pan6467

I admit to sacrificing if it is to better society as a whole.

I won't sacrifice and compromise with someone who is unwilling to because it would neither be sacrifice nor compromise.

But if someone offers compromise and sacrifice to help better the whole then I should be willing to, and common ground should then be easier to find. Thus society as a whole benefits.

Just because I allow society to do one thing, does not mean I have to participate nor believe in that which I do not believe is right for me.

I believe in order to achieve peace within oneself is to understand self and the only way to understand self is to understand others. Once you understand others, and realize that there maybe common ground IF both want to truly better the society they are in, then you achieve inner peace. (Or at least in my belief.)

I argue things yes. I am very opinionated in other threads ..... BUT this thread presupposes that one can find compromise when BOTH sides are willing. Therefore there is a discussion because you learn that there may be common ground to better mankind, instead of just shouting "MY VIEW IS THE ONLY WAY...... YOURS SUCKS"

However, yes, technically this thread in and of itself promotes that the side that says compromise can be found and is necessary to mankind moving forward.... is an opinion that states it is the only way to move forward, and in a way says that no compromise is wrong.

I still stand by my statement that compromise is not weakness, but true strength.

My opinions are just that. I will not nor will I ever dictate to one my beliefs as being the only way to live. I have not walked in another's shoes nor have they walked in mine. I can share my experiences strengths and hopes with others and they can share theirs and we can learn from each other, thereby, broadening our perspectives and thereby allowing growth.

But then again....... these are my beliefs and opinions.....perhaps, if more people shared them, society would quite possibly get along better. On the other hand... I am just a traveller as everyone else is and therefore my opinions and beliefs are only as valuable as I put value on them.... no more no less.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

flstf

When I was on a debate team many years ago we were sometimes assigned to take a position opposed to the way we really believed. As you might expect the best debators usually got the upper hand no matter which position they took.

But I did find that debating in favor of and doing research into positions and policies that I did not believe in caused me to re-think some issues and soften my objection to the other side. In the real world I have flip-flopped several times on issues.

I believe it is a lot harder to try and stay open minded about issues that we feel are important instead of taking a hard line and defending it to the bitter end. Universal health care, tax reform and social security private accounts are a few of the hot topics that I am unsure of. I generally approach things from a Libertarian point of view but I am starting to question that in regards to these issues.

tecoyah

At the core.....A lack of compromise, is a lack of growth in understanding. A failure to be flexible simply means we have stopped gathering information that could sway opinion. What possible benefit is ignorance, and what is to be gained in stagnation?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

almostaugust

Some of the points made here, especially above by tecoyah, about the ability to be flexible and empathetic, demonstrate what I a few months ago took issue about with this idea of 'flip-flopping'. Id never heard this term previously, yet people seemed to think it was a major negative to possess this characteristic. I could understand that it might demonstrate a lack of conviction or strong belief, in some cases, yet I also saw it as an absolute positive. I thought to myself that life, politics, human interaction is about compromise, empathy and understanding. To be born with a set of rigid ideals and to never sway from them, no matter how the social and/or political climate changed would be folly and backward. Anyway, sorry to derail the thread in anyway, just my two cents.

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

Manx

I completely disagree. To the point that I would not compromise my understanding of the word.

Compromise is not a lack of flexibility or understanding. Compromise is sacrifice. Take what you believe is right, change it so that you can gain supporters. Change it more so that you can gain more supporters.

Flexibility is the ability to digest and comprehend what others are saying and then allow those alternate perspectives to potentially influence your own viewpoint. Flexibility is the ability to change your perspective based on new information. Compromise is flexibility to reach a final solution that you don't agree with but since you are not the only person who has a say in the final solution, you must agree to a perspective that you know is wrong.

Non-compromise does not require non-flexibility.

Compromise is not the inverse of ignorance or stagnation.
I don't know what that means. What is "to better society"? That's entirely subjective. Unless someone is intentionally harming society, everyone is working to better society. KMA might suggest a flat tax system and I'm sure he believes it will better society - I entirely disagree and I'm not going to compromise by agreeing to lower taxes on the wealthy.



