[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

2020 Elections - primm - Sep 25, 2021 - 7:13am
 
Derplahoma! - kcar - Sep 24, 2021 - 10:57pm
 
TOILET FUN! - R_P - Sep 24, 2021 - 9:35pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Sep 24, 2021 - 8:36pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 24, 2021 - 7:39pm
 
Wanna Race? - Red_Dragon - Sep 24, 2021 - 7:18pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Sep 24, 2021 - 7:16pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 24, 2021 - 7:00pm
 
Joe Biden - R_P - Sep 24, 2021 - 6:49pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - kurtster - Sep 24, 2021 - 5:10pm
 
Stream breaking every few seconds - jarro - Sep 24, 2021 - 11:29am
 
The Dragons' Roost - islander - Sep 24, 2021 - 10:03am
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2021 - 7:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Sep 24, 2021 - 6:25am
 
Your favorite tshirts - Red_Dragon - Sep 24, 2021 - 5:48am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Sep 24, 2021 - 5:45am
 
Music documentaries - oldviolin - Sep 23, 2021 - 7:42pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2021 - 6:27pm
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Sep 23, 2021 - 4:57pm
 
The Great Reset - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2021 - 2:17pm
 
Putin Owns Trump - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2021 - 2:09pm
 
Got a good recipe you care to share ??? - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2021 - 1:45pm
 
Play the Blues - black321 - Sep 23, 2021 - 1:03pm
 
Way Cool Video - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2021 - 12:51pm
 
A motivational quote - black321 - Sep 23, 2021 - 12:13pm
 
volcano! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 23, 2021 - 11:05am
 
Bear! - oldviolin - Sep 23, 2021 - 9:27am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Sep 23, 2021 - 9:04am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - oldviolin - Sep 23, 2021 - 9:01am
 
Military Matters - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2021 - 4:37pm
 
Think About It - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2021 - 3:09pm
 
Google Assistant not streaming RP Main Mix - temexter - Sep 22, 2021 - 3:08pm
 
Interesting or Weird Cover Versions - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2021 - 2:07pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Sep 22, 2021 - 2:05pm
 
The Obituary Page - westslope - Sep 22, 2021 - 12:39pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 22, 2021 - 9:58am
 
Climate Change - westslope - Sep 22, 2021 - 8:27am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2021 - 5:58am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - sunybuny - Sep 22, 2021 - 4:49am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Manbird - Sep 21, 2021 - 9:12pm
 
New Music - oppositelock - Sep 21, 2021 - 7:15pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - miamizsun - Sep 21, 2021 - 6:01pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - oldviolin - Sep 21, 2021 - 1:58pm
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - rgio - Sep 21, 2021 - 12:50pm
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Sep 21, 2021 - 10:39am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Sep 21, 2021 - 10:33am
 
Crazy? Quiz - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 21, 2021 - 10:25am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - Ohmsen - Sep 21, 2021 - 9:11am
 
Make Scott laugh - Ohmsen - Sep 21, 2021 - 8:11am
 
International Day of Peace - miamizsun - Sep 21, 2021 - 4:21am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - yuel - Sep 21, 2021 - 3:05am
 
Things You Thought Today - haresfur - Sep 21, 2021 - 12:35am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2021 - 9:42pm
 
That's good advice - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2021 - 8:49pm
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Sep 20, 2021 - 7:52pm
 
Hello from France - westslope - Sep 20, 2021 - 6:45pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 20, 2021 - 10:17am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2021 - 8:58am
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2021 - 5:19am
 
The Future is here! - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2021 - 4:42am
 
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes (and Taxes) - R_P - Sep 19, 2021 - 4:05pm
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - Ohmsen - Sep 19, 2021 - 2:11pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - Antigone - Sep 19, 2021 - 1:52pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 19, 2021 - 11:43am
 
Recommended documentaries - Ohmsen - Sep 19, 2021 - 11:37am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 19, 2021 - 10:29am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2021 - 6:40am
 
