What can we agree on?

[Lacewing]

Let's give this a try. I've moved the comments below (from another topic) to this new topic.

Without a viable middle ground we have what we actually have: schisms, decades long, deep, and insurmountable.

Agreed.

There are no libertarians (natural rights or other) among the powers that be in Washington.

Agreed -- and I think there should be. I have voted libertarian, myself.

you assume the Right/Conservative/Republican vs Left/Progressive/Democrat split reflects the actual views of over 300 million folks spread across five to eight regional cultures (cultures which are comprised of subcultures).

No, I don't. Don't put false projections onto me.

Folks pick the elephant or donkey becuz that's the entrenched system, not becuz either is representative of them.

I agree. We are falsely categorized and represented.

I reckon just between you and me there'd be little agreement about what government ought necessarily guarentee. So: where's the middle ground?

Here are some topics and ideas that immediately come to mind for me. Feel free to list your own. Please resist the temptation to simply crap on the likelihood of these 'changes' -- and instead focus on what do we agree on?

> Size of government needs to be greatly reduced. People who don't do their jobs, don't show up for meetings, are unable to prevent shutdowns, stage disruptive dramas, etc. --> should not get paid and should be dismissed as they would at any other job.

> The intended purpose of elected representatives is to find and agree to a middle ground that serves the diverse interests of the entire population they represent. I think they should be required to complete a specialized course on 'Cooperation, Mediation, and Teamwork in Government' as a basis for setting some common goals and language in working together. Hell, even small companies do this for their employees... the highest office in the land should surely do such a thing!

> Also: Term limits and age limits for all government positions (no lifetime appointments). People should not be dying and mentally freezing on the senate floor -- this is outrageous. Allow younger leadership to represent and help direct the upcoming world that they are to live in.

> Separation of Church and State needs to be upheld -- no exceptions. "No person may be forced to join or belong to a religious community, to participate in a religious act or to follow religious teachings". Praying on the football field... no. Individuals are free to pray IN THEIR HEAD as much as they want. A team can put their heads together anywhere (even in the locker room) to pray, meditate, whatever, before a game... but the public 'Dear Lord' demonstration is a 'show' and violates the rights of any team members who do not share those views. Religion does not belong in schools unless it is something like a 'Religious Studies' class in higher education. Also, the 'swearing in' on the Bible should be abolished for public government appointments. An oath of representation and cooperative teamwork would be better than the archaic Bible demonstration.

> Since the beginning of humankind, women have used herbs and available techniques for avoiding and ending unwanted early-term pregnancies. It is biology. Completely outlawing this capability is more ignorant than medieval humans. There are reasonable timelines and circumstances that can be considered.

> Certain guns or other weapons that are actually designed for maximum destruction in groups of humans are not appropriate in civilian hands and communities. Every effort should be made to prevent such access. The argument that one style of gun being banned can lead to all guns being banned shows a disgusting lack of truth, accountability, and responsible behavior.

> Nobody wants the U.S. borders overrun with criminals! What a ridiculous accusation to make against Democrats or anyone who recognizes that there are legitimate reasons that many people seek safety and a better life in the U.S. We want productive and safe people in our society. Clearly we need humane and effective solutions for dealing with migrants.

> We need to do better to deal with the criminals (child molesters, rapists, murderers, etc.) who are ALREADY HERE! For those who cannot live in our society without posing a constant risk to others, such that they must be locked up for life at our expense, they should be humanely put to sleep like rabid dogs/beasts. Seriously... why the fuck are we taking care of criminals and letting migrant children drown?

What do you think, Henry... see anything you agree with?

[Walker]

If he had stood in front of Chaka, Red would have a new part in his hair. Big voice. Agreed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_6OuSQ3znY

Can we agree that the purity of such a voice as The Chaka’s is experienced not with intellect, but non-intellectually, spontaneously, uncalculated, and even inherently appreciated, although someone joining society after a wolf upbringing might not communicate this abstractly due to the likely, overpowering urge to just howl in appreciative harmony, as a learned response.

[Lacewing]

As we routinely see in this forum...

"The problem now is that people can't agree on what's a fact, [and] we don't share a common set of facts. We can't even agree on how to establish that something is a fact." -- PBS interview with Martin Baron, decades-long career in journalism, including leading some of the nation's most respected newspapers

Even when visible evidence is presented, it is ignored and dismissed, or distorted or derailed by or into something else. The claims made in this forum are often molded to fit a certain narrative while ignoring all else to the contrary. Dishonest sources and fabrications are presented as 'proof' or justification. Sadly, self-serving agendas and grandstanding are presented as 'superior truths'. How can there be agreement with that level of absurdity?

