What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

Well, I disagree with this.  There is something wrong with tossing chum if people care about having serious conversations.  Toss chum on your own thread, please.  Don't go about sabotaging attempts at real conversation.

[understatement] Now, I have my share of disagreements with Eric.  [/understatement]  However, in this case i think he is raising a serious point.  I am dismayed that the first and strongest answering posts took it immediately to personal attacks, and he has drawn little comment other than personal attacks.  That is one reason why conversations on this board and many others go absolutely nowhere.

There is a problem with strong values.  Just as an example, many conservatives will believe that the less regulation and paperwork required by the government, the more the power of the free market will produce a healthy economy.  Many progressives see a too strong division of wealth, and see regulation and paperwork as necessary to building an inclusive, stable and safe economy.  I'll note there are many valid arguments for both positions.  Neither side is flat absolutely correct or incorrect.  Both sides can open history books and show examples of why their beliefs are valid.  Still, many on either side will dismiss the other's examples as meaningless or irrelevant, and push all in for their own perspective.  Facts and Truth can be trivially ignored if they conflict with one's values.

On this particular issue, and on many issues, I believe the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle.  One wants a minimum number of the least intrusive regulations and paperwork, but where they are necessary they should be there.  I'd like to hold conversations about what is necessary, what is excessive, and how to reach an effective balance.  I wish compromise and respect for the other guy's motivation were possible.  But, no, it's becoming about personal attacks, not issues.

And it's not just us amateurs on an obscure internet forum.  The professionals are wallowing in it too.  If Trump sees a poll he doesn't like, it is labeled fake news.  It goes beyond spin into the realm of Big Lies.  If the Democrats see a cabinet appointment they don't like, they will go into personal attack mode as surely as we will.  The recent election was in large part about mutual character assassination of the other candidate.  We recently saw a intense disagreement on whether a Seal mission was a success or a failure.  I'd rather ask if there are meaningful lessons learned.  Can we not repeat the same mistakes?  As one cannot assume there won't be more if different mistakes, are the objectives worth the cost?  But, no, it becomes a battle over who should be required to apologize, who is disrespecting the dead hero, and how well one can exploit a tragedy to discredit political opponents.

Yes, I can share with Eric a desire to change the conversation.  It would help to back away from Big Lies that support one's values to spin which reflects one's values.  Ideally, we might even try for Truth.  It would help to address issues rather than use personal attacks as the first, last and always tactic.  

It would help to throw less chum.