, it had the potential to be exactly what dems wanted. They had a supermajority. All they needed to do was close the door to repubs and come to a concensus within their party (which would have been laborious in and of itself given the blue dogs). Chances are it would have had a public option among other things. Instead, they started trimming things in order to appease republicans in hopes that they would vote for it. What was the end result? A big steaming pile of sh!t that accomplishes very little (if anything) that either side wanted.

    EDIT: and I really don't see why they didn't ammend a health insurance law that's already on the books (HIPAA). That law deals with health insurance, the final product that passed dealt solely with health insurance...i'm not seeing the disconnect here. Surely it must be easier to amend a bill than to pass a new one.

    Dude, I don't know what you were watching, but the Dems weren't compromising with the Republicans, they told the Repubs to sit down and STFU. They were compromising with the insurance companies. Different other thing, number one son.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

    I was going to avoid it, until I saw that.

    SITUATION 2:
    Contrast this with, say, separation of church and state in the U.S. We're in a situation now in which it's OK to offer all kinds of benefits to religious organizations, but in which those same organizations aren't allowed to blatantly lobby for specific politicians without losing their tax-exempt status. That's a state of compromise by its very nature -- and there's some room to give and take in either direction, by tightening and/or loosening the restrictions, without being absolutist about it. Pretend Samnell is elected President, and his clones to Congress, and they decide that all compromise is bad and therefore polarization is the only alternative. Ergo, they remove tax-exempt status from all churches. Then the churches have to...

    To be fair, if Samnell removed the tax exempt status from churches, they would, you know, pay taxes. Quite a lot of them, in fact. So why would Samnell have to raise taxes to cover the loss of the charities? Could he not just cover the cost with the church tax money?

    Liberty's Edge

    ElCrabofAnger wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

    I was going to avoid it, until I saw that.

    SITUATION 2:
    Contrast this with, say, separation of church and state in the U.S. We're in a situation now in which it's OK to offer all kinds of benefits to religious organizations, but in which those same organizations aren't allowed to blatantly lobby for specific politicians without losing their tax-exempt status. That's a state of compromise by its very nature -- and there's some room to give and take in either direction, by tightening and/or loosening the restrictions, without being absolutist about it. Pretend Samnell is elected President, and his clones to Congress, and they decide that all compromise is bad and therefore polarization is the only alternative. Ergo, they remove tax-exempt status from all churches. Then the churches have to...

    To be fair, if Samnell removed the tax exempt status from churches, they would, you know, pay taxes. Quite a lot of them, in fact. So why would Samnell have to raise taxes to cover the loss of the charities? Could he not just cover the cost with the church tax money?

    Because people would stop giving money to churches if they knew it was going to an inefficient, bloated government rather than directly to the people they want to help. No donations equal no taxable income for churches.


    houstonderek wrote:

    Because people would stop giving money to churches if they knew it was going to an inefficient, bloated government rather than directly to the people they want to help. No donations equal no taxable income for churches.

    Amen.

    Liberty's Edge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:

    Because people would stop giving money to churches if they knew it was going to an inefficient, bloated government rather than directly to the people they want to help. No donations equal no taxable income for churches.

    Amen.

    Unfortunately, people in this country do not seem to understand that applies to the private sector as well.

    Well, people in Detroit (and Michigan in general, really) , Cleveland, Buffalo, rural Pennsylvania, Upstate New York and California may understand it, even if they're too stubborn to do anything about it...


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    I'm curious to hear Kirth and Bugleyman opine on this thread.

    I was going to avoid it, until I saw that.

    SITUATION 1:
    Okay, let me go back to the example of radical Islam. The attempted murder of Danish cartoonists has shown pretty clearly that there exists a large group of people who will NOT compromise, no matter what. Offer them Sharia law in Britain, in parallel to civil law, and they greedily accept. Offer them citizenship and jobs, and they grab them. But ask them to assimilate a bit, and instead they upgrade from headscarves to full ninja costumes. Ask them to chill out on the cartoons, and they declare Fatwa. Q: "Dual states of Israel and Palestine, side by side?" A: "No, Israel must be wiped off the map." Etc. The ONLY thing these people will accept is total dominance or total submission -- they will not even entertain the notion of anything in between.

    At that point, compromise has been forcibly removed from the table, and not by our own doing. Any further attempts at throwing them bones is simply lying down, because we know from experience that rather than offer concessions in return, they'll fly more planes into buildings. Attempting to compromise at that point is a lost cause. It's a total loss for us, no gain.

    SITUATION 2:
    Contrast this with, say, separation of church and state in the U.S. We're in a situation now in which it's OK to offer all kinds of benefits to religious organizations, but in which those same organizations aren't allowed to blatantly lobby for specific politicians without losing their tax-exempt status. That's a state of compromise by its very nature -- and there's some room to give and take in either direction, by tightening and/or loosening the restrictions, without being absolutist about it. Pretend Samnell is elected President, and his clones to Congress, and they decide that all compromise is bad and therefore polarization is the only alternative. Ergo, they remove tax-exempt status from all churches. Then the churches have to...