[Age]

As we routinely see in this forum...

"The problem now is that people can't agree on what's a fact, [and] we don't share a common set of facts. We can't even agree on how to establish that something is a fact." -- PBS interview with Martin Baron, decades-long career in journalism, including leading some of the nation's most respected newspapers

Even when visible evidence is presented, it is ignored and dismissed, or distorted or derailed by or into something else.

For example the Truth that there is NO one truth gets ignored, dismissed, distorted, and/or derailed by or into something else, correct "lacewing"?

The claims made in this forum are often molded to fit a certain narrative while ignoring all else to the contrary.

Very, very True.

But the claim that there is NO one truth was NOT molded to fit a certain narrative, while ignoring all else to the contrary, right "lacewing"?

Dishonest sources and fabrications are presented as 'proof' or justification. Sadly, self-serving agendas and grandstanding are presented as 'superior truths'.

But 'you', "lacewing", do NOT do 'this' "yourself", true?

How can there be agreement with that level of absurdity?

There has NOT been. BECAUSE OF the level of ABSURDITY ROUTINELY SHOWN, and SEEN, here, in this forum.

AGREEMENT IS REACHED, as I CONTINUALLY SAY, WHEN people ARE Truly Honest, Open, and seriously Want to CHANGE, for the better, and that IS HOW 'agreement' WAS REACHED, and ACHIEVED.

[commonsense]

focus on what do we agree on

I think we can agree that a competitive nature is present in humans, more so in some than in others. This competitive nature drives some to win more than to cooperate. That being said, it is understandable that opposing viewpoints must arise.

[Lacewing]

I think we can agree that a competitive nature is present in humans, more so in some than in others. This competitive nature drives some to win more than to cooperate.

Good point.

I'll add: For some the idea of 'winning' is not only more compelling than truth, it is crucial for maintaining ego -- and as we can witness on this forum, such a combination creates dark and twisted mega-delusions that are undeterred by the light of day.

[Walker]

Re: The Middle Way.

The Middle Way is like a boat. After one reaches the other side, one no longer needs a boat.

In terms of political governance, the middle-way is the US Constitution. It allows for the common ground to exist, and this is achieved by offering what is worthy of need, in exchange for compensation.

In terms of awareness, the middle-way is a limitation, and some would argue rather dull.
In terms of awareness, living on the edge is also a limitation, and some would say not dull enough.

In terms of Socratic dialogue applied to the courtroom, the middle way is presented by neither the prosecution nor the defense, since negotiating to a middle way is done with the plea deals that don’t see the court room.

In terms of an on-line dialogue situation, the middle-way can be like the court room situation where no one side presents all sides of every situation, but rather, one side persuasively presents a view of ... whatever.

On-line cross-examinations that attempt to imitate courtroom cross-examinations would often get overruled in a courtroom. In fact, some on-lining folks do nothing but cross examine others, without ever offering a view. These folks are interlopers, trolls, and philosophy tourists.

“[...]the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes “Awww!”
― Jack Kerouac, On the Road(way)

[Walker]

I think we can agree that a competitive nature is present in humans, more so in some than in others. This competitive nature drives some to win more than to cooperate.

Good point.

I'll add: For some the idea of 'winning' is not only more compelling than truth, it is crucial for maintaining ego -- and as we can witness on this forum, such a combination creates dark and twisted mega-delusions that are undeterred by the light of day.

To this I'll add that some people are compelled to offer their best at whatever level they're functioning, and these people are competing against themselves by offering their best. Such a compulsion, such a need, can be perceived as a need to "win," by those who need to win. Destroying the lives of others for disagreeing is an extreme win often displayed by The Left, in politics.

Therefore, any difference between offering one's best, and cooperation, is a false dichotomy.

[Age]

focus on what do we agree on

I think we can agree that a competitive nature is present in humans, more so in some than in others.

I think it will be COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that WHY SOME adult human beings BECOME 'competitive' IS BECAUSE of 'LEARNED BEHAVIOR'.

Now, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to SUGGEST that 'a competitive nature' is somehow or somewhat present in human beings, then WHAT, EXACTLY, WOULD human beings BE 'competing' FOR, EXACTLY?

This competitive nature drives some to win more than to cooperate.

'Win' 'what', EXACTLY?

That being said, it is understandable that opposing viewpoints must arise.