-PUNS- Fast Food - haresfur - Sep 18, 2021 - 11:03pm
 
You heard it here first - rhahl - Sep 18, 2021 - 9:29pm
 
As California Goes, So Goes The Rest Of The Country - haresfur - Sep 18, 2021 - 5:45pm
 
Graphic designers, ho's! - Proclivities - Sep 18, 2021 - 10:11am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2021 - 8:59am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Sep 18, 2021 - 8:16am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2021 - 8:02am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2021 - 7:38am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » The War On You Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 74, 75, 76  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 27, 2021 - 5:26am

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 26, 2021 - 5:37am

Now that Ron Paul has been at least legitimized to the point to where at least some of his opinions matter, here is another one:
 

Vaccine Mandates and the 'Great Reset'

 
 
In the covid-19 crisis, politicians have systematically amplified fear and hysteria. This was no accident and is unsurprising, for the state builds its raison d'être on the argument that it protects the population from internal and external dangers. The state is built upon fear. The narrative is that without the help of the state, the citizen would be defenseless against hunger, poverty, accidents, war, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and pandemics. It is, therefore, in the state's interest to instill fear of possible dangers, which it then pretends to resolve, expanding its power in the process. A relatively recent example is the restriction of civil liberties in the US in response to the threat of terrorism after the 9-11 attacks and the second Iraq war. Similarly, it was in the interest of governments to purposefully instill fear and portray covid-19 as a unique killer virus in order to expand state power to an extent unknown in peacetime at the expense of citizens' fundamental rights.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 18, 2021 - 10:46pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

That hammering—the arguing over what we are entitled to from each other—is the central problem of moral philosophy, and implementing it ought to be the central problem of governance, so we may not be as far apart as you seem to think. Just pondering how any of this translates to abolishing government.
 
Morning (a cold grey day here for mid-summer  - got my hiking boots out of the cellar for a four-day jaunt in the alps.. can't wait).

Ok, I'm happy to cede the point that I overstated your position and that "pare back government" is not the same as "abolish government".

My point was more that we all (the universal collective we) tend to concentrate too much on the structure of government and overlook the cultural factors that make a government (of whatever form) "good" or not.

Our discussion was in the context of my line, "the government you deserve" (the collective plural) and you stating you got the government that "panicked mobs deem minimally acceptable".
My point is that, even if you were to pare government back to mere protection of its citizens rights, you would still have those panicked mobs defining those rights to mean something like "freedom from immigrants streaming across the southern border and the right not to get vaccinated and the right not to wear a mask in the middle of a deadly pandemic so I can spit in your face".

Consequently, we need to reach out to these mobs (your point at the outset) and hammer out what rights and duties we actually have and why they don't need to be so damn afraid about everything.

So yeah, I guess we are perhaps not too far removed from each other in our line of reasoning, at least at this point. 


 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 18, 2021 - 1:30pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
uff... we are back to this again. You cannot keep returning to the "rights of the governed" as though they were etched in stone and there were unanimous agreement on what they were. Regardless of what you or I personally believe, the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on what these rights are. Not even among a group of boringly homogenous racially profiled proud boys from some godforsaken citadel of inbred humanity... Not even they will agree on what their rights are. Ergo you can't credibly argue for limiting government to merely protecting the rights of the governed, for that tacitly implies only your understanding of rights. Conversely, if we open up the concept of "rights of the governed" to some more general consensus of what those rights might be, we end up pretty well with what we have now, a bit of a mess. But it works, sometimes.

Edit:
In other words, your reasoning is circular. You already posit a defined set of rights as though we all agree on them - which we don't - before stating you want to pare government back to merely protecting that particular set of rights you have set your mind on. Yet government is nothing but the hammering out of some sort of agreement on what kinds of rights we want to enforce, when and why. It is actually a very fluid thing and all the better for it.


