What are society's *real* points of disagreement?

Great Debates
1

IMHO, with most political disputes, there is a stated, *official *reason for something - which is often just window-dressing - and underneath that, there is the un-stated, *real *motive or point of friction that causes the rub. And although there may be a hundred points of disagreement in a debate, it often really just boils down to one or two “irreconcilable differences” - the one or two things that the disputing parties cannot compromise or agree on.
For instance, with regards to creationism vs. evolution, I think this is very often not about the science of it - just window dressing - but rather, in fact a proxy “Does God exist?” debate raging underneath the surface, with creationists overwhelmingly on the side of “God exists” and evolutionists overwhelmingly on the side of “He does not exist.” (Notably, it is easier for a Christian to be an evolutionist than it is for an atheist to be a creationist.)

With regards to abortion, the true point of friction seems to be, “Does the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body surpass the fetuses’ life?” I do *not *think this is about “Does life begin at conception?” or “Is a fetus a person?” because many pro-choicers would still support abortion rights even if a fetus is a person. (Thread, for example.) The talk about whether a fetus is alive, viable, a person, etc. is really just window dressing and not the true point at hand.

The gay-wedding-cake baker issue is largely one of “Should the baker obey God or man?” The baker - *assuming *that he/she believes that it would be a violation in the eyes of God to support/endorse a gay wedding by providing his business services for it - which is a long train of assumptions - is essentially saying “I must obey God rather than man.” The gay couple - regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, or other factors - are essentially saying, “Man’s law trump’s God’s.” Of course, there are Christian bakers who would have no qualms about catering to a gay wedding whatsoever and don’t see it as a violation against God, and there are no doubt some bakers who don’t want to serve a gay couple for reasons having nothing to do with religion at all, but by and large this seems to be a “Obey God (or, at least, my beliefs or assumptions about God) or man?”

Gun control - not sure about this one - seems to be a twofold, “Does the Constitution outweigh numerous gun deaths,” and also, “Do guns do more good than harm?”

Taxation - seems to be, “How much is one’s fair share to pay in taxes?”, with much of the disagreement all stemming from just what one considers to be fair or unfair, especially with regards to taxing the rich.

Voter-ID: Multiple points of disagreement, but one seems to be, “Is voter fraud a significant threat, or could it be?” Those who support voter ID would probably strongly align with “yes” and those who oppose it would align with “no.”

2

“Does this make me better off” vs. “Does this make me worse off.”

Unfortunately ways to be “worse off” include:
-Perceived loss of power (including by comparison)
-Perceived loss of status (including by comparison)
-Perceived loss of confidence/certainty (including about beliefs
so really, this drives all.

3

I think it has come down to, as one person said in the pit;

One side bases their decisions on logic, facts and consistency.
The other side bases their decisions on feels and teachings, without regard to facts.

4

Well, there is one side that claims that if someone identifies as a particular gender, that they are that gender.

5

True - most of it’s about tribalism.

6

It’s the same side that’s all pre-occupied with all the human rights bullshit and constantly whines about living in a more just society, isn’t it?

7

Largely agree with this viewpoint, with the addition that I think these are really just different sides of the same issue; fear of loss of power. Social status and “fitting in” by having certain values/opinions are, in themselves, elements of power since one is weaker outside of a group than as a member of it.

I don’t really think, individually, there are great differences in value systems. Sure, any society will have it’s fringe members, but overall I think people, if they are being honest with themselves, are capable of acknowledging all the downsides of their value system and the potential harm it can cause, even if they believe on balance their value system is beneficial. If people are capable of seeing “both sides” to varying degrees and simply fall of different sides on-balance, it should possible to reach consensus as there would be quite a bit of common ground overall. It’s when individuals form into groups and are forced to declare their value systems, “are you with the group or not?”, that you get the binary pro-choice vs. pro-life, Right To Bear Arms vs. Gun Control, etc… nonsense. The act of forming into groups causes the loss of nuance in values. Because groups can’t tolerate nuance as a unifying force; groups need clear, simple statements of values.

Just as an example, I believe abortion is, at present time in the U.S., a necessary evil. So am I “pro-choice” or “pro-life”? Probably neither.

8

And another side that does not accept as fact that gender is unrelated to genitalia.

But that’s neither here not there. I’m not sure where your broader point in the OP is. Are you wondering if all disagreement can be boiled down to a simple set of principles?

9

I would say that the big divide in the US is community vs society (although I prefer the terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.) Community (Gemainschaft) by its nature is unfair and exclusionary, but it is safer and more secure for those within the community as long as the structure itself is not threatened. It identifies threats to the community and works as a group to isolate and eliminate those threats. Gemeinschaft is organic and voluntary, but because of that voluntariness, it is more fragile. Gesellschaft is fairer and absolutely inclusive, but it is something that is forced upon the individual and it really has no regard for the individual as an individual, but rather as a cog. Gesellschaft says that your lawn is 6 inches tall, it must be mowed. Gemeinshaft says that your lawn is 6 inches tall, you might want to mow it, but if you don’t, your neighbor will. Gemeinschaft only works in smaller groupings. Gesellschaft is necessary for extremely complex networks. Urban people like Gesellschaft because Gemeinschaft doesn’t work at the scale of a large city. Rural people prefer Gemeinschaft because it’s more personal and secure. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If you’re an outsider in Gemeinschaft, life can be very difficult in ways that it wouldn’t in Gesellschaft. At the same time, if you’re in insider in Gemeinschaft, your life will be much happier than it would be in Gesellschaft.

