Opposing positions you most/least sympathize with

The BBQ Pit
1

(Starting this in the Pit, as I figure it will end up here sooner or later)
So, with which positions that you definitely disagree with can you most sympathize ? And with which can you least sympathize?

MOST:
-Abortion. I’m definitely pro-choice, but if someone believes that an embryo is a human life, and is therefore pro-life, I find that totally understandable. I can believe that in a hypothetical future in which birth control is even cheaper and more effective than it is now, and very very small fetuses can survive outside the mother, abortions would be viewed as a barbaric relic of an earlier, less enlightened age

-Environmental issues. I tend to fall on the liberal side of most environmental issues, but many of those issues are just ones of where to draw a line… ie, everyone likes nature, but some amount of mining/exploiting does need to occur, and if someone just chooses to draw the line in a different place than I do, I can’t get outraged
LEAST:
-Gay marriage. I’ve never heard an anti-gay-marriage argument that I felt even came close to hanging together, and I’ve almost never heard one that didn’t convince me that the arguer was, at some level, homophobic. There are people out there right now experiencing various levels of suffering of various types, including being told by society that they are not legitimate people, whose lives could be made better and easier at absolutely no cost to anyone else, and it isn’t happening.
-Lack of outrage about the 2000 election. Yes, legally, Bush won, and to a certain extent, it’s important to move on. And certainly, I don’t think that it accomplished much, in 2003 or so, to interject “but he was APPOINTED not ELECTED” into any random Bush-bash. But I don’t understand how anyone can be happy about, and comfortable with, the process. So there was a phenomenally close race in a state in which:
-The governor was one candidate’s brother
-The secretary of state, in charge of certifying the election, was closely related to that candidate’s campaign (treasurer, maybe?)
-A poorly designed ballot almost certainly caused tens of thousands of old people to vote for the wrong candidate
-People were illegally purged from the records
and, most horrifying:
-When counties were trying to recount, in order to COUNT THE VOTES AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE, as in, the process that is the fundamental heart of any democracy, the US supreme court, voting strictly along partisan lines, STOPPED THE RECOUNT, because (get this) recounting one county violated the equal protection of residents of other counties. Huh? Does anyone honestly believe this was anything other than a purely partisan vote? And if it was, isn’t that the lowest moment of the US democratic experiment, ummm, ever?

What I don’t understand is why so few conservatives ever said anything like “yeah, I’m very troubled by the election as well, as I can see a number of things which could legitimately be viewed as potential subversions of the democratic process. Even though I’m happy about the outcome, and think we need to move forward as a nation, I can certainly see why this would seem so frustrating and outrageous to a Gore voter…” as opposed to “hahahaha! We won! You lost! What, you’re still WHINING about that???”

2

MOST:

It is possible that God does not exist: I understand the sentiment, and how, experientially, it might be reached.

LEAST:

Magistrates ought to disrupt the lives of peaceful honest people for the sake of some perceived need: I have zero patience with that.

3

Good one. If you’ve had experiences in your life that lead you to believe that God exists, how can I argue with that?

4

Out of curiosity, what specifically are you referring to?

5

Property (read: rights) seizures and wealth redistribution schemes.

6

Judges have been seizing property and redistributing wealth again? Yeah, I know there are other, less used definitions of “magistrates” but the standard synonym in the US is “judge.” And I know that judges preside over condemnation procedures but is involuntary confiscation really that common?

7

And what happens when overpopulation becomes a problem and a limit on 2 children is imposed? People stop having sex?

Angel on left shoulder: Leave the thread alone, and let people list things
Devil on right shoulder: Screw that you open up a pit thread, you take the consequences.

Random though: With the left being considered evil and all, should the devil be on my left shoulder?

8

Sorry, again for this. Are you referring to family relation issues (divorce court), judicial activism, eminent domain, or something else?

MOST:
I would have say socialized health care. I personally have not found a workable model for America, but I cannot argue that global coverage is not a goal worth achieving.

LEAST:
dogmatism in almost any form–be it political, religious, social, whatever. The intentional disregard of an opposing viewpoint and/or the inabilityl to reflect on an issue drives me crazy.

9

You seem to have missed the part about cheap effective birth control.

10

Taxes, of course.

You’re new around here, obviously. Back away slowly, don’t make any sudden moves, leave the room…and if you’re lucky we can avoid a rant.

-Joe

11

Most: The existence of a God or gods. I don’t believe, but don’t really have any problems with those who do.

Least: Those who believe their God or gods are leading them to believe they should interfere in the rights of others.