LOL

Are 'you' here 'trying to' SUGGEST that IF one comes forth with A 'view' OPPOSING 'your view', then that "other" one is TRYING TO 'win' some 'thing' here?

Have 'you' EVER considered that sharing and/or expressing 'a view' that one considers is true and/or right is NOT being done with 'the view' of 'winning' NOR 'losing' ANY 'thing', but is just being done with and from the concept of just expressing what MAY WELL be ACTUALLY True, ALONE?

Was the one expressing and sharing 'the view', 'that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', doing 'this' TO 'win' some 'thing'? Or, could it be the case that 'that one' just wanted to SHARE some 'thing', which 'it' KNEW WAS, or COULD BE, the ACTUAL Truth of 'things', AND, thus just WANTED TO SHARE some knowledge, ONLY?

[Age]

I think we can agree that a competitive nature is present in humans, more so in some than in others. This competitive nature drives some to win more than to cooperate.

Good point.

I'll add: For some the idea of 'winning' is not only more compelling than truth, it is crucial for maintaining ego

If one is sharing some 'thing' that is NOT even true, then HOW could that one EVER win some 'thing' here?

-- and as we can witness on this forum, such a combination creates dark and twisted mega-delusions that are undeterred by the light of day.

EXACTLY, like 'the dark and twisted mega-delusion' that there IS NO 'one truth', for example.

[commonsense]

Age:

Anything, eg an argument
Anything, eg an argument
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

[commonsense]

Re: The Middle Way.
On-line cross-examinations that attempt to imitate courtroom cross-examinations would often get overruled in a courtroom. In fact, some on-lining folks do nothing but cross examine others, without ever offering a view. These folks are interlopers, trolls, and philosophy tourists.

I think those interlopers who present cross-examinations are indeed providing ideas of their own, if a contrary statement may be considered as an idea as well.

Or perhaps this post is merely a thinly veiled cross-examination.

[Walker]

I think those interlopers who present cross-examinations are indeed providing ideas of their own, if a contrary statement may be considered as an idea as well.

I had the very same thought. I also think that on-line cross-examinations can hinge on faulty interpretations of the testimony, and the cause of faulty interpretations that shape the cross-examination can be intentional or unintentional.

The contrariness required for cross-examination may be based on a presented* implied or expressed view.


* the view need not be believed by a presenter, as the presenter represents the idea much as the ideas of a plaintiff or defendent in a courtroom are represented.

[henry quirk]

Size of government needs to be greatly reduced.

Yes. Reduce it to near nonexistence...then reduce it some more.

People who don't do their jobs, don't show up for meetings, are unable to prevent shutdowns, stage disruptive dramas, etc. --> should not get paid and should be dismissed as they would at any other job.

Sure. Better still: eliminate those jobs.

The intended purpose of elected representatives is to find and agree to a middle ground that serves the diverse interests of the entire population they represent. I think they should be required to complete a specialized course on 'Cooperation, Mediation, and Teamwork in Government' as a basis for setting some common goals and language in working together. Hell, even small companies do this for their employees... the highest office in the land should surely do such a thing!

That's one idea. Another is to, as I say, reduce gov to near nonexistence, eliminate a whole whack of gov jobs, then put the essential positions where they ought to be (among the folks they serve) and constantly remind position holders they are employees.

Term limits and age limits for all government positions (no lifetime appointments). People should not be dying and mentally freezing on the senate floor -- this is outrageous. Allow younger leadership to represent and help direct the upcoming world that they are to live in.

Yes. One term for any and everyone, no exceptions, from the federal down to the municipal. And put a binding none of the above option on every ballot or every election. And revise the electoral college thusly: the popular vote in a state determines where that state's one electoral vote goes. Whoever wins 26 out of 50 gets the Big Chair. In the unlikely event of a tie, congress, as a whole, votes and its one electoral vote tie breaks.

Separation of Church and State needs to be upheld -- no exceptions. "No person may be forced to join or belong to a religious community, to participate in a religious act or to follow religious teachings".

Is anyone being forced to join or belong to or support a religion? In America? By government?

Praying on the football field... no.

I have a problem with folks being forced either way. If some wanna take a knee and pray. leave 'em be. If others on the same team don't wanna take a knee and pray, leave 'em be.

Religion does not belong in schools unless it is something like a 'Religious Studies' class in higher education.

In public schools: mebbe so. In private schools? Butt out.

Also, the 'swearing in' on the Bible should be abolished for public government appointments. An oath of representation and cooperative teamwork would be better than the archaic Bible demonstration.

