[besson3c]

I feel that too many people get caught up in being right, and therefore strive to justify their righteousness and reinforce their existing beliefs when possible. When circumstances change to present a falseness to their beliefs, they are slow to change their mind.

A good example is all of the people who months ago were saying how the Bush stay-the-course thing was working well. All of the (now few) stragglers just hold up the process of change. Being right should be far less important than what is best for America at the moment.

Secondly, too many people are emotionally invested and loyal to a party or politician. Being loyal contributes to the need to be right, because it would be dumb to be loyal to somebody who is wrong, right?

Being loyal will always lead to some disappointment, rigidity in thinking, and is just a very bad idea IMHO. These politicians are not loyal to you, and often have interests which differ than yours which might not be obvious.

Being loyal also slows things down. When somebody is wrong, I believe that we should all jump ship as quickly as possible.... Politicians are our servants, not the other way around.


I think it is possible to be both unloyal and not caught up in being right and be a complete leftist or right-wing nut. I believe that one should always be open to the possibility of being proven wrong though, because again, loyalty and being right should be far less important than the well-being of America.

[Uncle Skeleton]

There's a delicate balance of change, and it's just as easy to subscribe to too much of it as too little. In general, whatever path we're currently on, while it is usually not the best of all possible paths, it is pretty much always very far from the worst. At least a certain reluctance to change protects us from falling into one of those worst paths due to a momentary misinterpretation of the facts.

I think of it in evolutionary terms (I know, to a man with a hammer...). An organism incapable of change is soon lost due to changing environment, but an organism which changes too quickly loses the advantages it may have acquired through evolution. There is a "right" level of change, based on the rate one's environment changes, and for the most part, survival of the fittest ensures that those who prosper in their environment have found that "right" level. There can be little doubt that the US is prosperous, though in the next 100 years or so we may discover that China and India have found their way closer to the "right" level.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Being right should be far less important than what is best for America at the moment.

Um... whoa. Not caring about being right because it's inconvenient? That's got to be one of the most selfish things I've heard in a long time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Um... whoa. Not caring about being right because it's inconvenient? That's got to be one of the most selfish things I've heard in a long time.

Huh? Not following you here..

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Um... whoa. Not caring about being right because it's inconvenient? That's got to be one of the most selfish things I've heard in a long time.

I think right maybe should have been in quotes.

I believe besson3c is talking about people who maintain they are right in the face of being wrong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think right maybe should have been in quotes.

I believe besson3c is talking about people who maintain they are right in the face of being wrong.

Right... or being right in the face of being productive too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Right... or being right in the face of being productive too.

As in "we can win X conflict by throwing Y resources at it."

Likely a "right", as in factually correct, statement, though it can ignore certain practical constraints (the productive part).

Right?

Edit: the "proper" way to phrase it would be "we can win X conflict by throwing Y resources at it, but this will incur Z consequences."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

As in "we can win X conflict by throwing Y resources at it".

Likely a "right", as in factually correct, statement, though it can ignore certain practical constraints (the productive part).

Right?

I was thinking more in terms of stubbornness and not wanting to expose being wrong, but this is also an excellent example.

There are also sorts of variables, tradeoffs, and constraints to many political decisions. A good politician is really skilled at only emphasizing a small aspect of a decision, another way to be a good patriot is to carefully weigh and balance all of these ramifications, rather than just sticking with what sounds the best to say (such as "we are going to rid the world of terror")

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was thinking more in terms of stubbornness and not wanting to expose being wrong, but this is also an excellent example.

Yeah. This is super bad.

I must admit though, when it's a known quantity it is much easier to deal with.

There are people around here who when you've backed them into a corner, they clam. It's really unsatisfying.

Ultimately however, as unsatisfying as it is, at least I'm not the one who's crushed under the weight of my own hubris.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. This is super bad.

I must admit though, when it's a known quantity it is much easier to deal with.

There are people around here who when you've backed them into a corner, they clam. It's really unsatisfying.

Ultimately however, as unsatisfying as it is, at least I'm not the one who's crushed under the weight of my own hubris.

Maybe part of the problem is that many people view being wrong as a negative thing? Making a mistake is a positive thing...

[Sky Captain]

More leftwinged tripe.
All the rightwingers line up and beg for forgiveness right now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

More leftwinged tripe.

Which part?

If the answer is "all of it", which part do you find particularly gastrointestinal?

[Dork.]

I've always wondered why the ability to compromise is not regarded very highly anymore in political circles. One of the reasons why our government never does anything useful is that it's so hard to get the two sides to meet in the middle on anything. It's as if conceding any point to the opposition makes your side less relevant.

In my view, the compromise which nobody likes (but everyone agrees is necessary) is the very art of politics. We seem to have lost it.

