The Student Room Group

Could you go out someone who was politically opposite you?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Foo.mp3
The idealism that (realist types believe) underpins liberalism/libertarianism peut etre?


What exactly is a realist? Certainly a rather bold claim for anyone to make of themselves.
Reply 121
Original post by Harrifer

Original post by Harrifer
Don't you think it's possible that he just has a different opinion to you? 'Can't be bothered' rather implies that you haven't considered that perhaps people who hunt disagree with your opinions. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier when I mentioned about how obnoxious and infantile idealism is.

I also don't think you should assume a hunter to be male.


First of all, I don't assume that all hunters are male. In this case, as we're discussing a possible partner, I used a male hunter as an example, as I wouldn't be interested in going out with a female, hunter or not. That was my only reason, and I never thought someone would interpret that as me thinking that all hunters were male.

"Cant be bothered" means precisely that I know there are people who just happen to have a different opinion. "Can't be bothered" means they know what they're doing and that is fine by them. I'm not sure about what you were trying to imply. I do believe that there are intelligent people behind the image of meat eaters, hunters etc. I believe that , is some cases, they have their reasons to do what they do, not that they do it just because they haven't researched enough, wich is what I think you understood from my post. I just don't agree with them, probably because I have different priorities.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by yaravel
I just don't agree with them, probably because I have different priorities.


I suppose you think your priorities are ethics/morals and the hunters are personal satisfaction. I don't think you have considered that perhaps people who hunt just don't believe that there is anything wrong with killing animals for food.

This is exactly why I stopped being a vegetarian after two years. I realised what a load of nonsense the 'morals' of it were. I wasn't a fanatic of any kind, and I didn't have meat cravings if you were wondering either of those.

Personally I don't think I would've had an objection to dating a hunter when I was a vegetarian. I would've had a much bigger problem with dating one of those people who doesn't believe in meat eating but just does it anyway. I still can't stand people like that, there's nothing to respect in that inconsistency and lack of principles.

I used to work on a supermarket fish counter (before I was vegetarian:biggrin:) and these women used to come in and ask me to take the heads off the fish, because they couldn't look at it. I mean, if you can't stand the idea of it then don't do it, right? I can't understand how there's any more to it than that. A little bit off topic, but what do you think about those people?
Reply 123
only if we didn't talk about it
Original post by Foo.mp3
A political realist is essentially someone who interprets key decisions* as governed by self interest and, as such, suggests that any system that places too much emphasis on groups acting for the greater good (contrary to self-interest) over the long term is an 'idealist' or 'fantasist' endeavour e.g. disjoined from 'pragmatic reality'

* Traditionally decisions concerning state policy/international issues, but it's possible to extrapolate downward with reference to the 'human nature' premise that underpins the theory. One might liken Neo-conservatives to realists in this sense


So some sort of pragmatic conservative then? Perhaps that's me. I tend to hold unorthodox opinions on things.
Original post by Harrifer
If you think conservatism isn't a legitimate opinion, then you must be a socialist of some sort. I don't know or care what your exact position is in relation to the 'centre' .


Well, no.

I didn't say anything about 'conservatism', I said I wouldn't want to date a Tory - or in other words, someone 'Conservative'. Big C little c :wink2:

I might like conservatism and just dislike the Conservative party. You have no way of knowing. :wink:
Reply 126
Original post by Harrifer

Original post by Harrifer
I suppose you think your priorities are ethics/morals and the hunters are personal satisfaction. I don't think you have considered that perhaps people who hunt just don't believe that there is anything wrong with killing animals for food.

This is exactly why I stopped being a vegetarian after two years. I realised what a load of nonsense the 'morals' of it were. I wasn't a fanatic of any kind, and I didn't have meat cravings if you were wondering either of those.

Personally I don't think I would've had an objection to dating a hunter when I was a vegetarian. I would've had a much bigger problem with dating one of those people who doesn't believe in meat eating but just does it anyway. I still can't stand people like that, there's nothing to respect in that inconsistency and lack of principles.

