Hi Michael, I appreciate your advice but my challenge is not in "ferreting out logic from emotion." Rather, I am always left with the awareness that belief is "almost" a fixed thing...until someone is ready, or has an experience, that changes his belief. Dennis Prager's success is different than such debates because he has an already engaged audience who comes to him mostly because they already believe his views. Secondly, Dennis Prager, like Michael Medved are both perfect examples of changing their positions once life experience taught them their beliefs were full of errors. Both were liberals for a very long time. Furthermore, the left does not "believe" they are breaking down the rules that make is American. They believe in other principles of what being an American is all about. Many of my family and closest friends are liberals. Dennis Prager shows how news and Christians can cooperate on similar grounds. Who is going to bring liberals and conservatives to such cooperation?
0 · April 29
Joseph, Perhaps this will help. Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions, notes “A curious thing about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues.” Sowell does not use liberal and conservative to describe different visions, but uses “unconstrained” and “constrained.” Why the same people are on one side or the other of minimum wage rates, gun control, the death penalty, right to life, government spending, taxes and oil drilling, etc.; most of which seem unconnected to each other. The unconstrained are concerned with “equality of results.” They “feel” this is the only way to prove fairness, equality, and justice --- often stating, “they are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” The constrained vision “believes” equal results are impossible and they advocate “equality of opportunity” for obtaining desirable results,” emphasizing “A fair field without favor.” From: Romancing the Voters https://www.smashwords.com/books...
0 · April 29
I enjoyed the topic and I enjoyed the debate. Having said this, I left feeling the same way I always do: same arguments, same use of facts by both sides, same polar standoff based on belief. Who is helped by this debate? How can we get beyond taking sides and how can we accomplish something practical. To me, it is not practical, nor constructive because there are no conclusions drawn, nor any solutions. Also, following Dale Carnegie's, HOW TO WIN FRIENDS platform, nobody gained any new allies.
1 · April 27
This was a wonderful experience to be apart of and I look forward to continuing attendance. Another thing, I was not able to get more information about the discussion group mentioned at the beginning before the debate...civilized something or other. Can anyone give me more information? I would greatly appreciate it.
0 · April 25