12

Most- Gay rights (yep, you’re reading correctly), Abortion in first two months

Least- Total secularization of the Public Square (a la Michael Newdow);
Willingness to take Aid but not accept any Strings (most recent example- Islamic authorities who tell C’tian Aid workers in the Tsunami disaster not to evangelize);
Abortion after first two months;
Jesus didn’t exist (that’s just stupid)

13

MOST - Those who believe abortion should have some restrictions.

LEAST - Those who support capital punishment.

14

Most - I’m pro-choice, but I can sympathize with the position of those that aren’t. I understand where they’re coming from and in some ways can agree, I just don’t think it’s their right to force their point of view on other people.

Least - Opponents of some kind of socialized health care. My younger sister is turning out to probably be epileptic or have a serious heart condition and has driven herself to the point of bankruptcy from medical bills, and is causing my parents serious financial stress trying to help. I have several uninvestigated health problems, and pay almost a month of income every year just on basic medical expenses and medication. Considering how much it would save in severe medical costs alone just giving the uninsured access to affordable preventative care, this just seems like a no-brainer to me. Thousands of uninsured end up waiting until problems are life-threatening or they have to be hospitalized, then rack up huge bills they can’t pay and ruin themselves financially and are a drain on the system, because if your choices are being able to pay rent or getting that chest pain you’ve been having checked out, rent is usually a bigger priority. Not to mention the fact that when you get insurance through a job, you end up being chained to the job for fear of losing your insurance. Universal health care would probably bring down costs over the long haul, not to mention make workers more mobile and competitive. I don’t think I’ll ever really get this one.

15

OMG NO HE DIDNT EXIST IT WAS ALL MAID UP U CANT PROVE NETHING

Heh. :smiley: :smack:

16

How do you justify ownership of real estate that was ultimately stolen from the indigenous Americans? Is it OK just because you personally didn’t steal it? If I acquire property through violence or coercion, then sell it to you, is it really your property? Can the state confer ownership of property so obtained?

17

Most: Death penalty opponents - not all of them (I have no respect for the 'keep ‘em alive in prison forever, it’s crueller!’ argument.) but most who oppose it for ethical and pragmatic reasons.

Pro-choice - arguing that early pregnancies aren’t human and shouldn’t be treated as such. I don’t know when a fetus makes the change from a collection of developing cells to a human being, and while I choose to believe in the more restrictive definitions, I can’t deny that there’s a lot of room for honest disagreements.

Universal Health Care - it’s a great goal, but I’ve yet to see a model that doesn’t raise more concerns, and potential for abuse, than what we have.

Least: Pro-choice - the people who argue, with a straight face, that since a thirty-two week fetus can’t survive outside the womb it’s not human and can be treated like a tissue sample. And then get upset at infanticide. :rolleyes:

Technical illiterates - the sort who insist on fast-tracking medications and then get upset when adverse long term secondary effects, such as the Vioxx, et.al., show up.

Anti-nuclear illiterates - Those who oppose all uses of nuclear power because it’s eeeevil, not the ones with legitimate concerns, based on rational reasons, or at least informed prejudices.

18

Lib’s father is Native American (or Indian - Lib loves it when we call them that so he can laugh at Columbus’ stupidity). Take Merijeek’s advice and back away, slowly.

19

Great thread idea.

Most: Pro-life people, although I’m not sure if this even counts, so thoroughly do I straddle the fence (I’m pro-choice legally speaking, but hope for a situation in which people mostly choose not to have abortions, of their own free will).

Pro-death penalty people, although the key word here is sympathise, since I’m pretty sure I could never actually agree with them. I know where they’re coming from, at least.

(Incidentally, I think it’s interesting that these two seem to be cropping up a lot in the “most sympathetic” column, given the heat with which the respective debates are generally conducted…)

Least: People who think indefinite detention without oversight confers security upon us.

Most likely phrase to make me scream: “if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to hide.”

20

MOST: Support for restrictions on abortion (once pregnancy reaches the point where it can be reasonably argued that something that separates humans from animals is definitely forming).

Opposition to capital punishment, provided that it’s linked to a “life means life” sentencing for the sort of crimes where I’d consider capital punishment appropriate. (In response to an earlier post, this has nothing to do with which is “crueler”, but simply a pragmatic conclusion that some people need to be permanently removed from society).

LEAST: Generally, any legal restrictions on behavior where harm to non-consenting parties (offended sensibilities don’t count as “harm”) cannot be demonstrated.

Opposition to technological development based on fear-mongering rather than rational risk analysis (e.g. most opposition to nuclear power and biotech).