Convince me I am wrong and I will change. Tell me I should change so that we can pretend like we're solving something and I will point out the fallacy of that concept. This thread is dedicated to the latter.

Manx

Perfection in compromise on TFP:

You: I think we need a flat tax system.
Me: Not even close. The rich require higher taxes to help alleviate the negative effects of class division.
You: But the rich are paying far more than their share in taxes.
Me: OK, I'll agree to a flat tax. I know it's wrong, but we need to compromise.
You: Really? Cool.
Me: ...
You: Now what?

Compromise in an environment of discussion leads to silence.

roachboy

all this business about compromise makes sense in the abstract.

but in this thread, compromise requires a prior agreement about the terms of debate.
if you feel that you cannot enter into a space shaped by these terms of debate
then compromise becomes nearly impossible.
and the thread has been operating de facto to censor/marginalize attempts to raise questions about these terms of debate.

so in this case difficulty encountered at the threshold of the compromise/common ground game has no relation to stagnation whatever.

in fact, you could easily argue the opposite:
debate oriented toward finding commonalities in a context shaped by terms that remain unexamined, unquestioned serves to work those terms into a naturalized space by moving these terms from problems to assumptions.

once you make that shift, then no amount of debate shaped by them provides the chance to revisit problems that might persist at the level of assumptions--it is the old question of proofs--you cannot examine axioms from within a proof shaped by them.

if the above is the case, then debate (movement, consensus-building) in a space structured by false and/or damaging and/or poorly framed assumptions provides nothing like a counter to stagnation--rather this kind of debate sets stagnation into motion, and by doing that enables folk to pretend that they are moving and growing and so forth while in fact they turn in little circles that prevent them from being able to push at the problems analytically that they claim to be addressing.

this is not a conversation about the value of compromise as such--it is a debate within a very particular space that involves a very particular set of problems. because there is no external coercion involved with shaping that space, there is no requirement that anyone accept the frame of reference within which the it unfolds.

to claim the opposite is simply arrogant.
it assumes that only those who have allowed the shift in terms of debate from problems to axioms have put any intellectual work into the game.
that assumption is simply false.

think of it as a prior cost/benefit thing: the cost of accepting the frame of reference imposed on us by the conservative apparatus is so high, the results so debilitating (if actually trying to understand what is going on around you can be taken as the goal of the political) that the cost of any pseudo-compromise in this or any other space far far outweighs any benefits that you might be able to derive.

but maybe this matter is itself a symptom of the present degenerate state of affairs: you render yourself intellectually abject by accepting the current terms of debate and then get to congratulate yourself for having done so.

yes this is quite a democracy we have in the states.
and quite a fine microcosm we have here.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Manx

roach -

Although I agree that the lack of defined parameters to this "common ground" concept would be very problematic to the degree of voiding the concept, it seems that even attempting the concept is a misguided endeavor.

My understanding of your viewpoint on the lack of definition is that without some sense of where each participant is begining, there is no way to justify an act of compromise to reach this thing called "common ground". In essence, there can be no common ground because such a thing presumes that there is a definitive "left" and a definitive "right" which can meet in a definitive "middle". And in that viewpoint, I agree.

But, in the realm of discussion, to even consider it a positive step to chip away at the "left" or "right" viewpoints for the singular goal of achieving a "balance", this common ground, is false. We are not here to set policy, we do not even want to achieve agreement. Agreement, by definition, is the exclusion of alternate viewpoints. Without alternate viewpoints, there is nothing to learn.

KMA-628

or.....
Me: I think we need a flat tax system.
You: Not even close. The rich require higher taxes to help alleviate the negative effects of class division.
Me: But the rich are paying far more than their share in taxes.
You: [insert your comment here]
Me: What if the tax level of the flat tax is consistent with the current tax rates the "rich" pay?
You: No, I want them to pay more than they are.
Me: How much more? To pay for what?

I don't know how you would respond to those questions, so I am not goint to suppose anything.

My point being that any restrictions placed on a discussion are placed there by you.

As you can see, in this case, you might possibly be able to get some of what you want in a flat tax system.

