Friday, June 25, 2004
Is it NATURE OR NURTURE he asks? ...about political leanings left or right.
I always thought it was funny that when I was a kid working in NYC my friends thought of me as a conservative, but when I lived in AZ all my friends thought of me as a liberal. Does that put me in the center? I don't think so. I'd like to think I personally reason my positions and pay attention to all the information available to me that might have an impact on an issue. I also think that it's more important to hear the biased opionions (right and left) than the 'unbiased ones'... perhaps because I believe that most so-called unbiased opinions are dishonest rather than being unbiased. I can disagree with someone honest while still respecting them, but I lose all respect for those that try verbal sleight of hand to persuade me. It's probably why I consider some political humorists and some filmmakers to be so despicable.
A person earns a good name and then his argument may be credible. Once someone loses their good name with me, and it takes more usually than a single incident, I don't even hear them anymore. They just become invisible to me. I usually don't have much to say about them either. When a so-called civil rights leader calls NYC Hymie-Town or something like that, it's distasteful, but if that was the worst they ever did I might consider listening to other things (but would keep the incident in the back of my thoughts coloring anything else they said.) If they continue, then they fade from my radar, never to be seen again.
Part of nature vs. nurture may be related to personality types which do seem to be hardwired into us. Personality type are not exclusive in the way they work... all thinking people have feelings and all sensing people make judgments and so on. "If you are under 30 and not a liberal you have no heart, if over 30 and not a conservative you have no brain" I've heard attibuted to W. Churchill. The point this makes with me is that we all have all these capacities to either a stronger or limited degree. I personally share traits not only with every single good or evil person on this planet, but with God himself.
This begs the question of God being evil, but that's like asking is anger evil. I don't think anger is, but what you do with the anger may be. I think people that believe that anger (or pick some other emotion) is evil haven't paid attention to the reality that anger can be very useful and helpful emotion to remove the lethargy that might otherwise overcome someone from some bad situation. To be righteously indignant (when tempered) can be a very useful thing indeed. Like not buying French Wine? Sure. Renaming French Fries? That seems kind of stupid to me, but I respect the motivation.
I'm guilty of jumping the gun and speaking out about things I may not have fully cooked as ideas, so I'm pretty forgiving of that in others. What I find disgusting are those whose idea of an argument is simply to move the goalposts or change the direction of an argument rather than acknowledge a point well given. It doesn't show much respect for the person you are trying to persuade and I really don't care to work through an argument that proceeds like that. On the other hand, when I ponder someone's point, it doesn't mean the argument is over and they won... I would hope that anyone I listened to would present a good argument and it would be expected that some things they bring forth might me cause me pause... which as I said, is a respectful way to consider someone's argument.
But then they really blow that respect they've just earned by thinking they've won. To me, winning is when both sides come to a better understanding.
I always thought it was funny that when I was a kid working in NYC my friends thought of me as a conservative, but when I lived in AZ all my friends thought of me as a liberal. Does that put me in the center? I don't think so. I'd like to think I personally reason my positions and pay attention to all the information available to me that might have an impact on an issue. I also think that it's more important to hear the biased opionions (right and left) than the 'unbiased ones'... perhaps because I believe that most so-called unbiased opinions are dishonest rather than being unbiased. I can disagree with someone honest while still respecting them, but I lose all respect for those that try verbal sleight of hand to persuade me. It's probably why I consider some political humorists and some filmmakers to be so despicable.
A person earns a good name and then his argument may be credible. Once someone loses their good name with me, and it takes more usually than a single incident, I don't even hear them anymore. They just become invisible to me. I usually don't have much to say about them either. When a so-called civil rights leader calls NYC Hymie-Town or something like that, it's distasteful, but if that was the worst they ever did I might consider listening to other things (but would keep the incident in the back of my thoughts coloring anything else they said.) If they continue, then they fade from my radar, never to be seen again.
Part of nature vs. nurture may be related to personality types which do seem to be hardwired into us. Personality type are not exclusive in the way they work... all thinking people have feelings and all sensing people make judgments and so on. "If you are under 30 and not a liberal you have no heart, if over 30 and not a conservative you have no brain" I've heard attibuted to W. Churchill. The point this makes with me is that we all have all these capacities to either a stronger or limited degree. I personally share traits not only with every single good or evil person on this planet, but with God himself.
This begs the question of God being evil, but that's like asking is anger evil. I don't think anger is, but what you do with the anger may be. I think people that believe that anger (or pick some other emotion) is evil haven't paid attention to the reality that anger can be very useful and helpful emotion to remove the lethargy that might otherwise overcome someone from some bad situation. To be righteously indignant (when tempered) can be a very useful thing indeed. Like not buying French Wine? Sure. Renaming French Fries? That seems kind of stupid to me, but I respect the motivation.
I'm guilty of jumping the gun and speaking out about things I may not have fully cooked as ideas, so I'm pretty forgiving of that in others. What I find disgusting are those whose idea of an argument is simply to move the goalposts or change the direction of an argument rather than acknowledge a point well given. It doesn't show much respect for the person you are trying to persuade and I really don't care to work through an argument that proceeds like that. On the other hand, when I ponder someone's point, it doesn't mean the argument is over and they won... I would hope that anyone I listened to would present a good argument and it would be expected that some things they bring forth might me cause me pause... which as I said, is a respectful way to consider someone's argument.
But then they really blow that respect they've just earned by thinking they've won. To me, winning is when both sides come to a better understanding.