That hammering—the arguing over what we are entitled to from each other—is the central problem of moral philosophy, and implementing it ought to be the central problem of governance, so we may not be as far apart as you seem to think.

Just pondering how any of this translates to abolishing government.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 3:04pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

You can continue to argue this line but you aren't arguing with me. My position is not  for removing government and creating a power vacuum, I'm arguing for restraining government to a role limited to protecting the rights of the governed. As for your last point...no, that's not what I'm arguing. I don't know how to make it any plainer. That not only isn't my position, it isn't a question I find particularly interesting.

uff... we are back to this again. You cannot keep returning to the "rights of the governed" as though they were etched in stone and there were unanimous agreement on what they were. Regardless of what you or I personally believe, the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on what these rights are. Not even among a group of boringly homogenous racially profiled proud boys from some godforsaken citadel of inbred humanity... Not even they will agree on what their rights are. Ergo you can't credibly argue for limiting government to merely protecting the rights of the governed, for that tacitly implies only your understanding of rights. Conversely, if we open up the concept of "rights of the governed" to some more general consensus of what those rights might be, we end up pretty well with what we have now, a bit of a mess. But it works, sometimes.

Edit:
In other words, your reasoning is circular. You already posit a defined set of rights as though we all agree on them - which we don't - before stating you want to pare government back to merely protecting that particular set of rights you have set your mind on. Yet government is nothing but the hammering out of some sort of agreement on what kinds of rights we want to enforce, when and why. It is actually a very fluid thing and all the better for it.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 2:13pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
No, it is not a strawman argument at all. (unless you are merely referring to the "live on island thing" which is not material to the argument).

History has shown that almost invariably when you remove the established power base (in this case "The Government" of whatever form), it will be filled by opportunists moving into the power vacuum. Your only argument against this is to rely on having enlightened neighbours who realise we might all be better off if none of us do that. (This is the cultural factor I was referring to).
Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think history is on my side on this one. I wish it were different, I really do.

In effect you are blaming the institution of government for the cultural failings of a society and I am blaming the cultural failings of society for the institution of government.

You can continue to argue this line but you aren't arguing with me. My position is not  for removing government and creating a power vacuum, I'm arguing for restraining government to a role limited to protecting the rights of the governed.

As for your last point...no, that's not what I'm arguing. I don't know how to make it any plainer. That not only isn't my position, it isn't a question I find particularly interesting.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 1:44pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

All-powerful totalitarian dictatorships will inevitably lead to widespread oppression to control the inevitable dissent, which will paralyze society with crippling strikes and passive resistence.

What's the alternative? Slaughtering the populace with nukes?

See how annoying that is? This is called a strawman argument, and I've seen you do better than this. If I ever argue for getting rid of government you are welcome to trot out this trope; in the mean time kindly respond to the position before you, not the one it would have been more convenient to argue with.


No, it is not a strawman argument at all. (unless you are merely referring to the "live on island thing" which is not material to the argument).

History has shown that almost invariably when you remove the established power base (in this case "The Government" of whatever form), it will be filled by opportunists moving into the power vacuum. Your only argument against this is to rely on having enlightened neighbours who realise we might all be better off if none of us do that. (This is the cultural factor I was referring to).
Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think history is on my side on this one. I wish it were different, I really do.

In effect you are blaming the institution of government for the cultural failings of a society and I am blaming the cultural failings of society for the institution of government.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 8:46am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Those panicked mobs happen to be your neighbours that you are going to have to deal with some way or another. Get rid of government and you might find those same panicked mobs now less panicked, more emboldened and armed with pitchforks. What is the alternative? Living on an island?

All-powerful totalitarian dictatorships will inevitably lead to widespread oppression to control the inevitable dissent, which will paralyze society with crippling strikes and passive resistence.

What's the alternative? Slaughtering the populace with nukes?