As far as being a "politically-informed patriot", I think many people don't bother because it involves a lot of reading on a variety of subjects, exposure to viewpoints that you don't personally share, and a continual challenging of your personal theories to make sure that they are robust in the face of reasoned arguments. It's much easier to just repeat what that guy on the radio or on TV says. And that guy doesn't even have to make arguments grounded in truth at all, he just needs to say things that feel true to his audience in order to get most people to believe him.

Have you seen what Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year is?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

In my view, the compromise which nobody likes (but everyone agrees is necessary) is the very art of politics. We seem to have lost it.

Exactly. You give action to get action.

[Kevin]

Start with the man in the mirror besson.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I've always wondered why the ability to compromise is not regarded very highly anymore in political circles. One of the reasons why our government never does anything useful is that it's so hard to get the two sides to meet in the middle on anything. It's as if conceding any point to the opposition makes your side less relevant.

In my view, the compromise which nobody likes (but everyone agrees is necessary) is the very art of politics. We seem to have lost it.(snip)

"Compromise" is almost never a good thing. It's exactly the same thing as losing. Do you compromise when you're winning? After the casino house pays you for your "blackjack", do you offer to return some of your winnings? Why not? Why didn't the USA compromise with Japan after Japan surrendered? See? It makes no sense to compromise unless you're losing or you've lost.

I don't vote for representatives with the expectation that they'll compromise their position or ideals. Most important matters are either right or wrong. There exists no middle ground when it comes to civil rights. Our enemies do not deserve compromise. By compromising, you're admitting that they aren't completely wrong in their mission to destroy us.

Anybody can ride the fence - trod the 'middle ground'. It takes integrity to choose a position and defend it.

"Compromise" is born of weakness and defeat.

Perhaps you should compromise and get a peecee that runs Linux instead of a Mac.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Why didn't the USA compromise with Japan after Japan surrendered? See? It makes no sense to compromise unless you're losing or you've lost.

They didn't?

I was always taught an example of not compromising was post WW I Germany, which is often credited as being directly responsible for WW II.

If we hadn't compromised with the Japanese, Zenith would still be making TVs.

[Spliffdaddy]

When did losing become a thing to be proud of? Are they teaching that in schools today? They must be, judging by 'generation Y's widespread mindless agreement that's it's OK to lose. It's a sign of a fully-evolved comfortable society when self-esteem overrides integrity. Can't have any hurt feelings, now can we? After all, life is fair. The world will coddle you - being the warm fuzzy thing that it is.

That's exactly the attutide that creates failure...when winning no longer matters. If you lose, just work from Plan B - 'compromise'. Your beliefs and values should be limp like a linguini noodle? Call me old fashioned. I still believe that it's better to retain your values than to compromise them away.

I've always heard that, statistically, our education system ranks pretty low compared to other 'developed' countries. All indications seem to confirm that fact. We have a generation that can't spell for sh!t, a generation that believes losing is no different than winning, a generation whose day gains significance when Britney Spears flashes her crotch. Worse, this generation believes the key to happiness in life is *more* formal education!
Nothing's worth fighting for when you don't stand for anything - and when you could simply compromise and call that a victory.
Yeah, the problem with compromise is that most of the planet is still old fashioned, like me. They're playing to win - and they don't give one whit about your self-esteem.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

"Compromise" is almost never a good thing. It's exactly the same thing as losing. Do you compromise when you're winning? After the casino house pays you for your "blackjack", do you offer to return some of your winnings? Why not? Why didn't the USA compromise with Japan after Japan surrendered? See? It makes no sense to compromise unless you're losing or you've lost.

I don't vote for representatives with the expectation that they'll compromise their position or ideals. Most important matters are either right or wrong. There exists no middle ground when it comes to civil rights. Our enemies do not deserve compromise. By compromising, you're admitting that they aren't completely wrong in their mission to destroy us.

Anybody can ride the fence - trod the 'middle ground'. It takes integrity to choose a position and defend it.

"Compromise" is born of weakness and defeat.

Perhaps you should compromise and get a peecee that runs Linux instead of a Mac.

At the blackjack table, then you win, the house loses, and vice versa. But politics is not a zero-sum game. America wins or loses as a whole based on the decisions made by these people. Most important matters have more than two sides, so you standard political talking points don't reflect all possibilities anyway, so why is your side always better?

[Spliffdaddy]

Let's say Mississippi voters decide that only white people can own land.

Explain where you would begin the compromise.

They believe their side is better than yours.

edit: and threatening them with violence or incarceration is *not* an option. If that were an option, you couldn't call what you're doing "compromise" - you'd call it "winning".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Haha. You got one, Besson.

