Federal Dog Catcher • Wrong Isn't Evil

In an effort to bridge the gap between left and right sans resentment, I present a conversation between friends of opposing political viewpoints.

It seems that such interactions are few and far between these days, a circumstance that can produce no desirable result. We've got to start somewhere.

a reply to: greencmp

If the left stops trying to limit gun rights then I am happy to talk. I will never agree to limit my Constitutional rights. Other items are open to discussion.

a reply to: Metallicus

Of course, the radical anti-constitutionalists cannot be reasoned with. Having this discussion with a personal friend whom we can be certain is being honest (if not objective) allows for the best possible chance for reconciliation or, at least, understanding.

a reply to: Metallicus

I agree there are some things that are, but basic rights are not and never should be. Right to life, property, person, defense ... those things should be inviolate as should those things listed in the the Bill of Rights.

And it would also be good to begin with a basic understanding of the ground terms we are all using when we discuss rights because very often, we aren't even talking about the same thing there either.

a reply to: greencmp

I think the biggest problem today is people willfully putting themselves in an echo chamber so they don't have their idea/ls challenged. There is no growth without conflict. That's probably a famous quote by somebody.

I tend to lean left on most issues, but I'm with Metallicus. Leave my Constitutionally protected rights alone and everything else can be negotiated (to a point) to make most people happy.

a reply to: thov420

I think the biggest problem today is people willfully putting themselves in an echo chamber so they don't have their idea/ls challenged. There is no growth without conflict. That's probably a famous quote by somebody.

I think that most of us here at ATS are here to be challenged and for that we owe each other respect even when we have disagreements. Ultimately I want a world where we can all be as free as possible to learn and live how we see fit.

I appreciate your response.

a reply to: Metallicus

I think for the most part we do tend to respect one another too even when we disagree. Certainly, the moderators help with that.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: greencmp

I think the biggest problem today is people willfully putting themselves in an echo chamber so they don't have their idea/ls challenged. There is no growth without conflict. That's probably a famous quote by somebody.

I tend to lean left on most issues, but I'm with Metallicus. Leave my Constitutionally protected rights alone and everything else can be negotiated (to a point) to make most people happy.

Yes, shielding oneself from contrary viewpoints is entirely unproductive and severely limits one's ability to understand those who hold them. I am completely opposed to socioeconomic interventionism but, in our federal republic, such programs may be exercised voluntarily in communities who choose to. The central point (no pun intended) to social interventionist legislation as it is presented to the public is rigidly binary, their prescription must be universally accepted or discarded.

I think that is the false dichotomy that gives rise to both the totalitarian advocacy and the anarchist regimen. It ignores that those programs are in place in many communities. In other places there are none. The conversation ought to be about the results of the programs where they were attempted.

The laboratories of the states, counties and towns are our greatest strength and provide the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. We should never all do the same thing at the same time.

a reply to: greencmp

And, of course, the usual argument to that freedom in locality is that someone will inevitably whine something like, "But I had X in this place and now if I move, I should have a right to have X in that other place too, but they don't have it. It works great where I'm at, so therefore, everyone should have it and it should be a mandate everywhere!"

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Metallicus

I think for the most part we do tend to respect one another too even when we disagree. Certainly, the moderators help with that.

I agree, it's OK to get into knock-down drag-out arguments but, it's nice to relax and have ordinary conversation with the very same people, especially in person.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

And, of course, the usual argument to that freedom in locality is that someone will inevitably whine something like, "But I had X in this place and now if I move, I should have a right to have X in that other place too, but they don't have it. It works great where I'm at, so therefore, everyone should have it and it should be a mandate everywhere!"

That's an interesting observation, I usually think of that as coming from the "there ought to be a law" folks but, that is typically against some perceived deleterious behavior.

a reply to: greencmp

You have those kinds too. Everyone knows about them, but the ones who think everywhere should be just like where they left are a newer thing.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nanny-colonialism :-)

a reply to: greencmp

So, I take it all back.

Wrong actually is evil.

a reply to: greencmp

This video does not exist.

a reply to: VP740

Yeah, I deleted it when I cancelled the show. I lost my friend trying to do this show so I've given up on trying to talk sense to progressives anymore.

They'll either get it or they won't.