    Thanks for your input.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    houstonderek wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:

    Because people would stop giving money to churches if they knew it was going to an inefficient, bloated government rather than directly to the people they want to help. No donations equal no taxable income for churches.

    Amen.

    Unfortunately, people in this country do not seem to understand that applies to the private sector as well.

    Well, people in Detroit (and Michigan in general, really) , Cleveland, Buffalo, rural Pennsylvania, Upstate New York and California may understand it, even if they're too stubborn to do anything about it...

    Maybe. But somehow I doubt that. The Catholic Church is one of the richest entities in the the world, and owns more land globally that any other organization on the planet. You don't get that way by charitable works. They have their own country. How much of the money given by parishioners goes to maintain all of that property, or the people who work for the church?

    There are also megachurches. How much of the money donated to those places are supporting the bloated bureaucracy required to run those things? Why do megachurch leaders always seem to have multiple nice cars, and live in nice houses, with personal incomes far above the average? I thought it was all about the good works?

    Look, people can give their money to whoever they want, and they seem to do so with astounding regularity. I have nothing against letting people give their money to whatever charitable causes they want to, religious or otherwise. Nor am I saying that churches should or should not pay taxes (although I have an opinion on the issue, I will not state it here). Saying that people will stop giving to the churches if the churches have to pay taxes seems to me to be naive, though. Giving to the church is about supporting the flock and the faith. If anything, giving would likely go up as the various ministers pleaded poverty. It worked for Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, and Jim Bakker for years. It still works. If you're arguing that a church, any church, administers money more efficiently that the government, I think you have an argument there, and a good one in many cases. But not all churches are created equal, and neither are all governments, or government programs. If churches (like Scientology, a scam so obvious it boggles the mind) had to pay taxes, I doubt much would change, financially, for them.

    Sorry for drifting off topic.

    The Exchange

    ElCrabofAnger wrote:
    Maybe. But somehow I doubt that. The Catholic Church is one of the richest entities in the the world, and owns more land globally that any other organization on the planet. You don't get that way by charitable works. They have their own country. How much of the money given by parishioners goes to maintain all of that property, or the people who work for the church?

    The Catholic Church’s headquarters in Rome announced over the weekend that it lost money for the third year in a row. Expenses outpaced revenues for the Vatican in 2009 by $5.2 million ($314.7 million in revenue against $319.9 million in expenses), despite the fact that donations worldwide were up. Catholics last year gave $82.5 million, compared to $75.8 million in 2008 and $79.8 million in 2007. Leading donors were from the U.S., Italy and Germany.

    Most of the Vatican’s expenses cover the activities of Pope Benedict XVI and such communications services as Vatican radio, which is broadcast around the world in 40 different languages. Telecommunications upgrades, increased security and restoration of the Vatican library also contributed to the rise in expenses.

    The Vatican also pays the salaries of 2,762 employees and the pensions of 4,587 former employees.

    By contrast the Richest man in the world Carlos Slim Helú is about a net worth of around US $60.6 billion.

    Even small countries in Europe have a vast income above and beyond what the Church does.
    Luxembourg GDP $38.8 Billion
    Greece 333.38 Billion, and they have financial issues.

    The Vatican gives out most of its income. Individual Diocese keep separate incomes and spend most of their incomes on social issues in local diocese.

    There are 3 items that the Church does have a large investment in that should be included in wealth estimates.

    Land is the most prevalent. However this land is once again owned by individual diocese. Many of these are being sold off to pay for well lots of things, the least of which are legal expenses.

    Artwork for all intents and purposes the Vatican holds ownership of a large store of artwork. The Church sees itself as a custodian of said artworks and loans many of these out around the world. There is a large tour going through the US right now. Check your local papers it may be coming near you.

    and finally Historical documents. For years it has been very hard to get a hold of these for scholarly reasons. The Vatican has been keeping these under lock and key for several reasons but mainly to keep them in good shape. With the need for repairs underneath the Vatican proper and the expenses involved, these documents are slowly being archived digitally. This too requires expenses.

    The Exchange

    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    CJ that's El crabs quote above not mine. :)

    Yeah I just noticed my guffaw, sorry.


    Crimson Jester wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    CJ that's El crabs quote above not mine. :)
    Yeah I just noticed my guffaw, sorry.

    LOL! It's cool.


    Crimson Jester wrote:

    Even small countries in Europe have a vast income above and beyond what the Church does.

    Luxembourg GDP $38.8 Billion
    Greece 333.38 Billion, and they have financial issues.

    In 2001, the Vatican reported a total income of $422 billion. Adjust that for expenses, and they still posted $8.5 billion in pure profit. Adjust that $422G for inflation (into 2010 dollars), and it would eat Luxembourg and Greece for breakfast.


    Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

    re: compromise......it all depends.

    there's a time to every purpose under heaven.

    Semitic wisdom for the win! Take that, Eurotrash!

    1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Samnell and CourtFool in Compromising Positions All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.