A Test
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:21am
They did this on the Brian Lehrer show and I thought it was interesting.
Let's try to make a thread, totally void of cynicism, starting with a list of things that we think all sides of the political spectrum could agree upon about this country. If you're going to criticize a political party, organization, or individual then this is not the place for you. Only thought's or ideas that we think all, relatively sane, Americans could agree upon. Okay. Go!
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:26pm
#2
I had a feeling you were
I had a feeling you weren't going to be very good at this Ben.
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:33pm
#3
Let's start somewhere
Let's start somewhere simpler. I am against bombing children, but somebody must think that the safety of American civilians is more important than the safety of innocent children and the bombings are somehow building a safer world for Americans, otherwise they wouldn't be happening. (I think those people are incredibly misguided, but, their call).
I think everyone can agree that some things are responsibility of the federal government and some things are not. For example, the interstate highway system should almost definitely be the responsibility of the federal government, and, I don't know, America's golf courses definitely should not.
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 6:47pm
#4
Could be. Though I think
Could be? Though I think there is a lot of debate about how much each state should be getting for the construction and up-keep of federal highways. But I think most people would agree that federal highways, by definition, should be funded by the Federal Government. Though just how that happens might be pretty debatable as well.
-------
Let me try an example. Simple is the right idea. How about this:
Regardless of who they are, what they think, or where they live people in the US want to see their children happy and healthy.
There I think this is a statement that everyone in the country could agree on. Right? Who's got another one?
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 6:29pm
#5
Agreements
It depends on what you mean by "all sides of the political spectrum". Part of the problem with the "lets find a center" that many people--Jon Stewart, M. Bloomberg, Obama in his speech, and NPR--are putting forward now is that it puts a bigger premium on civility than on truth. What are the actual problems in the world right now and how do we solve them? I was just listening to the conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg smugly playing a cut of a liberal talk show host comparing Bush's war crimes to Hitler's as a demonstration of the left's "uncivility". But, uh, G. Bush's war crimes ARE comparable. So going back to Ben's point--what's more important, the deaths of thousands of innocent people or "what we can agree on"?
I think "both sides" of the American political spectrum want the US to continue as a dominant (or THE dominant) superpower. Both sides want to "save the American economy". Both sides want "a strong defense" and "protection against ________" (no matter how they fill in the blank). Both sides like Israel, no matter what anybody says about what they are doing. Both sides agree that US-style "democracy" is the best and most equitable system of government that will ever be possible. Both sides agree that its OK for the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons on civilians to have them but not for Iran. Both sides agreed with invading both Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I think "both sides" would (as Chris points out) agree that American lives are worth more than "whoever else's" lives. But I think many OJ posters do not agree with this. So who needs to compromise on this, the OJ posters or "both sides"? And would it be wrong for us to point out the truth, even if we seem "uncivil"?
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:02pm
#6
Hey Tone. Lots of great
Hey Tone. Lots of great points here. And no doubt this website is capable of generating more forum threads for as much debate over these ideas as we could ever possibly want. But I feel like we're getting ahead of ourselves a bit. I'm talking about everyone in the United States beyond just the "popular" political spectrum. And did I sense some cynicism?
I'd love if you could indulge me and try to stick to the task at hand, as stated in the original post, before getting too much into extended analysis and criticism. Debatable topics are all over this forum and that's great. It's what it's here for. I just thought it would be interesting to try something different on this thread. The point here, I think, for a change would be to develop a handful of "non" debatable statements about all Americans. Think of it as a game. (see my post above for an example).
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 2:19am
#7
Are all Americans curious, to
Are all Americans curious, to some degree, about what lies out there among the stars?
That being said, my first impression of Barry Bliss EVER was an OJ Board post where something about NASA made him want to "vomit blood."
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:34am
#8
(No subject)
Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:37pm
#9
`
The point here, I think, for a change would be to develop a handful of "non" debatable statements about all Americans.
What is an American?
If you live on this land but don't call it America or acknowledge it as such are you still an American?
To people that do believe in it you are. You're just delusional if you say otherwise.
To people that do not believe in it you are not. The ones that do are considered delusional.
That "American" issue aside I don't know of anything everyone agrees on.
Does everyone agree that they are a seperate entity?
The people that don't agree that they are a seperate entity may be delusional, or we may be wrong and they may be right and there is no us and them.
Agree assumes there are at least two.
What if that is not the case?
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:39am
#10
I think all American's can
I think all American's can agree that we are living in an imperfect world, and that there are problems that we need to address, not just as individuals, but as a society. I think everybody might even be able to agree on a few of the current, pressing problems? Like I think almost anybody would be concerned with the current amount of joblessness in America (hopefully people are also concerned about the global economy, but it's probable that a lot people don't care about the rest of the world's economy).
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:46pm
#11
Okay, sounds promising. When
Okay, sounds promising. When we say jobs the translation here on the most basic level is a means for survival: Eating and shelter is important. We can all agree that we need to eat and have some kind of shelter from extreme elements, oh yeah, clothes, at least in the winter. Now I'm not talking about styles, or types of housing or food. I'm just saying. As Americans we could say that we all agree that we all need it. I'm not talking about how much or how. I'm just saying, We can all agree that we all need it. Right?
I'm not sure how to address the one about space. Not sure how to say it. We seek knowledge? Maybe we could say that we are curious? Maybe that's it. Even the laziest person is curious now and then about something? Maybe where we come from or what we are supposed to be doing?