For example (and this is just an example, I don't want to use this thread to debate a flat tax):

Let's say, the flat tax is progressive (which is entirely possible--just because the word "flat" is in there doesn't mean it is a proportional or regressive system).

Let's say the "rich" pay the same amount they are paying now. You could at least be happy with the fact they don't pay less in taxes.

Let's say, as is the case in many countries that instituted a flat tax, government revenue goes up and some of that extra money is earmarked to fund a few social programs that you really believe in. As revenues go up, the "flat tax" goes down (which is something I want). We could negotiate that it doesn't go down as much as I want to help fund some of your programs. You get extra money. The rich still pay a buttload in taxes. I get a flat tax. And, hopefully, the flat tax begins to go down (What I want).

So, in this case, we both give a little and we both get a little. And, rather than remain stagnant, we have moved forward.

I don't know, I look at it this way. You get from the discussion what you give to the discussion. If the only thing you bring to the table is hardline stances that aren't negotiable, that is what you are going to get in return.

Personally, I would rather get some of what I want than none of what I want. The only question for me is what am I willing to concede in order to get some of what I want.

I have no problem whatsoever with conceding.....I do it everyday......I'm married.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Manx

I don't know how you came to that conclusion - I'm expressly arguing against the restriction of intentional compromise for the sake of compromise.
I'm not clear what I am supposed to have "gotten" from that, beyond the fact that you are presenting a discussion of the topic. What you then suggest is that we should all agree to disagree. Since this compromise you speak of is not actually going to be implemented anywhere, you are ultimately arguing that we all disagree too much and we need to start agreeing by chipping off bits and pieces of what we each feel is correct in order to reach that agreement. An agreement that we all disagree which can then be used to end the disagreement. To end the discussion. That is most certainly NOT moving forward.
I can repeat myself for you: I am flexible, all you need to do is convince me that I am wrong. I am not flexible in the sense that I will accept anything you have to say if I do not think it is right. Why should I? What is there to gain in a discussion by agreeing to something I know is wrong?
Again: what is it that you think you are "getting" here? At the end of the day, TFP is not setting policy. We can compromise until the sun goes out and its not going to change the law. You get nothing other than the end of a discussion.

But ultimately, what I suspected has come to pass: the Common Ground Experiment 1 Universal Healthcare thread is not what was claimed it was to be. It is nothing different than a discussion. It has been weakened because people are altering their positions on health care in order to find someone else on TFP to support them (which I find unsettling) but ultimately, even those unnecessarily weakened positions are simply launching pads for additional discussion. Maybe if everyone weakens their position enough, or one position finds a small majority of support which everyone must then accept (or risk being accused of being stubborn and inflexible), you will reach this final solution, this common ground. But to what purpose? All you have succeeded in accomplishing is the blending of opinion into a singular viewpoint. Now what?

NCB

Damn. I actually agree with Manx.

__________________

KMA-628

First, you make this sound like convincing you of something is an easy task--I would argue that it isn't possible.

Example: Flat tax

Your core belief is that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. Nothing on this planet will convince you to change this opinion.

I don't see you as flexible at all. I don't see you as a person willing to consider another person's viewpoints.

You can agree/disagree with my take on you, but it really doesn't matter as that is the impression of you, left on me, by you.

I have a question for you: Why is this such a big deal for you? Nobody is forcing you to do anything here, so why all the contention?

If this is a form of discussion that some people mutually agree to participate in, what gives you the right to say we are wrong? Why go through this brain damage if it bothers you so much. What gives you the right to judge how we view this exchange? I don't remember ever seeing rules for how a discussion must progress, so why should we think that your way is the only way?

