PDA

View Full Version : How well can you explain the "other side's" point of view?



Wei Wu Wei
02-05-2010, 12:22 PM
I believe in debates and issues where people are divided, it's crucial to understand what and why the opposition side believes.

"they are crazy", and "they are stupid" were never good enough reasons for me when trying to understand those on the Right, and it's why I've discussed with and posted on conservative forums for many years.

How well can you see the other side's point of view on the following issues:

size of Government
economic policy
Obama support
taxes
war
abortion
religion
health care
ect.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-05-2010, 12:26 PM
I believe in debates and issues where people are divided, it's crucial to understand what and why the opposition side believes.

"they are crazy", and "they are stupid" were never good enough reasons for me when trying to understand those on the Right, and it's why I've discussed with and posted on conservative forums for many years.

How well can you see the other side's point of view on the following issues:

size of Government
economic policy
Obama support
taxes
war
abortion
religion
health care
ect.


If I put my ethics aside and forgot about actual facts, I can argue the other side exceptionally well - as I can pretty much predict the near exact response I get to every one of my posts.

Wei Wu Wei
02-05-2010, 12:28 PM
If I put my ethics aside and forgot about actual facts, I can argue the other side exceptionally well - as I can pretty much predict the near exact response I get to every one of my posts.

Yeah? How about Obama's health care plan?

Wei Wu Wei
02-05-2010, 12:28 PM
Also "actual facts" doesn't really mean anything other than what the ideological map you use specifies.

linda22003
02-05-2010, 12:29 PM
I think understanding the other's side is crucial to civil debate; understanding does not equate with acceptance. A mistake is to assume that there is a "hard line" on one side or the other. Looking at your list of topics, I would not be on just one side of the list. There are some items on which I'm conservative, primarily on the financial side. I am by no means a social conservative. We tend to see each other as two-dimensional when it comes to ideologies and it's not that simple.

Wei Wu Wei
02-05-2010, 12:30 PM
Any issue is good, just name an issue and explain why you think the other side believes what they do.

djones520
02-05-2010, 12:44 PM
Lead off Wei. Explain ours.

Gingersnap
02-05-2010, 12:46 PM
Most of us here can argue both liberal and progressive sides to your list. To be fair, there is no monolithic "other side" and not all of the items on your list can be easily fit into party planks or platforms.

Speedy
02-05-2010, 12:47 PM
I believe in debates and issues where people are divided, it's crucial to understand what and why the opposition side believes.

"they are crazy", and "they are stupid" were never good enough reasons for me when trying to understand those on the Right, and it's why I've discussed with and posted on conservative forums for many years.

How well can you see the other side's point of view on the following issues:

size of Government
economic policy
Obama support
taxes
war
abortion
religion
health care
ect.

I'll pick one:

Abortion: The "other" side views it as that any interference with the freedom to have an abortion is interfering with a woman's right to make her own decisions. Not only that, but it is viewed as the government or religious fundamentalists trying to impose their standards upon a woman.


Now Wei, to be fair, lests see youo articulate what my position on this issue is.

Sonnabend
02-05-2010, 04:33 PM
Any issue is good, just name an issue and explain why you think the other side believes what they do.

Health care: I dont work, I dont want to work, so the rich and others can pay for me and I shouldnt have to pay a thing. The world owes me a living, a wage, a house , a car.

Others are wealthy...redistribute it and gimme my cut.

Sonnabend
02-05-2010, 04:34 PM
war

Hate Bush
Hate America
Spit on troops
Yay for Chavez
Stalin was a good guy
All the soldiers are baby killers.

Sonnabend
02-05-2010, 04:37 PM
taxes

What is the other side?
One who has yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings
Druggie or DUmmie, they yell and they holler
to fork out their dime and pocket your dollar.

Sonnabend
02-05-2010, 04:55 PM
size of Government

The State should feed me, clothe me, guarantee me a job, health care, retirement, look after me from cradle to grave,...and if I dont want to work I shouldnt have to.

Tax the rich.
Corporations are evil.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-05-2010, 06:38 PM
Also "actual facts" doesn't really mean anything other than what the ideological map you use specifies.

Not true. Most of my reasons are readily quantifiable IF you have the willingness to look into and the ability to understand the various pieces of research available. If you are dependent upon media interpretations of things, however, we will get nowhere. The media interpretation of the facts are often polar opposites of what the research actually states.

Let's look at three of the falsehoods that are being used to justify this switch along with the ACTUAL studies that were so badly misrepresented (or that were so badly unrepresentative):

1) The 47 million American people who supposedly do not have health insurance.


This is taken from a couple of Census Bureau studies that stated that AT SOME POINT in the past year 45 million people did not have insurance coverage. This is a FAR different thing than the original statement. The first statement is VERY misleading because it gives absolutely no clue that roughly 50% of that initial figure currently DO have insurance - they were only without insurance for a short period of time while they switched jobs.

It also does not give you a clue as to who exactly was included in the 45 million - for instance, approximately 10 million of that number are not even citizens of this country.

It also does not include the fact that roughly 11 million people already qualify for government insurance BUT CHOOSE NOT TO even register for it.

It also does not factor in the fact that roughly another 9 million people included in that number make at least $25,000 more than the average income and could easily afford insurance if they choose to pay for it.

what it comes down to, is that "only" 7 -10 million people are lacking health insurance through no choice of their own. ( I would dispute even this number, but that is not quantifiable using the current studies out there).

The policy implications for 10 million people are significantly different than the solutions for 50 million ( the liberals rounded the number up for political purposes).

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12511

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin08.html


2) Another falsehood is that 45,000 people die per year/month/day (depending on how insane the purveyor of the information is) because of a lack of health insurance.

This was derived from a SUPPOSED study conducted by a pro-government health care group (disguised as being Harvard University - though it really wasn't). The reason I refer to this so derogatively is that this was no study and it certainly was not validly constructed.

ALL they did was simply take two groups, one with insurance, and one without. EVERY SINGLE DEATH in the non-insurance group was attributed to the lack of insurance. It did not matter if that death was because he was decapitated in an auto accident, committed suicide or not. If the person died, it was automatically counted as being because they lacked insurance coverage.

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf



3) The United states ranks first in health care expenditures but only 37th in the quality of health care


This is based on a World Health Organization study that has some interesting definitions of what good healthcare entails.

They weighted their results so that literally 50% of the result was NOT actual quality of service, but how EVENLY it was distributed and "financial fairness". In other words, a country with absolute HORRIBLE health care and death rates that are worse than those in the dark ages, could score higher than a country that led the world in survival rates, speed of service, etc - as long as the horrible health care country was EQUALLY HORRIBLE for everyone.

http://www.who.int/whr/2008/en/index.html



If you are going to have an intelligent and productive discussion with anyone, you need to be dealing with the actual facts, not those, like I have listed above, that are simply created to push a political agenda.

Gingersnap
02-05-2010, 08:10 PM
Touché, CS. ;)

stsinner
02-05-2010, 08:43 PM
Yeah? How about Obama's health care plan?

Obama's health care plan is nothing more than a plan to guarantee a permanent voting majority in the future by using health care as a weapon as they do in Europe.. At election time the Democrats will say, "If you vote for a Republican, they'll take away your health care!" just like granting citizenship to crimigrants.. The Democrats know that if they do this, these lower-class workers, who vote right down Democratic party lines, will give them a solid 8 million new votes, at the very least. It's never about actually helping the people... It's about the next election....