Spliffers: "Compromise means losing. That's why we didn't compromise in WWII"
subego: "We did compromise in WWII"
Spliffers: "You shouldn't be proud of losing"

I guess appearing to be right is more important than actually being right after all.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Let's say Mississippi voters decide that only white people can own land.

Explain where you would begin the compromise.

They believe their side is better than yours.

edit: and threatening them with violence or incarceration is *not* an option. If that were an option, you couldn't call what you're doing "compromise" - you'd call it "winning".

That example doesn't work because the proposal is unconstitutional. Try picking one that's realistic, like South Dakota voters decide that performing abortions is punishable by the death penalty.

[Spliffdaddy]

damn. The point just breezed right over your heads. It's obvious you've spent some time in American schools.

Forget that it's unconstitutional!! That has nothing to do with anything.

My point was that most things have no gray area. You cannot "compromise" when something is either right or wrong.

Again, how would you compromise with Mississippi if it *WAS* freakin constitutional to deny non-whites the ability to own property?

Furthermore, the USA did not compromise after the defeat of Japan - that's why it was called (are you ready?) an 'unconditional' surrender.

[Uncle Skeleton]

No, most things have a grey area, and those few that don't are explicitly listed in the constitution. That's what it's there for.

[besson3c]

I wish there was gray area in your skull sometimes Spliffdaddy. I mean, I don't think you are dumb, but there are sure some things you don't seem to think through clearly (perhaps to feed the persona of your character).

All sorts of things involve a gray area. I'm not particularly interested in measuring whether there are more absolutes than gray areas since this is nothing something that could be proven, but there are clearly enough gray areas to make negotiating these gray areas an invaluable skill.

Everytime somebody asks you a question and you feel the appropriate answer is "it depends", that's a gray area.

Whether or not I should be allowed to use those mechanical horses you put a quarter in at the supermarket is also a gray area.

[Spliffdaddy]

And nobody managed to answer my simple question.

Which can only mean that I won this debate.

[Sky Captain]

I never want to win the debate.
That would make everyone stupider than me.
And that's too scarey.

[Spliffdaddy]

After winning debates the few hundred times, you get accustomed to it.

That being said, defeating liberals is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

And nobody managed to answer my simple question.

Maybe they assumed your ignorance was rhetorical. If you really need it spelled out, that compromise was made right from the start, with the constitutional clause about slave trading being allowed up until 1808.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

After winning debates the few hundred times, you get accustomed to it.

That being said, defeating liberals is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

About as easy as announcing your own defeat

[Spliffdaddy]

Wow. You guys were really pwned.

It's a simple question - yet all you seem to be able to do is pretend you aren't dumb.

Prove me wrong. Answer the question.

If you're right, then answering the question should be a breeze.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Wow. You guys were really pwned.

It's a simple question - yet all you seem to be able to do is pretend you aren't dumb.

Prove me wrong. Answer the question.

If you're right, then answering the question should be a breeze.

Are you really being serious?

Of course there are times where there can be no compromise. Duh...

Was that the question?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Furthermore, the USA did not compromise after the defeat of Japan - that's why it was called (are you ready?) an 'unconditional' surrender.

Yeah. They "unconditionally surrendered" to selling us TVs, DVD players, VCRs and those little shitbox cars.

Are you sure you understand this "winning" thing as well as you think you do?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Forget that it's unconstitutional!! That has nothing to do with anything.

Spoken like a true Republican.

[medicineman]

Why didn't the USA compromise with Japan after Japan surrendered? See? It makes no sense to compromise unless you're losing or you've lost.

Actually we did compromise. We allowed Hirohito to remain emperor.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

Actually we did compromise. We allowed Hirohito to remain emperor.

… which was the equivalent of allowing Hitler remain German Chancellor.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… which was the equivalent of allowing Hitler remain German Chancellor.

Not really. Hitler was the defacto head of the Nazi regime. Hirohito was a titular head, the day to day government was run by the Supreme War Leadership Council and other antagonistic factions. It was they who rejected the Potsdam Declaration. But it was Hirohito who had the sovereign power to resolve the issue.

[besson3c]

Debate tip #26: don't use history as a basis for argument unless you are damn sure and/or a historian

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Debate tip #26: don't use history as a basis for argument unless you are damn sure and/or a historian

What did I cite incorrectly?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

What did I cite incorrectly?

I had Spliffdaddy in mind when I wrote that.. sorry!

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I had Spliffdaddy in mind when I wrote that.. sorry!

No problem. Thanks.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I had Spliffdaddy in mind when I wrote that.. sorry!

You always have Spliffdaddy in mind. I'm a memorable kinda guy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

You always have Spliffdaddy in mind. I'm a memorable kinda guy.

Unfortunately, every time I cheap shot you I get an infraction. You should stand up for me and complain about me getting these infractions so that I can continue to insult you freely unpenalized