I used to work on a supermarket fish counter (before I was vegetarian:biggrin:) and these women used to come in and ask me to take the heads off the fish, because they couldn't look at it. I mean, if you can't stand the idea of it then don't do it, right? I can't understand how there's any more to it than that. A little bit off topic, but what do you think about those people?


Hunters, for me, are fully aware of what their doing and therefore can't be compared with the fish counter ladies, that deep down think there's something wrong with eating animals. That description defines a lot of people I know, including my friends. They'll agree with me, tell me I'm right, and then keep eating their ham sandwich. I got to a point where I just make jokes about it. Of course I don't agree, but well, there's really nothing I can do about it. I can't force vegetarianism down their throats. I think that if they had to hunt, to see the blood and all of that maybe they would make the connection between the food on their plates and the animals they love (one of them is actually studying to be a biologist and says there's nothing in the world she loves more than animals, and yet makes fun of me when I explain why I'm a vegetarian *sigh*)

I would say that opinions are strongly influenced by priorities. Between two different things, both reasonable, you choose what is most important to you. Of course that is cases where it simply doesn't apply, cases in wich one of the options doesn't seem reasonable to the person in question, so the pick is easy. But it doesn't mean the option isn't reasonable at all. So, again, priorities.

So, just to clarify, I chose not to eat meat because of my priorities, and some other person choses to eat it because they don't believe there's anything wrong with eating meat. But when I tell them something like this , and they keep telling me there's nothing wrong with it, I'll have to disagree. There is something wrong with it, but you can chose between defining a priority, or just not doing it and keep eating whatever you eat everyday.

I started being a vegetarian when I was 14. When I was 15/almost 16, I started eating fish, and then poultry. At 16, again, but almost a year after, I decided to get back to being a vegetarian. I'm 17 at the moment, and don't plan on giving up ever again.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 127
Original post by yaravel

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. English is not my first language so sometimes I block a little bit and can't find enough words.
Reply 128
Politics is really important to me; I don't think I'd want to be with someone who's massively different to me politically, but I have a tolerance.
Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo
Well, no.

I didn't say anything about 'conservatism', I said I wouldn't want to date a Tory - or in other words, someone 'Conservative'. Big C little c :wink2:

I might like conservatism and just dislike the Conservative party. You have no way of knowing. :wink:


I don't really give that much of a ****.
Original post by yaravel
Hunters, for me, are fully aware of what their doing and therefore can't be compared with the fish counter ladies, that deep down think there's something wrong with eating animals. That description defines a lot of people I know, including my friends. They'll agree with me, tell me I'm right, and then keep eating their ham sandwich. I got to a point where I just make jokes about it. Of course I don't agree, but well, there's really nothing I can do about it. I can't force vegetarianism down their throats. I think that if they had to hunt, to see the blood and all of that maybe they would make the connection between the food on their plates and the animals they love (one of them is actually studying to be a biologist and says there's nothing in the world she loves more than animals, and yet makes fun of me when I explain why I'm a vegetarian *sigh*)

I would say that opinions are strongly influenced by priorities. Between two different things, both reasonable, you choose what is most important to you. Of course that is cases where it simply doesn't apply, cases in wich one of the options doesn't seem reasonable to the person in question, so the pick is easy. But it doesn't mean the option isn't reasonable at all. So, again, priorities.

So, just to clarify, I chose not to eat meat because of my priorities, and some other person choses to eat it because they don't believe there's anything wrong with eating meat. But when I tell them something like this , and they keep telling me there's nothing wrong with it, I'll have to disagree. There is something wrong with it, but you can chose between defining a priority, or just not doing it and keep eating whatever you eat everyday.

I started being a vegetarian when I was 14. When I was 15/almost 16, I started eating fish, and then poultry. At 16, again, but almost a year after, I decided to get back to being a vegetarian. I'm 17 at the moment, and don't plan on giving up ever again.


