Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Could you go out someone who was politically opposite you? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    Naive idealism... what idealism would that be? Apart from being a member of a (mainstream) party, I really don't know where you're getting that from.. :curious:
    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' .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iorek)
    I don't feel comfortable living in areas which aren't Tory managed, I read the Daily Telegraph every day. I've actually got a photo of me with Thatcher, taken a few years before she resigned. I remember crying when the news of her resignation was played on CNN.
    Lol, brilliant. I thought you were taking the piss for a while.

    (Original post by Iorek)
    She is a Welsh nationalist and socialist
    A National Socialist?:eek:
    (Original post by Iorek)
    believes Wales should be an independent country on it's own..
    :rolleyes:
    (Original post by Iorek)
    The difference makes for interesting debates and usually we know when to put our political differences aside.
    That's nice. You can't go about taking everything too seriously.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yaravel)
    As I said, as soon as I ended that sentence I felt confused. Maybe a hunter seems worst because he's directly involved, while there's a lot of people that eat meat that don't have the total conscious of what their doing. Not saying you're like this, but a lot of my friends are. They like animals, they care about the planet, but then when the meat is on their plates they can't make the connection. Maybe if they had to kill the animals themselves they wouldn't think the way they do. Maybe that's why I felt that way about the hunter, because he's been exposed to the "truth" and can't be bothered.
    No offense taken. Ahaha, seems nice!
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I am actually going out with my boyfriend who votes right wing whereas I am pretty left wing. We haven't talked about politics yet though, so there have been no clashes. But theoretically, I don't mind as long as we get on very well and agree on more important things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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) 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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harrifer)
    What exactly is a realist? Certainly a rather bold claim for anyone to make of themselves
    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
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    only if we didn't talk about it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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) 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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I don't really give that much of a ****.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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...0401101521.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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harrifer)
    I don't really give that much of a ****.
    Well sod off and stop quoting me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    Well sod off and stop quoting me.
    LOL
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 29, 2011
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.