Is, "We need to have a National discussion about X", the latest doubletalk for My way or the highway, or do we really need to discuss?

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:58:24 -0400

Gun control, immigration, campaign finance, term limits, freedom of speech, religion, terrorism, welfare, national debt, and so on. We can fight, everyone entitled to his opinion and self-righteous about it, we can be dogmatic, or we can discuss, but that has to mean, "consider the points of the opposition." That doesn't mean we can come to an agreement, but at least we could argue politely.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 10:07 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:07:11 -0400

First, I tried to name a bunch of people I don't agree with, because "discussion" doesn't mean getting together with people who think like you do, and then telling everyone else to go along.

And we can rehash all the previous discussions below, if you want to. What I'm more interested in is is there any way to actually have a civilized discussion where all sides are listened to? That doesn't mean we find a solution on the first cut. It might mean that each side leaves with a set of questions to research before we try again.

Just some things to consider ...
1) Immigration: Are there no other possibilities than a) Build a wall and throw all illegals out, and b) Immediate full citizenship?
2) Gun control: Is the issue Violence or Gun Violence? If the government has the right to an A-bomb, does that give you the same right? How is taking guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, leaving them in the hands of criminals, going to make us any safer?
3) Amendments: Is the 1st Amendment broken? Does it need to be adjusted to ban Hate Speech? Is this issue in any way related to other issues with the Bill or Rights?
4) Welfare: Are the only options people starving to death without a roof, or continual subsidy to people capable of working, but not willing to work?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 12:08 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:08:20 -0400

Civil discourse is an endangered species. The loudest and most extreme views get rewarded with publicity, hence it has become a self-licking ice cream cone.
Regarding some of the issues you have raised, SGM Private RallyPoint Member -
1. Immigration. Think of it like you have a problem with ants getting in the house. ( I mean no insult, just drawing a metaphor) You can step on the ones you see, put out traps, or try to seal the house... but what really works is finding out what attracts them in the first place and eliminating that. Yes, we need border enforcement, but what we really need to do is eliminate the "free stuff" that draws them in and keeps them here. Next, enforcement needs to be directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal workers in order to profit from the cheep labor. Onerous fines indexed for number of employees and applied equally to the company and the hiring official would discourage the practice nicely. What remains would be far simpler to deal with then the scope of the problem today.
2. Gun control. Funny thing about current initiatives, executive and legislative, is that not only do they make it harder for law-abiding citizens to procure and exercise their legally purchased weapons, it is encouraging hoarding of ammunition and purchases of guns is through the roof on fears of limitations in the future. Ultimately, these efforts if successful will make it harder for you and me, and not encumber criminals, terrorists, or those bent on mayhem at all. The ineffectiveness of the measures proposed lead me to conclude the effort is facetious and not really trying to affect the problem at all, but rather create an "issue" for the upcoming election.
3, Welfare. Interesting how "necessity" has been redefined in recent years. Now, cell phones are a "necessity". As is internet access, television, junk food with EBT cards, and the like. Why, you might ask? Simple. To keep the masses (read voters) dumb, fat, happy, and dependent. A safety net is just that. It is not a way of life. Not long ago a similar mistake was made extending unemployment payments for years. Pretty soon, people stopped working or even looking for work. If that is your desired end state, you are not worthy of elected office.

Let me throw in an issue of my own, protesting as a cottage industry. People are being paid to be upset, loudly shouting, waiving professionally made signs, and generally behaving in a disgusting manner. This intentionally disrupts and subverts civil discourse, and those behind it should be exposed for the frauds and riot-inciting buffoons they are. I'll bet that the answers to who is behind this Astroturf version of "grassroots movements" would be very illuminating.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 12:16 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:16:05 -0400

I have made the suggestion several times. You should try to honestly argue the other view. That will provide more insight that you may imagine. After you have done then join a discussion with an open mind.

Most of the problem is an opinion and a closed mind when hearing anything other than that opinion.

Response by SPC Darren Koele made Jun 26 at 2016 7:03 PM

SPC Darren Koele — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:03:37 -0400

It's both. When you considering the consider that this statement is uttered only during election campaigns and after some sort of crisis/tragedy/disaster, it is always agenda driven. Worse than that, whenever that statement is uttered, the intended meaning is "how can we, the government, get involved and otherwise get better control of the people?" The only truth in the statement is that sometimes there does need to be a discussion, but the type of discussion necessary will never seem to take place. Why? Everyone and everything is too politically, ideologically, and emotionally charged. That is to say, every discussion after the phrase "thanks for coming" devolves into finger pointing, blame game, scapegoating, and generalized accusations. In other words, nothing can be achieved because all logic and intelligence has gone right out the window at the outset.