It's not like this is the only game in town.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

roachboy

um..kma ...if you were to isolate the question of the relative percentages paid by the wealthy in taxes from the social functions the redistribution of wealth might serve, then your position might--might--seem reasonable. however the fact is that you cannot simply assume that this separation is itself reasonable.
for myself, i think splitting the conception of taxation/redistribution of wealth from its various functions is insane. untenable at any level.

so i reject the whole of conservative discourse on the matter--i understand that the accumulation of wealth is contingent upon a stable social order (not the "hard work" of horatio alger characters on their own) and that those who benefit from the accumulation of wealth are obliged (ethically, legally, politically) to contribute to the maintenance of the social system from which their profit comes. and at a higher rate than those who do not so benefit. period.

a flat tax is predicated on an entirely abstract--and untenable--illusion of fairness. your proposal presupposes an entire ideology--which you act as though is not operative. that you act in this way changes nothing. and that you would then accuse manx--or anyone else--of inflexibility seems to me absurd. simply because your proposal is not self-contained not self justifying--and that you try, in the name of common ground, to force others into pretending as you do that the situation (your flat tax proposal, the question of whether it is even logical apart from the ideology within which you operate) is otherwise seems to run against the idea you are advocating.

i think this is the kind of thing that those of us who have objected and still object to the parlor game being carried out here are complaining about.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Manx

Nonsense. Now you are claiming that if I don't agree that a flat tax system is acceptable, I am therefore unwilling to consider another viewpoint. I could just as easily claim the opposite: I see no evidence that you will ever agree that the rich require higher taxes. Does that mean you are unwilling to consider another viewpoint? No, I don't make that judgement of you.

That you have determined that it is impossible to change my mind is a judgement born of your own perceptions. Much like your judgement that I am unwilling to consider another person's viewpoints. That they are both false is one thing, that you falsely hold me responsible for your judgements is another.
Because this is how we learn. I am actively demonstrating my point.
What gives me the right? I was born with the right to say you are wrong. And as I have said, whether you agree with me is irrelevant. If and when I feel like expressing my judgement that you are wrong, I will do so. I'm not interested in your agreement. If you agree with me, either you have given up (sacrificed) or the argument I have made was compelling. A compelling argument is not a perfect argument so though it may have worked on you, it may fail for someone else - I'm not going to rest on my laurels if it works on you. I'm going to continue to use and adapt my argument based on the quality I perceive in any counter arguments. Your agreement is the furthest thing from my intention - because we are not here to find agreement, we are here to disagree and discuss our disagreements. Why are we not here to find agreement? Because there is no sense in agreement on a discussion forum other than popularity or the intention of winning. Neither of those things hold even a semblance of value. Our agreement does not produce real-world results, it only produces the end of the discussion, the closure of alternative viewpoints.

pan6467

I really don't understand something here. What is wrong with a constructive thread that leads to some form of hypothetical agreements?

We do not know who all reads these, and with TFP's enrollment, perhaps maybe enough would read a compromise reached that makes sense and people actually started talking about it to friends and so on. Perhaps things could change. Perhaps we have future politicians on this board and if they experience compromise here they can learn.

To say TFP is a small little community and this could never change anything, I think is wrong and small minded. It has helped me change my outlook somewhat.

There are 100's of other threads in Politics to argue, why can't there be one trying to find common good? One where people can say they compromise and find common ground.

I must ask this question. If 1 ONE, thread that reaches for compromise and tries to presuppose we can find common ground and work out some issues doesn't matter and won't change anything.......... then why argue or debate in other threads? In the context you are refusing to try to find common ground because it won't matter, then to debate at all on here won't matter or change anyone's ideas. So what is the purpose? Neither side can win, it just becomes a screaming match and a flame pit.

However, if you can open your mind, think through some scenarios and just imagine for 1 thread, that common ground and compromise could be reached then perhaps a truly constructive and peaceful thread could appear. For just 1 thread having common ground, compromising on issues .... it would have both sides winning and could be perhaps the most optimistic and positive thread on TFP.

Absolutely amazes me people are so filled with hate, anger and self-righteousness that they cannot for 1 thread even TRY to find peace and solutions.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cyrnel

Whoa, any chance we could change your mind on this one?

Seriously Manx, this is silly. You're smarter than that.

Manx

You totally and completely fail to comprehend my point, though I have repeated myself atleast a dozen times and made significant efforts to describe my point from multiple angles.

I have reached the end of my desire to discuss the matter. So I will do as you are suggesting:

Let's agree to disagree.

Now that we have reached a compromise, this discussion is over.