4 ms·

They are providing an example of another situation that has been difficult as the two parties can take polar opposite positions on (1) whether something is an i

They are providing an example of another situation that has been difficult as the two parties can take polar opposite positions on (1) whether something is an issue, and (2) how to solve that issue, often without understanding each other's view point and how they came to that view point. I see the outside reference fitting here.

ModernMech 5y ago
I just thought it brought an unnecessary and questionable dichotomy to the discussion. For example, I support gun rights and own many guns. My libertarian and conservative friends support drug decriminalization. The other poster brought up an "either-or, both-sides" framing into what seemed to otherwise be a productive discussion. There was no mention of "parties" or "sides". I have no idea what "side" anyone else belongs to, and I don't see why it matters.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  > I have no idea what "side" anyone else belongs to, and I don't see why it matters. You're missing the point entirely. Drugs aren't an isolated example. There are a number of highly divisive issues in the US for which the majority of Americans appear to hold largely emotionally based views. (Note that the degree to which a view is emotional is entirely orthogonal to whether or not it can be arrived at rationally.) > There was no mention of "parties" or "sides". And yet in practice, the vast majority of opposition to drug decriminalization (let alone outright legalization) comes from more conservative people. Such divides exist in a statistical sense whether you like it or not. Your points about the relative inefficiencies and overall failures of the current approach to drugs based on available data is well taken. However, when it comes to highly divisive issues such as this one, it seems that simply appealing to rationality in this manner is not a viable tactic on its own for the majority of people. The analogy to gun laws helps to illustrate this fact - imagine how the majority of liberals would react to a "rational" explanation of why a particular gun law was unlikely to improve things.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    I'm sorry, I thought I was engaging in a conversation with specific people about a specific topic (drug decriminalization). I didn't realize I was engaging in a nebulous discussion ranging to what liberals feel about guns. I don't have anything to say about that topic at the moment. Apologies.
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      Again, you are missing the point. No one asked you about your particular views on that topic. Rather, a disparate topic was used to illustrate a broader point about the process itself. Surely the broader context is relevant when discussing a controversial issue that tends to elicit strong emotional responses from participants? Burying your head in the sand won't change the fact that there are significant emotional components which are relevant here.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        The original poster did: "Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc." I wanted to talk about the merits and reasons for/against drug decriminalization, as well as alternative solutions.. You keep telling me that I'm missing the point, but maybe you're missing my point. I'm not interested in the discussion about the broader point of the process itself. Talking about parties and sides and gun control is not the discussion I engaged in. The fact that it's a controversial issue that elicits strong emotional responses from people is not germane to the discussion at hand. The original poster said: "Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better." That's exactly what was happening! I wanted to take part in that. The last thing I would want to do in that discussion is bring in heated tangential topics that would serve to derail the conversation. That's not burying your head, that's staying on topic. There are significant emotional components about this and also as well about guns. Agreed. The original point stands.

ModernMech 5y ago

I just thought it brought an unnecessary and questionable dichotomy to the discussion. For example, I support gun rights and own many guns. My libertarian and conservative friends support drug decriminalization. The other poster brought up an "either-or, both-sides" framing into what seemed to otherwise be a productive discussion. There was no mention of "parties" or "sides". I have no idea what "side" anyone else belongs to, and I don't see why it matters.

d110af5ccf 5y ago
> I have no idea what "side" anyone else belongs to, and I don't see why it matters. You're missing the point entirely. Drugs aren't an isolated example. There are a number of highly divisive issues in the US for which the majority of Americans appear to hold largely emotionally based views. (Note that the degree to which a view is emotional is entirely orthogonal to whether or not it can be arrived at rationally.) > There was no mention of "parties" or "sides". And yet in practice, the vast majority of opposition to drug decriminalization (let alone outright legalization) comes from more conservative people. Such divides exist in a statistical sense whether you like it or not. Your points about the relative inefficiencies and overall failures of the current approach to drugs based on available data is well taken. However, when it comes to highly divisive issues such as this one, it seems that simply appealing to rationality in this manner is not a viable tactic on its own for the majority of people. The analogy to gun laws helps to illustrate this fact - imagine how the majority of liberals would react to a "rational" explanation of why a particular gun law was unlikely to improve things.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I'm sorry, I thought I was engaging in a conversation with specific people about a specific topic (drug decriminalization). I didn't realize I was engaging in a nebulous discussion ranging to what liberals feel about guns. I don't have anything to say about that topic at the moment. Apologies.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    Again, you are missing the point. No one asked you about your particular views on that topic. Rather, a disparate topic was used to illustrate a broader point about the process itself. Surely the broader context is relevant when discussing a controversial issue that tends to elicit strong emotional responses from participants? Burying your head in the sand won't change the fact that there are significant emotional components which are relevant here.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      The original poster did: "Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc." I wanted to talk about the merits and reasons for/against drug decriminalization, as well as alternative solutions.. You keep telling me that I'm missing the point, but maybe you're missing my point. I'm not interested in the discussion about the broader point of the process itself. Talking about parties and sides and gun control is not the discussion I engaged in. The fact that it's a controversial issue that elicits strong emotional responses from people is not germane to the discussion at hand. The original poster said: "Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better." That's exactly what was happening! I wanted to take part in that. The last thing I would want to do in that discussion is bring in heated tangential topics that would serve to derail the conversation. That's not burying your head, that's staying on topic. There are significant emotional components about this and also as well about guns. Agreed. The original point stands.