So the way I see it so far we've got 3 things all Americans can agree upon so far:
1. We want our children to be healthy and happy.
2. We all need food, shelter, and clothes (at least for the winter).
3. We are all curious from time to time and seek knowledge?
What else?
Sat, 01/15/2011 - 6:19pm
#12
Ohh, I thought the question
Ohh, I thought the question wasn't what we can agree on we all need and want to survive, but things more like we're a country of free men & women. We're #1 and stuff like that there.
I'm confused! What's the question again?
Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:12am
#13
``
So the way I see it so far we've got 3 things all Americans can agree upon so far:
1. We want our children to be healthy and happy.
2. We all need food, shelter, and clothes (at least for the winter).
3. We are all curious from time to time and seek knowledge?
What else?
I disagree with those--at least some of them, but maybe I am not an American so then you still may be right.
I know of others that disagree with some of those as well, but again, maybe we aren't Americans in which case what you claim may still be true.
Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:47am
#14
(No subject)
Water?
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:24am
#15
totally
totally
Sun, 01/16/2011 - 4:33am
#16
I like
I like the quest for something not cynical.
I have a serious problem being cynical about everything
and feel emotionally distant and cut off.
So I like Matt's original intention.
Could also be a thread just about things we like.
But for this thread, perhaps:
Equal education for everyone around the world.
(which in my perfect world would include a healthy dose of sex education at every age)
I think free time should fit in there somewhere (the right to have enough free time), but not sure every political party would agree.
Perhaps paid maternity leave for both parents?
Sun, 01/16/2011 - 1:34pm
#17
a world wide holiday to
a world wide holiday to celebrate together. world day! uniting us in the love of your earth and the opening of our minds to the idea that we are all the same in our differences.
Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:43pm
#18
Everybody
Everybody Loves Raymond
Everybody knows that when love calls you got to go.
Sun, 01/16/2011 - 9:48pm
#19
save the rain forest
deleted
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 12:28am
#20
None of these things are
None of these things are agreed upon by all, or did y'all stop making that the criteria for this and just start naming things y'all believe are cool?
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 1:40pm
#21
test
this is hard. and i am an optimistic person. i see Barry's point, whether i agree with it or not. every time i think of something then i think " well not everyone agrees". i mean even the most obvious, pure, wonderful things, like matt's statement about everyone wanting children to be happy and healthy, it's sad but true that there are people that don't treat their children well....
so this is a challenging test, because i can't think of something EVERYONE agrees on and wants... but hey, maybe that is the answer.
we all can agree or disagree, it's our right to do that ( ok, now i know someone is going to say we can't on certain things...)
maybe i'm going to see what matt's new test is today and try that.
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 9:28pm
#22
It is hard. I think wanting
It is hard. I think wanting your children to be happy and healthy is different than making them happy and healthy. How to make this happen is where the debate comes in. I don't think that's what we're talking about, yet. I'm just talking about the sentiment. Maybe some people don't care if someone else's kids are sick or unhappy. Maybe some people don't want to make their kids happy and healthy themselves but I can't see any sane person consciously wanting their own kids to be sick and unhappy.
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 2:09pm
#23
all?
Yeah, this is tough. Could we all agree that we would like the opportunity to be taken seriously?
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 9:59am
#24
This sounds good to me. We
This sounds good to me. It's a little vague but I would say we would all like to be taken seriously when we are trying to be serious. Determining what being serious is can be tricky. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by opportunity.
1. Those that have them, want their children to be healthy and happy.
2. We all need food, water, shelter, and clothes.
3. We are all curious from time to time and seek knowledge.
4. We all want to be taken seriously when we are being serious.
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:28am
#25
PERHAPS this should be the last time I say this.
Everybody does not agree on the things you listed Matt.
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:39am
#26
We all have goals?
Maybe we
We all have goals?
Maybe we need to lower the bar to 95% of Americans?
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:48am
#27
What's the disagreement? Show
What's the disagreement? Can you show me an example?
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:29pm
#28
Children
Now, I want my children (in fact all children) to be healthy and happy.
But not everyone agrees with that.
I can't speak for people who have children.
But there are people who kill their children.
People who are demented maybe or in a rage.
These people don't agree.
+ another thing.
When this started I wanted to say, "Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." I mean, it's proven.
BUT here's the thing I realized.
This isn't a question about what THE TRUTH is. This is a question about what people CAN AGREE UPON. And there will be someone who thinks children are monsters, or that Saddam had nukes, or that Oklahoma City deserved what they got. (Tucson, too close)
Are those people not relatively sane?
So here's one for All Americans:
In America, the dissemination of truth is obscured by private interests.
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:59pm
#29
People demented or in a rage
I would say people demented or in a rage would fall under the category of relatively "not" sane, thus excluding them from the category of "relatively sane" Americans, as stated in the original post.
======
"In America, the dissemination of truth is obscured by private interests."
I think this statement is a cynical generalization.
======
the rest of this post is interesting but off topic.
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 6:05pm
#30
you know what matt? i didn't
you know what matt? i didn't read the part at the very beginning of this thread about relatively sane...for me that changes everything
so in that case, i do think all americans want their children, or our countries children, to be healthy and happy.
not to decide what is insane and what is not, but if you have a heart, and are sane, i would think you would agree upon that statement....
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 9:46pm
#31
Everyone
Everyone thought John Lennon was crazy.
Everyone knows she's a femme fatale.
I think we can all agree that the bombing of innocent civilians like the ones linked should be avoided at all costs. Is there any sane person that would view them as collateral damage?
victims