10

No, I don’t think there are the same set of principles that run underneath every issue, but I do think that in many issues, there is an elephant that is not discussed, or that people talk past each other, or have unspoken motives or reasons. i was trying to go by some of them one by one.

11

Of course. If two groups have mutually exclusive goals, then they cannot really compromise on them. To make a sports analogy, you can’t have a compromise on the winner of the game.

This is not an accurate summation of the secular position. It is not say “[God] does not exist”, it says that there is no evidence that a god is necessary to explain the universe and everything in is.

To the parenthesis, (It is easier for a toddler to believe in the president than it is for an adult to believe in Santa Claus)

This also does not well sum up the pro-choice position.

There is no doubt as to whether a fetus is alive, there are not any serious pro-choicers that would debate that. And what is a person is a definition applied by people, so falls more under philosophy than science. Just the fact that people have chosen to apply the label “person” to a clump of cells does not change the nature of those cells.

It’s less about whether or not you should obey what laws you believe are asked of you by your deity, but whether you should be able to impose your religion upon others.

Once again, over simplification. The question is not “Do guns do more good than harm?”, it is “Do our current gun laws and culture promote their irresponsible use, and if so, what laws or regulations can curb the harm that they cuase.”

Once again, it is not making sure that everyone pays a fair share, as there is no agreement on what a fair share is. Some would say a fair share is that everyone pays the same amount, some would say that a fair share is everyone pays the same percent, and some would say that everyone pays an amount based on the utility value of their next marginal dollar.

The way to look at tax code is to ask whether the tax code promotes the things in govt and in the private sector that we want to promote.

I don’t know that that breaks down quite that way either. Sure, the republicans say that they are concerned about voter fraud, but those who oppose the recent round of controversial voter ID laws are not saying that voter fraud cannot be a threat, they are just saying that the actual implementation that is being used in some places to combat that perceived threat is disproportionately making it difficult for particular demographics to vote.

And one side says that it knows the gender of another better than that person does.

12

The thing that makes voter ID complicated for some of those in favor of the voter ID, their main point of opposition is actually the window dressing of those who are actually the driving force behind this legislation.

So for some people :
Real point of disagreement: Should barriers be raised to prevent likely Democrats from voting.
Window dressing: To what extent should we tolerate election fraud.

For other people:
Real point of disagreement: To what extent should we tolerate election fraud.

But probably for most people:
Real point of disagreement: Which side has my party taken on this.

13

The creationism debate has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. For one thing, there is no “creationism debate,” since creationists’ only “argument” in such a debate would be “because it says so in the Bible.”

The real debate is whether creationism should be taught in public schools, so the true question underlying that debate is “Do matters of faith deserve equal standing alongside matters of science in public education?” Of course, I don’t think that’s much of a debate, either, and it disgusts me that it’s even broached seriously in modern discourse.

14

The interesting thing about the abortion debate, is almost everybody supports it to a degree.

There is a seemingly small percentage of people that think it’s okay to abort at 9 months.

Many people think it’s okay if you stop at an arbitary time (15-20 weeks).

Some people think it’s okay in cases of rape and incest.

Some people think it’s okay only if the life of the mother is in danger.

(the last two seem common among self-proclaimed conservatives)

A pretty small amount of people say it’s never okay, in any conceivable circumstance.

15

Just as an aside, I think that there are many more arguments for creationism than simply ‘The Bible says so.’ The Big Bang theory was actually developed specifically as a creationist argument by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and astrophysicist. There are a number of philosophical arguments for creationism though you may not find them convincing, nonetheless, they certainly exist.

16

Except for their own circumstances, of course.

17

Yes. You can take all the science-y stuff and still say “God did that.” Maybe not exactly as stated in the Bible, but um, metaphor!

18

But, anything you can point to and say that “god did it”, you can also say “Leprechauns did it”, or “unicorns did it”, or “Morgan Freeman did it”.

19

The science-y stuff actually came out of the religious belief, not vice versa.

Also, a metaphorical account of the creation story is an ancient belief. Origen and Augustine both believed that the creation story was allegory and not literal. Philo of Alexandria was writing about non-literal creation prior to the crucifixion. It’s not a particularly ‘new idea’ trying to somehow shoe horn science into religious thought. A metaphorical Genesis is nearly as old as the texts themselves and even older than Christianity.

*Edit: autocorrect changed ‘Origen’ to ‘Origin’ changed it back.

20

Good point. But would someone who developed the Big Bang theory consider “creationism” to then mean that, after the Bang, the rest of creation proceeded as described in Genesis? I kind of doubt that.

I have no problem with people who believe that the origins of the universe and life, as explained by science, are ultimately the work of God. But creationism (at least as it applies to contemporary policy discussion) denies any scientific explanation in favor of “the Bible says so,” and that’s what I can’t abide.