See how annoying that is? This is called a strawman argument, and I've seen you do better than this. If I ever argue for getting rid of government you are welcome to trot out this trope; in the mean time kindly respond to the position before you, not the one it would have been more convenient to argue with.

Again, this is not a question of structure but a question of culture. A government composed of people who understand they are there to serve the public (of which they are a partI and not to enrich their family or use their position to their own ends, etc.) doesn't need limiting. But granted, this is a more utopian vision.

When you achieve this utopian vision limiting the scope and power of government won't be an obstacle. It is an obstacle to oppression; having a roof on your house isn't a problem when it isn't raining but damned useful when it is.

The checks and balances are there for a reason. Nevertheless, IMO fostering an inclusive, socially responsible and open society will be more cost effective than merely limiting the scope of government powers. But I understand, this will be where we always differ.

We don't differ on this, I just don't want to enact cultural change via coercive means. I also think an inclusive, socially responsible and open society happens to thrive better when it has maximum freedom to operate.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 11:36pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

I do not get the government I deserve, I get the government that a long list of historical accidents and nefarious skullduggery have left available to choose from. I get the government that panicked mobs deem minimally acceptable. I get the government that panders to the basest instincts most effectively.
 
understood, though I was using the collective "you", not just you specifically. Those panicked mobs happen to be your neighbours that you are going to have to deal with some way or another. Get rid of government and you might find those same panicked mobs now less panicked, more emboldened and armed with pitchforks. What is the alternative? Living on an island?

Putin is a handy scapegoat but his reach is tiny compared to the damage we do ourselves.
 
Agreed, but he is a handy example of the damage that someone with more than a few resources at his disposal and a clear target can do to public opinion. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he tries to explain the resilience of western democracies. 

 Lazy8 wrote:
Limiting the power and scope that governments have does not make them trustworthy, it just limits the damage they can do.
 
Again, this is not a question of structure but a question of culture. A government composed of people who understand they are there to serve the public (of which they are a partI and not to enrich their family or use their position to their own ends, etc.) doesn't need limiting. But granted, this is a more utopian vision. The checks and balances are there for a reason. Nevertheless, IMO fostering an inclusive, socially responsible and open society will be more cost effective than merely limiting the scope of government powers. But I understand, this will be where we always differ.

(I do note that you want to foster that same sense of social responsibility and were we to have it, we wouldn't need the heavy hand of government. I think we pursue roughly the same ends, just different means).
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 3:09pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
And it has become abundantly clear over the past decade that there are various forces out there actively playing public opinion to further their own agenda (nothing new in itself, but the scale and form has changed). There are those sowing distrust in government. Those inciting racist tension. Those fostering animosity towards refugees and immigrants. None of this is new nor is it a left-wing / right-wing thing. Putin has aimed considerable resources at misinformation for what seem to be purely geopolitical reasons. What's amazing is how effective he's been. But there are many others. Powerful lobbies and global industries who would like to break down local regulations to tap into new markets, for example. The list goes on. Getting any kind of clarity amidst all these smoke screens is getting harder by the day.

But removing government and regulation is not going to resolve this. It will only make it worse as the signal to noise ratio continues to wane. Then people will be even more lost and disoriented and scared about who to trust and therefore even more vulnerable to snake oil salesmen.

You and I will probably disagree to our dying day on the reasons for poor government. You see it as structural: government as a monopoly, with the lack of accountability fostering poor decisions or downright nepotism. I see it more as a cultural/historical contingency. The quality of government rises and falls like the tide. Things may change, governments come and go, but in the end, you get the government you deserve.

I do not get the government I deserve, I get the government that a long list of historical accidents and nefarious skullduggery have left available to choose from. I get the government that panicked mobs deem minimally acceptable. I get the government that panders to the basest instincts most effectively.

Putin is a handy scapegoat but his reach is tiny compared to the damage we do ourselves.