Yes, and alternately I can tell you something like this:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100401101521.htm

You still don't understand my point. I'm saying that you are not acknowledging that there are two sides to every argument. I think the article I linked helps illustrate that.

I may not agree with you, but I respect that your views are well thought out and reasoned. I only hope that you could exchange the same courtesy towards others, in this instance non-vegetarians. Just because we disagree with you on a number of issues does not mean we are irrational or driven by desires/social pressures. I told you clearly that my choice to eat meat again was entirely rational. My initial choice to be a vegetarian was also rational.

Two intelligent people can come to vastly different conclusions based on the same evidence, without making any errors of logic or reasoning. That is my point.

The vast majority of the horrors of the past century were committed by people who could not empathise with those they disagreed with. That is why my point is relevant.

Edit: Perhaps a good example of the approach I am advocating would be the manner in which History essays are marked. People aren't marked for having 'the right opinion' (because no such thing exists), but rather they are marked on their reasoning and explanation. Likewise, I apply the same principle to the opinions and beliefs of those around me, and as a result enjoy socialising with a wider range of people.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Harrifer
I don't really give that much of a ****.


Well sod off and stop quoting me.
Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo
Well sod off and stop quoting me.


LOL
Reply 133
Original post by Harrifer

Original post by Harrifer
Yes, and alternately I can tell you something like this:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100401101521.htm

You still don't understand my point. I'm saying that you are not acknowledging that there are two sides to every argument. I think the article I linked helps illustrate that.

I may not agree with you, but I respect that your views are well thought out and reasoned. I only hope that you could exchange the same courtesy towards others, in this instance non-vegetarians. Just because we disagree with you on a number of issues does not mean we are irrational or driven by desires/social pressures. I told you clearly that my choice to eat meat again was entirely rational. My initial choice to be a vegetarian was also rational.

Two intelligent people can come to vastly different conclusions based on the same evidence, without making any errors of logic or reasoning. That is my point.

The vast majority of the horrors of the past century were committed by people who could not empathise with those they disagreed with. That is why my point is relevant.

Edit: Perhaps a good example of the approach I am advocating would be the manner in which History essays are marked. People aren't marked for having 'the right opinion' (because no such thing exists), but rather they are marked on their reasoning and explanation. Likewise, I apply the same principle to the opinions and beliefs of those around me, and as a result enjoy socialising with a wider range of people.


I think the term "priorities" is key. You assume I think a hunter is irational, and I don't. I accept he/she can just not agree with me, because he/she happens to have different priorities, therefore will not take the same actions as I would. I don't think that is irational, but I won't agree with it. A "fish counter lady" is irational, avoiding the true facts she faces.

And I don't think that there's two sides to every argument. There are some objective issues that don't. There's not a rational side to racism, for example. This is a different issue, "What is better for the environment?", I guess. Did you gave up vegetarianism because you think that is the best way help it? If this is your priority, and the one you were focusing on when you started being a vegetarian, and then when you research about it and find other aspects you want to consider (I won't properly discuss the content of the site you gave me the link for as I think that is not directly related to this issue we're discussing, in the context of this thread), that is your rational logic and the truth (what is better for the environment) depends on research, science , time and possibly other aspects I might be forgetting. I appreciate your logical reasons, but I might think about other solutions that envolve not eating meat as an improvement of the levels of pollution and wastage. And yes, this is where our actions, even with the same purposes (?), differ. So no, I don't think you're irational. So if your point is that I don't accept that people with the same priorities can act a different way, both with rational reasons, I'll have to disagree.
(edited 13 years ago)
I was going to make this thread the other day! I really have no idea, it would depend on the circumstances but I'm starting to think the answer is no. Not for the long term at least, what if you had opposing views on a serious issue or on raising your children etc?
No. There aren't many libertarian girls so I guess I'd have to settle for those who are ideologically closer to me. Perhaps Orange bookers and Liberal conservatives (i.e. free-marketeers). But I don't think I could date an orthodox Marxist or a strict egalitarian. Liberal/conservative girls are unusually hot though so I don't complain :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest