I was Recently Reading One of my Very Old Posts from May 4, 2009. It is a Post that was Written in a Way that was a Little Confused and I Ended Up Adding a Comment to it that was more Clear. Feel Free to Read the Old Post, Extremism vs. Moderation, An Introduction, yet what I Really Want you to Read Now is what my Current Thoughts are about what I should have Wrote, for here I am Two Years Later, Finally Clarifying. Here is the Comment that I Added beneath that Post Late Last Night...
"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said. Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.
"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.
"Yes, that Happened in 2009.
"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.
"It's Really not that Hard, though. Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not. To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.
"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...
"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'
"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.
"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.
"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said."
I Look Forward to Your Comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
This makes sense to me, Lista.
Thanks,
Yet it also Makes Sense to Dock their Pay During a Government Shut Down. Why should Other Government Workers have to Suffer and yet not the Ones who are Causing the Delay?
"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'
i guess that depends on what side of the bridge that they intend on being once they are together, doesn't it?
there is a valid reason for walking all the way across if that is the side they want to be.
It wasn't pretty. But tonight's compromise on the budget was clearly an example of just how government CAN work. Next time, though, maybe they shouldn't wait until the very last SECOND!!
"there is a valid reason for walking all the way across if that is the side they want to be."
You are sooo Missing the Point, Griper. If Both People want what's on the Same Side of the Bridge, then this isn't a Compromise. Compromises are Only Necessary when there is a Disagreement and the Bridge Represents the Distance Between what the Two People or Two Groups Want. When the Bridge Represents the Distance Between what they Want, they do NOT Want to be on the Same Side of the Bridge now, do they? When there is Agreement about what is Wanted, there is no Bridge, because there is no Valley or Canyon that Needs Crossing.
Thanks for your Comment, Will. What Surprises me is how Incredibly Unbending and Uncompromising the Democrats were on the Government Funding of Abortions Issue. I just Don't Get that. If we are Low On Funds, why shouldn't we Start with that which is Controversial Among the People in this Country? I would have Accepted a Temporary Shut Down if it would have Helped the Democrats to Make more of a Compromise on that Issue.
no lista, i am not missing the point. it was you that used the bridge for your analogy, not me.
and a bridge, by definition, is a manmade device for persons to get from one side of the canyon to the other side. it serves no other purpose.
and a bridge better represents the idea of the black or white viewpoint because it requires that the person on one side present a good enough argument so as to convince the person on the other side to cross that bridge.
you are trying to present an argument that requires both sides to meet in the middle of that bridge.
the problem you create is where do they go from there? and the only answer is to one side of that canyon or the other.
that bridge and canyon just do not magically disappear once the persons have met in the middle of that bridge. it is either real or it never existed in the first place thus only an illusion. which is it?
you're trying to present an argument that declares that the canyon is but an illusion and the only spot of reality is somewhere in the middle of that illusionary canyon.
and that creates another problem. that makes your position an absolute truth and there is nothing more extreme than that.
so an analysis of your own argument belies your own stance.
That's Right, I'm the One Who Used the Bridge in MY Analogy and that is the Reason Why I am the One who Gets to Decide what the Bridge Represents, as well as What the Canyon Represents. It is My Analogy, not Yours and Therefore, I get to Define the Terms, not you.
The Canyon Represents either Disagreement or a Difference in what Two People Want. That is Preferences and Wants.
Let Me Repeat Some of that. Since I am the One who Used the Bridge for MY Analogy, just as You have Stated. I am the One who is Allowed to Define the Terns, not You.
If you Would Like, I can Add to My Analogy a Platform in the Middle, where the Two Meet. From there I can Add Stars to the Bottom of the Canyon, a Helicopter Pad or What Ever, but the Bridge Analogy is about Compromise. This is MY Analogy, and I Define the Terms.
Another Thought is that Bridges are also Built Over Rivers, in which Case, the Canyon is indeed an Illusion, because it is Really Just a River. In this Analogy, Another Opinion is to Simply Jump off the Bridge into the River and Go Swimming, after which, the Option of Up Stream or Down Stream is Presented and there May be Millions of Options Available Later along the Shore Line, or the Two People will End Up either on the Mountain Top or in the Ocean. Both are Valid Destinations.
I have Never Denied the Presences of Valid Absolutes, Griper. I have Simply Stated that Not Everything is Absolute and not Everything is Relative. Once Again, you are just as Bad of a Listener as you are Communicator.
And Again, Since I am the One who the Most Often Uses the Word Extreme, it is I who am Allowed to Define it, not You. The Context of this Discussion, Griper, is the Avoidance or Presence of Compromise. When the Word Extreme is Used, in this Context, what it Means is the Two Farthest Points from the Center.
Also, if you will Read the Above Post Again, Griper, you will Realize that even the Concept of Compromise is not an Absolute. Sometimes Gridlock is the Better Option, for that is what this Post is about.
I Swear, Griper; Once Again you are just as Poor of a Listener as you are Communicator, for I Know I have Said Many of these Things Before.
thank you lista, for just affirming that my analysis of your analogy is valid.
if your analogy was valid for your position there would have been no need to make any changes to it and you would have been able to defend your position based on the analogy as you originally presented it.
manofwonder could use that same analogy to present his viewpoint of black and white and defend it without any change.
i rest my case for anyone to judge.
It seems that compromise involves negotiation:
dickering on a used car,
making an offer on a house,
organizational conflict management, etc.
One description from business psychology states:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value. This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." or,
we might observe, win a little, lose a little. Of course compromise in the setting of marriage is a given and perhaps the high
divorce rate reflects a failure to recognize the importance of dealing with compromise.
In light of the meeting on a bridge analogy, I know of a fellow who loves long fishing trips, which his wife dislikes. However, she is much into gold jewelry. Thus, prior to each fishing trip, he brings home an expensive
gold piece she has had her eye on. The question in that case, in which they BOTH cross the bridge, leads to the question of
bribery as a part of compromise. :)
That's the Problem with you, Griper. You Assume that you have Won an Argument before you have.
First of all, No Analogy is Perfect. An Analogy is just an Analogy. Secondly, Even if I have Communicated Initially in an Imperfect Way, that does not Disprove my Point. There is no Law in Debate that Says if what you have Said in your Very First Argument is Less than Perfect, then you are not Allowed to Rephrase what you have said and/or Add what ever Information is Necessary in Order to Establish your Point.
You are not the Rule Maker, Griper. You are just a Human Being Like I am.
Thirdly, You are the One Who Added the Canyon, rather than a River. Neither of these Two Things were in my Original Bridge Analogy, so you Added Something too.
"manofwonder could use that same analogy to present his viewpoint of black and white and defend it without any change."
I'm sure he Could and the Reason Why is Because Not Every Situation is the Same and there are Some Situations that ARE Black and White.
To Illustrate the Point that not all Situations are the Same, I could Use the Same Analogy and Describe how not all Bridges are the Same. Some Bridges are Over Canyons and there is no Place to Go Other than to One Side of the Bridge or the Other. Other Bridges are Over Rivers and still Others are Built in Pairs with a Platform of Some Sort in the Middle.
"i rest my case for anyone to judge."
Audience, Please!! I Really so Very Much Wish that you would State your Judgments of this Man's Argument and Mine. That is my Whole Purpose for Doing this Publicly, rather than in Private.
Thanks for your Comment, BB. You Obviously Believe in Compromise.
Did you Notice that Griper's Argument Implies that there can be No Compromise? On the Other Hand, Perhaps he is Just Trying to Invalidate my Analogy, which is no Big Deal to me, because I have no Problems with Admitting that my Analogy is Less than Perfect Prior to an Addition of Either a River or a Canyon or a Platform or Something. What is Added Depends on What Position you are Trying to Stress or Prove.
Since Not Everyone Relates quite as well to Analogies, it is Good that you have Defined it more Plainly from Business Psychology and you have done so Very Well and actually, BB, Bribery Works for me, for After All, is there Really all that Much Difference Between Bribery and a Pay Check?
It is not Right to Bribe Politicians for Political Favors, yet as for the Example that you Gave within a Marriage, I see Absolutely Nothing Wrong with it. When's Our Next Fishing Trip, BB? I'll Gladly Go for a Bribe. lol.
no lista, you put in the canyon not me. right here;
"there is no Bridge, because there is no Valley or Canyon that Needs Crossing."
and you used to indicate that there was a gap to cross but that there was no gap anymore thus no need of a bridge anymore.
and you changed it from a canyon to a river, not me. so don't start putting words into my mouth that wasn't there.
and i did not make the rules,
analogy
"Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects."
the only thing i did was show that your analogy was more similar to a black or white argument than an argument of compromise, nothing more.
BB,
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value"
that is all fine and good if the compromise is about something that value can be determined in an objective way and in business most things that are negotiated are of things that can be objectively measured for equivalence.
but what those things where the value is subjective?
how does one determine what is an equivalent value?
My Response to your First Comment, Griper, is Long and so I'm Going to Put it Off. As to your Second Comment...
"that is all fine and good if the compromise is about something that value can be determined in an objective way."
What that Statement Implies is your Denial of any Form of Relative Value. That is that you are not Acknowledging that What One Values is Different from what Another Values. Compromise, Griper, is not About Value that can Be Agreed on. It is about Value that is not Agreed Upon.
The Way that Equivalent Subjective Value is Established, though, is through Negotiation. When what is Offered and what is Required in Order to Receive it is Agreed Upon, both People are Satisfied with the Amount that they have Gained and the Amount that they Sacrificed, or they would not have Agreed to it. When Both are Satisfied with what was Sacrificed and what was Gained by Each of Them, this is all that Matters.
It's not that Complicated, Griper. Sometimes I Think that you just Like to Argue.
Here's my Response, Griper, to your Comment from Yesterday, at 7:44 PM...
Ok, You Know What, I did Notice about my Mention of the Valley or Canyon, I Just Read it a Little While ago and Realized my Error, yet that does not Discount the Rest of my Argument. The Fact of the Matter is that there is no Rule that if the Very First Statement that is Given is Less than Perfect, that a Person is not allowed to Add to that Argument. You just Like Making Up Rules when it is Convenient to do so.
The Other Thing that you do is Take Things Out of Context, just as the Statement that you Quoted was not Used to Indicate that there was a Gap to Cross, then there was no Gap anymore. The Context of what you Quoted is "IF Both People want what's on the Same Side of the Bridge" and the Entire Paragraph Relates to that IF.
My Earlier Statement that there IS a Gap Relates to when People do not Agree. My Later Statement that there was no Gap Relates to when People do Agree. Again, you are not Listening. Again, I am Repeating and Re-explaining what I've already Explained.
The Canyon Actually Represents an Illusion just as you Suggested Yesterday at 10:02 AM and I Repeated and Agreed with that in my Very Next Comment at 2:02 PM. Here's what was Said...
Your Words:
"That bridge and canyon just do not magically disappear once the persons have met in the middle of that bridge. It is either real or it never existed in the first place and is thus only an illusion. Which is it?"
My Words:
"Another Thought is that Bridges are also Built Over Rivers, in which Case, the Canyon is indeed an Illusion, because it is Really Just a River."
So you see, I did Answer your Question, Griper, and Stated that the Canyon was an Illusion, which is not at all Out of Line with the Way Reality is, for when there are Disagreements, it Really does Appear to be a Canyon, yet when a Compromise has been Made, it is Quite Possible to Realize that what Once Appeared to be a Very Deep Canyon is Really Nothing More than a River.
Honestly, Griper, I hate to Keep Repeating this, but when the Repeating and Re-explaining of that which has Already been said becomes Necessary Repetitively, this is an Indication that the Person I am Speaking to is not a Good Listener.
Ok. Now for the Definition of Analogy...
"a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects."
The Key Words here are "Similar", "Similarity" & "In a Certain Respect". There is no Statement here that that which is being Compared has to be Totally Identical in Every Way. Similar and Identical are Two Separate Concepts.
Since the Valley or Canyon is an Illusion, the Appearance of Black and White is also an Illusion and the Platform and/or River is what is Real. Yes, Griper, I Admit that my Initial Analogy was an Illusion. That's why I Added more too it, so that it would be a Better Reflection of what is Actually True.
Regarding negotiation, compromomise, solutions in light of,
"but what those things where the value is subjective?
how does one determine what is an equivalent value?"
Certainly many values are subjective; in such cases
should they lead to gridlock a professional arbitor may be brought in.
Another approach which works- my daughter had a cat which needed ear drops twice daily. While this would cure the cat (objective), the cat hated the process (subjective) and would hide. The solution turned out to be
if you tolerate putting stuff in your ears, you get a teaspoon of tunafish.
Now kitty comes running for
eardrops. IMO, the 'subjective' value thing is sometimes best approached by the bribe
theory....whatever the animal kingdom's morals in this case, the solution is
win-win. Conversely, if both owner and cat are so imbued with their subjective values, both
will remain relatively miserable in the pet/owner situation. In some cultures, sucessfull negotiation (compromise)
is a lifestyle hobby...haggling over price in the village market. IMO, the process goes way back in our history.."Say, I'll give you a nice fox fur for a half dozen of those arrowheads."..."Uh, make that a foxfur and an antler digger, and ya got a deal."
lista,
every thing i said was a known similarity within the context of your choice of analogy as you first presented it.
as for the change in your analogy of the canyon to a river, it is very clear you made that change for a single purpose. i pointed out the flaw in your original version and you needed a way out of that flaw.
you saw that i was right about the fact that by your original version thay couple would have to either go back to one side or the other making the meeting in the middle foolish. and you knew it would be far more reasonable for just one person to cross the bridge to the side of the other. but that wasn't the conclusion you wanted people to come to.
thus you changed that scenario from a canyon to a river so as to create an alternate way. that is an obvious alteration.
and even if i allowed that change in accordance to what you did, it still is flawed. by your way of reasoning they intended on jumping off that bridge once they met.
but both persons were under the same illusion of it being a canyon thus they never went on that bridge for the purpose of jumping off. they went on the bridge knowing that both would either go one way or the other once they met. either that or they knew that each would go their separate ways off that bridge.
that is the nature of any bridge regardless of what it spans.
your argument is simply flawed, lista. all i did was point out the flaws.
i don't "expect" you to give up your beliefs. all i'm saying is that if you want to show that your stance is superior to those that disagree with you then you need to use a different form of argument. this one will not work.
Don't you See? BB Thinks Exactly as I do. Griper would Probably say that the Cat Issue is not Subjective because Health is an Objective Value and the Cat is the One who is Obviously Being Irrational and we would Probably even all Agree with that, yet BB doesn't Make an Issue Out of that. He just gives the Cat some Tuna.
There! End of Argument. Now wasn't that Easier than Simply Laying Guilt Trips on the Cat for Misplaced Values and Irrational Fears. The Cat is Happier and all it Cost was a Spoon Full of Tuna. Don't you Think that's Worth it? So what's the Big Deal? I Guess some People just Prefer Buying Bandages, rather than Tuna, in Order to Prove some Kind of a Point.
Another Thing to Think about is that if there is Even Some Level of Valid Negotiation that Occurs between Owners and Pets, then How Much More so Between Humans.
It also Makes me Think of the Song from Marry Poppins, "Just a Spoon Full of Sugar Helps the Medicine go Down". Anyone who does not Understand this Principle is Going to have to Endure Many a Scratch from the Claws of their Rebellious Cats.
I Guess One Way to Determine what is "an Equivalent Value" is that which Finally Brings Peace, rather than Continuous Conflict.
Thanks so Much, BB. You are Really Truly the Greatest!!
Ok, Now Let's Respond to Griper Again.
"every thing i said was a known similarity"
Yes, but no Analogy is Perfect and the Words Similar and Identical are not the Same.
"it is very clear you made that change for a single purpose. i pointed out the flaw in your original version and you needed a way out of that flaw."
Here is a Less Accusatory Way of Stating the Same Thing. When you Said that my Original Analogy was an Illusion, I Humbling Admitted that you were Right and Rephrased my Argument.
"that is an obvious alteration."
So?? You Talk as if Admitting Imperfect Communication and then Rephrasing what was Said is Forbidden. Who Taught you that Ridiculous Rule? It Doesn't Work, for it Implies that anyone who Misspeaks is Incorrect in Every Way, yet Saying Something in a Less than Perfect Way has Nothing to do with what is True and what is not.
What I am Saying is Very Simple and it is Surprising that you can not Hear it.
"but both persons were under the same illusion of it being a canyon, thus they never went on that bridge for the purpose of jumping off.
I Never Said that their Original Intent was to Jump Off and Go Swimming, yet Often After Compromise, New Options are Presented. Life is that Way and you Face Each New Challenge as it Comes.
"they went on the bridge knowing that both would either go one way or the other once they met. either that or they knew that each would go their separate ways off that bridge."
If the Compromise was for Something Temporary, such as Which Movie should we Watch or Which Restaurant should we Go to and if the Two are not Yet Married, then the Above Statement does not Matter and if they Continue to Enjoyed each Other's Company, they will Continue to Agree to Meet on the Bridge Again on Another Day.
Initially, the One who Invited the Other on the Date May Make these Decisions, yet Once they Get to Know Each Other, both will have Input, or the Relationship is not Likely to Last.
Though I Tend to Like Analogies, if you do not Like the Bridge Analogy, I will Gladly Detour to BB's Argument Relating to his Cat.
ok, lista, i'll allow you the fact that you presented a new analogy to prove your point.
i won't argue anymore. the only thing i'll say is that this new analogy is just as flawed as the old one. but i'll let you find the flaw in it.
The Only Reason that My Analogy is Flawed, Griper, is because it does not Support your Point of View.
No Analogy is Perfect. I Wonder if I should Repeat that. No Analogy is Perfect. Perhaps Even One more Time. No Analogy is Perfect. It is just an Analogy, Griper, and you are all the Time being Overly Technical.
And by the Way, Streams sometimes have Forks in them and, In Fact, the Forks can Include more Directions than just Two. Whether or not Something Truly Only Has Two Options Depends Solely on the Individual Circumstances.
Perhaps a Better Analogy for Compromise, though, would be Two People Standing on Two Sides of a Field and having to Walk Towards the Middle of the Field, after which, they would be Able to Walk Together in Any Direction that they were Able to Agree on.
You Can't Argue with BB's Point, though, can you?
Here's what I Think, Griper. The Analogy of the Bridge Over the Stream, in which the Two People Meet in the Middle and then Jump into the Stream is about Marriage and the Reason why I say that is Because the Couple does have to Agree on a Basic Direction, yet Friendships are not so much this Way.
Friends Meet Briefly on the Bridge from Time to Time and Interact for Awhile, After Which they Both Turn and Go on with their Individual Lives. Because of the Temporary Nature of Each Individual Contact, what is Under the Bridge does not Matter.
In Marriage, Once a Direction is Chosen, there are Still Sights Along the Way. Some on the Right (His Preference) and Some on the Left (Her Preference). The Best Way to Deal with this Situation is to Take Turns, Occasionally Tying the Boat on the Right Shore and Occasionally on the Left.