It's a convention no one is obligated to abide. In my work I've been called to attest. I simply affirmed what I would say as true.

Completely outlawing this capability is more ignorant than medieval humans.

I suggest folks be mindful of the law....so as to break it cleanly.

Certain guns or other weapons that are actually designed for maximum destruction in groups of humans are not appropriate in civilian hands and communities. Every effort should be made to prevent such access. The argument that one style of gun being banned can lead to all guns being banned shows a disgusting lack of truth, accountability, and responsible behavior.

If I want a bazooka: I'm gonna have a bazooka. It becomes your concern when I use my bazooka to violate your life, liberty, and property. Till then: butt out.

Nobody wants the U.S. borders overrun with criminals! What a ridiculous accusation to make against Democrats or anyone who recognizes that there are legitimate reasons that many people seek safety and a better life in the U.S. We want productive and safe people in our society. Clearly we need humane and effective solutions for dealing with migrants.

Open the borders. First though: eliminate all give away programs, end refugee status, restore self-defense as a virtue, reduce, as I say, gov to a near nonexistence, restore self-direction & self-reliance as virtues, encourage private charity. A nation of free people who can and will give aid but who will also take no shit from guests is guaranteed to have very few illegals/criminals.

We need to do better to deal with the criminals (child molesters, rapists, murderers, etc.) who are ALREADY HERE!

Folks who treat others as commodities -- thieves, rapists, murderers, slavers -- ought face a consequence in keeping with the crime. They should pay for violations of life, liberty, and property with their lives, liberties, and properties.

[Peter Kropotkin]

henry quirk

Size of government needs to be greatly reduced.

Yes. Reduce it to near nonexistence...then reduce it some more

That's one idea. Another is to, as I say, reduce gov to near nonexistence, eliminate a whole whack of gov jobs, then put the essential positions where they ought to be (among the folks they serve) and constantly remind position holders they are employees.

If I want a bazooka: I'm gonna have a bazooka. It becomes your concern when I use my bazooka to violate your life, liberty, and property. Till then: butt out.

K: ahhh, I love the smell of ignorance in the morning...

let us start with some basics... your answer to government is simply
anarchism.. nothing more, nothing less.. and as a former anarchist,
I can approve this message to a point... but the problem with your
lack of government.. we would live in, as Hobbes point out quite well..
a ''state of nature" where life is...

''solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"

if that strikes you as being a desirable condition for life,
then you are nuts.. it is by government that allows us to
work, to play, to be free (free as possible) to have roads,
schools, hospitals, sewage plants, garbage pick up,
safe travel, safe water, to live in a country that isn't choking
on pollution (like China)

our very way of life depends on a large, strong government....
and this has been true since the ancient Greeks... the most successful
states were the one with the strongest governments... when the government
is weak, we see ''times of troubles'' and any number of ancient states proves
this point.. from China, to Egypt, to Rome... all of them, had weak states
at times, and at every time they had a weak state, they almost collapsed
until they finally did collapse... the fall of Rome is a story of the failings
of a strong state...Rome survived as long as it did, because
was a strong, organized state...the path to an civilized state
is by the strength of the state... a weak state and civilization itself
weakens..

You can lay out the failing of today's America right at the hands of
a weaken state.. as we grow apart from each other, we lose the bonds
of state and thus we turn more and more and more into a ''state of nature'''
every single call for a small, weak government is a call to end our country....
America can only last as long as the state remains strong... once the state
weakens, like it is right now, we face the end of the American civilization....

so your call to weaken government is a call to destroy America.. nothing
more, nothing less......

Now the next point, about your ''bazooka'' and how it becomes my concern
after its use... at that point it is no longer my concern because I am dead...
is that the point where I become concerned? a ''bazooka''' is a weapon
of violence and its only value is to be a weapon of violence...
it has no other value... other then violence....

so I can only become concerned about your owning a ''bazooka'' after its
violent use? that seems to be kinda late... or is it your contention that
the guy who killed all those people in Maine, is of no concern until
after he killed 18 people and then himself? and what of the 18 dead people?
it seems like a pretty shitty deal for them......

but given your lack of concern for human lives, you probably just chalk it up,
the 18 dead, as business as usual.. and of no concern to the government
at all? just exactly how many dead people die before it become a concern to
people... clearly not 18, so 25 or maybe 100 or perhaps a thousand
people must die before it becomes a concern to you and/or the government?

Kropotkin