4 ms·

I still disagree. Many issues usually fall into 2 or a few sides (abortion, taxes, gun control, etc), so statistically, it's fairly easy to come up with your o

I still disagree. Many issues usually fall into 2 or a few sides (abortion, taxes, gun control, etc), so statistically, it's fairly easy to come up with your own opinion on any one issue and match the mainstream. There are also many people that go to the extremist views because they want to be different. They are guided by the mainstream and choose a different side, just so they can feel like a rebel. I don't really consider this independent thought.

Retric 7y ago
Issues are almost never binary, even if political parties love for people to think that way. Seemingly binary choices like abortion always have the third option of not caring. But again that’s the headline stance policy deals with complexity. If someone feels very late term abortion is an abomination but the morning after pill is fine they need to define where that border exists. The extreme end is something like banning condom usage. Side issues like aborting for genetic issues or birth defects further split the issue. Taxes are about as far from a binary issue as it gets. Unless you abolish government they need to collect some money, so the real question is exactly how much money they want to collect and from whom. Hand all the different numbers to every American and there is a reasonable chance none of them would pick the same budget as was past last year.
- Der_Einzige 7y ago
  Fourth option, and one that may seriously be advocated by Anti-natalists, is a "pro-death" view which would advocate for as many abortions as possible because all life invokes harm and on balance the ethical harm of even a small amount of suffering outweighs the ethical good of the pleasure of enjoyment - leading to the attempt to create a "benevolent end of the world" through not having children. The only reason that the person before you didn't include this view is because its outside of their overton window.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Nearly no issues fall on 2 sides. Is there a time of pregnancy where abortion is ok? What guns do you want to control, and what kind of control do you want to have? Are your taxes progressive or proportional? How progressive? Where does progressiveness stop? Do you create product-specific taxes? Anyway, take 10 issues that fall on exactly 2 sides, and you should never meet two people that agree with them all.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Does the pigeonhole principle not apply anymore? Surely you will find at least 2 people who agree on 10 binary issues in any group of 1025 people, unless this is some roundabout way of saying there are no binary issues.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Do you know how 1024 people stand on 10 issues?
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      I don’t have to. That’s the point: there are only 1024 possible positions on any 10 binary issues. Therefore, in a group of 1025 individuals, two must hold the same position.
aalleavitch 7y ago
These issues are framed as binaries because it serves the political goals of a two party system. It couldn't be further from the truth. Actually, this right here is a stellar example of how political concerns and the vying of organizations for power warps the way we think about nuanced concepts on a fundamental level. It ends up the detailed, even-handed treatments make for poor slogans.

Retric 7y ago

Issues are almost never binary, even if political parties love for people to think that way. Seemingly binary choices like abortion always have the third option of not caring. But again that’s the headline stance policy deals with complexity. If someone feels very late term abortion is an abomination but the morning after pill is fine they need to define where that border exists. The extreme end is something like banning condom usage. Side issues like aborting for genetic issues or birth defects further split the issue. Taxes are about as far from a binary issue as it gets. Unless you abolish government they need to collect some money, so the real question is exactly how much money they want to collect and from whom. Hand all the different numbers to every American and there is a reasonable chance none of them would pick the same budget as was past last year.

Der_Einzige 7y ago
Fourth option, and one that may seriously be advocated by Anti-natalists, is a "pro-death" view which would advocate for as many abortions as possible because all life invokes harm and on balance the ethical harm of even a small amount of suffering outweighs the ethical good of the pleasure of enjoyment - leading to the attempt to create a "benevolent end of the world" through not having children. The only reason that the person before you didn't include this view is because its outside of their overton window.

marcosdumay 7y ago

Nearly no issues fall on 2 sides. Is there a time of pregnancy where abortion is ok? What guns do you want to control, and what kind of control do you want to have? Are your taxes progressive or proportional? How progressive? Where does progressiveness stop? Do you create product-specific taxes? Anyway, take 10 issues that fall on exactly 2 sides, and you should never meet two people that agree with them all.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pmiller2 7y ago
Does the pigeonhole principle not apply anymore? Surely you will find at least 2 people who agree on 10 binary issues in any group of 1025 people, unless this is some roundabout way of saying there are no binary issues.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Do you know how 1024 people stand on 10 issues?
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    I don’t have to. That’s the point: there are only 1024 possible positions on any 10 binary issues. Therefore, in a group of 1025 individuals, two must hold the same position.

aalleavitch 7y ago

These issues are framed as binaries because it serves the political goals of a two party system. It couldn't be further from the truth. Actually, this right here is a stellar example of how political concerns and the vying of organizations for power warps the way we think about nuanced concepts on a fundamental level. It ends up the detailed, even-handed treatments make for poor slogans.