As Soon as the Idea of One Single Event is Removed and Replaced with Multiple Events, the Idea of Taking Turns Causes the "One or the Other" Idea to Become One of Sharing and Compromise.
Yeh, Yeh. I Added a Boat. I thought that After Awhile, the Couple Might Get Tired of Swimming. lol.
Speaking of Boats, How About This? The Two Compromisers Meet in the Middle of a Dock that Spans Across a Stream at the End of a Cove, After Which they Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake, not just Two.
The Next Trick is to Figure Out how this Relates to Politics.
thanks for the your words at WHT Lista...some thread you got here..smiles~!
Hi Angel,
I Only Hope that Griper and I have not been too Confusing. We have a Tendency to Talk about Topics in Relation to Everything; Relationships, as well as Politics. I Tend to Think that the Two Subjects are Connected and that the Relationship between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage.
In Both Situations, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion. Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.
Anyone who What's to Return this Discussion to Politics, by all Means, Feel Free to do so, or Add to the Analogy Discussions. Whatever is your Pleasure.
Harry Reid is currently one the liars who calls anyone who does not hold his political views "Extreme". The Dems seem to be pretty big on this now, though at other times Republicans use the labels.
The fact remains is that the extremes have no voice in American politics.
RE: "The Next Trick is to Figure Out how this Relates to Politics."
....not until we get the bridge, the canyon, the boat, the tunafish, subjectivity and objectivity sorted out! :)
Hi Dmarks,
I Often Get into Trouble when I Use the Word Extreme. When I Use it, I do not Mean Someone who does not Hold the Same Political Views as myself. What I Mean is a Total Refusal to Compromise Ever and at Times I Use it to Describe those who are the Farthest From the Center.
Also, I Use it in Relation to Both Parties, not just the Party that I'm the Most Opposed to. I am a Republican and yet I Fully Admit that there are just as Many Republican Extremes as there are Democrat Extremes.
I don't Really Think that Extremes have no Voice in American Politics, it's just that as the Two Extremes Yell and Scream at Each Other, the Moderates Work Out the Necessary Compromises. Just as this Post has Indicated, though, there is a Valid Place for Gridlock.
If it is Up to Griper, BB, these Issues will Never be Sorted Out, for the Conversation Continues on his Blog at: Business Run Like a Family, Living as a Business.
He Resorted to his Normal Tactics of Redefining Words and Distorting Everything that I Say. This Time it was the Word "Bribe". He Defined the Word so that it is a Negative, rather than a Positive and Pretty Much Discounted your Arguments based on his Definition of the Word "Bribe".
So Typical. That's what he always does.
My Favorite of the Analogies is Actually the Helicopter Pad on a Platform in the Middle of the Bridge. I think that the Helicopter Ride may be Enough of a "Bribe" in itself to Get me to Walk Across the Bridge and Allow the Helicopter Driver to Decide the Rest. lol.
Negotiate? Yes
Compromise? Never
Soap,
Huh? Now that is an Interesting Comment. I'm Curious what you Think the Difference is between Negotiation and Compromise. Personally, I do not See how Negotiation is Possible without Compromise. Could this be nothing More than a Confusion Over the Definition of Words?
BB,
I've Given it some thought, both in Relation to Griper's Problem with the Word "Bribe" and Also with the Comparison that I Often Make Between Politics (Republicans & Democrats) and Marriage and Actually, there is a Problem. Unfortunately, the Word "Bribe" in Politics Generally Means Money Given to a Politician for a Vote or a Political Favor and Such is a Definite Negative, so Perhaps the Word should be "Reward" Instead.
Exchange the Word "Bribe" in your Arguments to the Word "Reward" and Perhaps Griper will Stop Complaining about Words. But then again, maybe Not. Let's Wait and see.
The Best Thing that you said above, though, that Fits Best in the Context of Politics is your Definition of Compromise as Stated in Business Psychology...