Limiting the power and scope that governments have does not make them trustworthy, it just limits the damage they can do.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 1:17pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Took a break from arguing over the internet for the weekend (which went splendidly, thank you, other than some bad news about being able to start dancing next month) and it seems a longer response to this went away. I'll try and flesh out what I was looking for a bit.

The first rule of credibility: If you want to be believed, don't lie.

Governments at all levels in many countries have squandered any credibility they ever had by lying, dissembling, and in ways large and small failing to trust their populations with the truth. One of the drivers of high vaccination rates around the world (distribution problems aside) is that people who trust what their governments are saying have generally trusted the vaccines. This goes beyond ideology or politics; if the prime minister (or whoever) gets in front of the populace and says "This is important, and we need you to roll up your sleeves and help out" and people don't have ample reason to think s/he's lying they will likely cooperate.

While the time to build credibility is before you need it the pandemic was an opportunity to build it. An opportunity squandered. And it will make the next emergency harder to deal with and the next disease outbreak deadlier.


Yeah I had to take a chill pill and some time out. 

It is worth noting the different performances of various nations to the pandemic and seeing the strong correlation between those countries that still have some semblance of faith in government and those where distrust has taken root. Seems having a government you can trust is great for vaccine uptake.

But I made the mistake of thinking this was a question of form (of government) but actually it is a question of culture, as you point out. 

You are quite right, the issue is credibility but this cuts both ways. Governments have to earn it and it doesn't even necessarily have to be performance driven. Clear communication seems to suffice as Jacinda Adern has shown. But "we the people" are also instrumental in the government we get. What compromises are we willing to accept, where are our redlines, what sort of society do we want, and so on. You can't govern a rabble that is neither willing to listen nor to reason and negotiate.

And it has become abundantly clear over the past decade that there are various forces out there actively playing public opinion to further their own agenda (nothing new in itself, but the scale and form has changed). There are those sowing distrust in government. Those inciting racist tension. Those fostering animosity towards refugees and immigrants. None of this is new nor is it a left-wing / right-wing thing. Putin has aimed considerable resources at misinformation for what seem to be purely geopolitical reasons. What's amazing is how effective he's been. But there are many others. Powerful lobbies and global industries who would like to break down local regulations to tap into new markets, for example. The list goes on. Getting any kind of clarity amidst all these smoke screens is getting harder by the day.

But removing government and regulation is not going to resolve this. It will only make it worse as the signal to noise ratio continues to wane. Then people will be even more lost and disoriented and scared about who to trust and therefore even more vulnerable to snake oil salesmen.

You and I will probably disagree to our dying day on the reasons for poor government. You see it as structural: government as a monopoly, with the lack of accountability fostering poor decisions or downright nepotism. I see it more as a cultural/historical contingency. The quality of government rises and falls like the tide. Things may change, governments come and go, but in the end, you get the government you deserve.






Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 9:22am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
reaching out and talking it through... ad nauseam if need be.. as one does... so how's your day so far?

Took a break from arguing over the internet for the weekend (which went splendidly, thank you, other than some bad news about being able to start dancing next month) and it seems a longer response to this went away. I'll try and flesh out what I was looking for a bit.

The first rule of credibility: If you want to be believed, don't lie.

Governments at all levels in many countries have squandered any credibility they ever had by lying, dissembling, and in ways large and small failing to trust their populations with the truth. One of the drivers of high vaccination rates around the world (distribution problems aside) is that people who trust what their governments are saying have generally trusted the vaccines. This goes beyond ideology or politics; if the prime minister (or whoever) gets in front of the populace and says "This is important, and we need you to roll up your sleeves and help out" and people don't have ample reason to think s/he's lying they will likely cooperate.

While the time to build credibility is before you need it the pandemic was an opportunity to build it. An opportunity squandered. And it will make the next emergency harder to deal with and the next disease outbreak deadlier.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Aug 14, 2021 - 5:59am

 sirdroseph wrote:

B I N G O and bingo was his nameo.

