Civility and Opposing Viewpoints

[PBzeer]

Perhaps it is only myself, but I find I'm somewhat troubled by a seemingly automatic implication of hatred that seems to exist as the reason de jour for opposition in the discussion of many topics which are primarily of a moral, rather than objective, nature.

I bring this up, neither to blame, nor create victimhood, for any individual or group, but as a reminder that civil and reasonable discourse requires an appreciation that there are grounds for opposition that are not rooted in hate or intolerance.

To use the current topic of contention as an example, one need not hate, nor be intolerant of homosexuals to oppose same sex marriage. There is more than sufficient grounds to oppose it on the level of traditional, moral and political reasons. To summarily ignore those reasons, and make opposition purely a matter of emotion, only creates an unnecessary divisiveness that eliminates any possibility of a solution, acceptable to both sides of the issue.

The use of this medium of communication gives everyone the ability to think through and re-examine their responses, separated from an emotional reaction to any other post, prior to submitting it. Whether this is being unused, or ignored, I can't say. What I am saying is that the belief that one's own point is valid, does not preclude the validity of someone elses point of view or contention.

For myself, I appreciate anyone who offers a cogent and coherent defense of their position. Whether I agree with it or not. What I don't like, are emotional responses that characterize an individual or their point of view without acknowledging they can be as principled as one feels their own is.

One can not escape the pull of emotion, but one can temper it to keep discussion on a substanative, rather than simply emotional, level. Equating opposition to predjudice does not accomplish this necessary part of civil discourse.

Let me repeat. I hold no one to blame, nor blameless. I only offer this observation as something to think about in participating in the worthwhile and civil discussion of topics that are, by their nature, contentious. Right and wrong are beliefs that everyone arrives at by their own path. To deny the validity of one person's journey, is to invalidate one's own. The function of any society or community is to arrive at solutions based on an accomodation of the few, without impositon upon the many. And the only route to that desination lies in civil and reasoned discourse.

[N0NJY]

It's very easy for one side to make "hate" accusations because, well, it's emotional and it generally sways those who don't really think first.

The day Obama was elected a church was burned.

It was a black church. The media has been calling it a "hate crime".

What if it were a Mormon Church, or a Catholic Church or a Baptist Church in my neighborhood? Would they have called that a hate crime? No.

It's, as someone once pointed out to me, "All about perception".

[xort]

When you have no valid arguement, you resort to the 'hate' card. too often it works quite well. i hate that

[retclt]

It's a good thing the Prop 8 thread disappeared the other day. I found myself being rapidly drawn to the dark side and close to being banned.

. . . and I'm a nice guy!

At least from my angle I am.

It is funny Jim, that ad popped into this thread. I'm actually still laughing!

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

To use the current topic of contention as an example, one need not hate, nor be intolerant of homosexuals to oppose same sex marriage.

The hate/intolerance/race/bigotry cards are favourites of left-"liberals." The amusing bit is they never see the hate, intolerance, bigotry and, most-amusingly, hypocrisy implicit in many of their arguments!

I've also found, over the years, I'm far more likely to get a "holier than thou" attitude from "liberals" than I am from an individual of any other stripe. It's really quite astonishing. It is particularly amusing to watch "liberals" go after religion, apparently not aware of the fact that their own belief in the righteousness of their own cause has all the trappings of religious fervor. The irony is overwhelming and they don't see it!

I have little tolerance for extremists of any stripe, but I find "liberals" perhaps the most consistently intolerable and, at the same time, the most consistently humorous .

As an aside: Ironically, the "Sponsored Ad" at the bottom of the page, at the moment, is "Gay Marriage? For or against? Vote now!", from www.SodaHead.com/GayMarriage, and a somewhat risqué image is of two people, two gay people, one imagines, kissing. (Hard to tell which gender of gayness is represented there.)

Fascinating. Yet SailNet management seems to find it necessary to censor words in posts.

Jim

[sck5]

Semi

If that ad is risque you need to get out more

[xort]

SemiJim

Well said

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by sck5

Semi

If that ad is risque you need to get out more

It's a much different image, now. It changed just as I hit "Submit Reply."

The current advert image looks like John McCain whispering in Joe Biden's ear.

Jim

[camaraderie]

The ads on the page are served by the company that pays for the space. Sailnet has ZERO to do with the content but I believe that our conversational content on a page DOES influence the choice of ads to be served.
Please...no one talk about Trimarans!!

[AjariBonten]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

The ads on the page are served by the company that pays for the space. Sailnet has ZERO to do with the content but I believe that our conversational content on a page DOES influence the choice of ads to be served.
Please...no one talk about Trimarans!!

I don't want to get involved in any controversial topics; but Cam's theory about the ads being tied to thread content might make for an interesting experiment!