I also include how my actions may impact others in the cost-benefit analysis. 



sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 14, 2021 - 5:05am

 steeler wrote:
 sirdroseph wrote:

I am concerned about both, they are not mutually exclusive.

Never said they were. It is a cost-benefit analysis.
 
B I N G O and bingo was his nameo.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 13, 2021 - 7:21am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

oh grief, looks like I really got up people's noses with my accusation of needing a teddy and a hot chocolate. 

{#Lol}


Maybe I'll just shout us all a round of hot chocolate... 
 


well that was directed out into the universe 
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 13, 2021 - 7:16am

 miamizsun wrote:
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

reaching out and talking it through... ad nauseam if need be.. as one does... so how's your day so far?
 


real dialogue? 
the problem with engaging people and honestly addressing concerns is that it will likely lead to an amiable solution
in the early stages that could be very uncomfortable or challenging for those locked into foolish political narratives
initial conversations should be open, non-threatening and tolerant of all beliefs
build a little trust, good will and work forward from there? a recipe for success?
i'll engage almost anyone as long as hey are sincere and civil
obviously hateful speech, grave dancing, finger pointing and insults are not going to get us the desired outcome
unfortunately there are a lot of folks that buy into that dogma
the results are on display, yet people may not understand why they're not effective
i think if you're persistent you will be doing the world a great service
good luck
 
oh grief, looks like I really got up people's noses with my accusation of needing a teddy and a hot chocolate. 

{#Lol}

Maybe I'll just shout us all a round of hot chocolate... 
 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 13, 2021 - 6:29am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

reaching out and talking it through... ad nauseam if need be.. as one does... so how's your day so far?
 


real dialogue? 
the problem with engaging people and honestly addressing concerns is that it will likely lead to an amiable solution
in the early stages that could be very uncomfortable or challenging for those locked into foolish political narratives
initial conversations should be open, non-threatening and tolerant of all beliefs
build a little trust, good will and work forward from there? a recipe for success?
i'll engage almost anyone as long as hey are sincere and civil
obviously hateful speech, grave dancing, finger pointing and insults are not going to get us the desired outcome
unfortunately there are a lot of folks that buy into that dogma
the results are on display, yet people may not understand why they're not effective
i think if you're persistent you will be doing the world a great service
good luck

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Aug 13, 2021 - 5:32am

 sirdroseph wrote:

I am concerned about both, they are not mutually exclusive.

Never said they were. It is a cost-benefit analysis.

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 13, 2021 - 5:26am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
When A meets B, when the scared and rootless start eroding that general consensus in an attempt to remedy their fears by destroying the very thing holding things together I get kind of angry. edit: and, yes, scared for our future.

I'm gonna repeat my question: What else you got? The fear that civilization is hanging by a thread, btw, is more than a little hyperbolic—but let's say your breathless take is accurate. Shouldn't that motivate you all the more? If it's important enough to make you wring your hands why isn't it important enough for you to try a more persuasive approach?
 
reaching out and talking it through... ad nauseam if need be.. as one does... so how's your day so far?
 
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 13, 2021 - 4:08am

 steeler wrote:
 sirdroseph wrote:

And this does not concern you?  Seems to me the virus itself and its journey is the more deciding factor and that will reveal itself much sooner.

It seems you are waiting to be proven right about your choice not to get vaccinated —  not to be proven wrong about that choice.  I am concerned about the virus. I am not concerned about the safety of the vaccine. While acknowledging that nothing is guaranteed or foolproof, I trust those epidemiologists and others in the field who have determined it to be sufficiently safe. I consider placing trust in these people and institutions to be logical.  I readily acknowledge that I have no basis or requisite background knowledge upon which to study the issue myself and reach my own conclusion. So, yes, it is a matter of trust in those experts, those institutions, and, writ large, science itself.
 
I am concerned about both, they are not mutually exclusive.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 74, 75, 76  Next