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value. This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness."
Now that I'm Back to the Quote, I'd Like to Say Something that I've been Meaning to Say, but just Keep Forgetting to. In Relation to this Objective vs. Subjective Issue, if the Words "equivalent value" were Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", then the Fact that this is Subjective, Based on what can be Agreed Upon, would be Covered in the Language Used. The Key is that Both Parties have to Agree on what is "Equivalent Value".
Now, for Soap. I am So Very Curious how his Definition of "Negotiation" is Different then the Definition of "Compromise" that I just Quoted.
When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.
When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent.
Huh? Interesting. I Wonder where you Got that Definition. Another Way of Saying the Same Thing is that we Should Never Compromise Our Fundamental Premise, but we Can Compromise Other Things that do not Hinder Our Fundamental Premise. The Only Difference Between what I said and what you said, Soap, is the Definition of the Word Compromise.
Actually, Soap, Your Second Sentence Sounds more Like a Sell Out, than a Compromise. That is Walking all the Way Across the Bridge, when your Opponent is not Even Willing to Come 1/4 of the Way Across the Bridge and I have Stated Very Plainly that there is Absolutely no Valid Reason for Doing that.
I'd walk all the way across the bridge on this occasion if I'd gain the acceptance of my opponent walking all the way the next 3 times.
Returning to basics-
compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."
negotiate is a verb:
"To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement" -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating.
'bribe' is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." These are commonly used by people in all walks of life. The problems arise when any of these impinge on legal code; for example bribing
a boxer to take a fall, a politician to vote a certain way. And complexities arise as for example as I read recently, some company offers to get you a job if you pay them $1000 (which, presumably would be returned should you remain unemployed). Then in dealing with children and pets, (where negotiation by default must be primitive) a bribe might
be considered a promised 'reward' for requested behavior. Took
a seminar one time on negotiation, they split us up into pairs, gave us all
the same deal to argue...
there was shouting, threats, and some type A
folks went far into the night without ever reaching any accord.
IMO, the better approach is the one used in formal
debate: each team must be
prepared to argue BOTH sides, not knowing until
the start which it will be.
(probably Law School 101, as well)
You Know, Soap, in a Way that is Exactly what you are Doing when you Vote For a Third Party Candidate that can not Win, for in doing so, you Allow a Democrat, and at Times even an Extreme Democrat to Win the Election, in the Hope that he will Mess Up so Badly, that it will Wake Up the Republican Party and Cause them to Nominate a Candidate that is More to your Liking the Next Time Around.
You are Doing this, though, not Based on a Certainty, but on a Hope.
And What Makes you Think that your Opponents would Ever be Willing to, Of their Own Free Will, Give you Three Times as Much as you are Giving to Them? Why Would they Ever Do That?
BB,
Thanks so Much for your Definitions. Eventually, I'll be Going and Getting Griper, so that he can Argue Definitions with you Directly, instead of with me on his Own Blog. Somehow, Right now, I'm not in the Mood, but I will Probably Feel Better and More Rested Tomorrow After I've had some Sleep. For Now, I just want to say that I like your Definitions and that I am Sure they are form Sources that are Reputable.
Back to Soap Again. It Truly is too Bad when the Disagreement Between People have more to do with the Definitions of Words then with the Realities of the Issues. Sometimes we can Just Develop Aversions to Certain Words and Once we have done so, we will always Define those Words in a Negative Way, Regardless of whether or not that is what the Person who is Speaking Actually Means.
Yes, I am Feeling Tired, but that is Nothing that a Good Nights Sleep won't Fix. I'll See you Guys Tomorrow.
"You Know, Soap, in a Way that is Exactly what you are Doing when you Vote For a Third Party Candidate that can not Win, for in doing so, you Allow a Democrat, and at Times even an Extreme Democrat to Win the Election, in the Hope that he will Mess Up so Badly, that it will Wake Up the Republican Party and Cause them to Nominate a Candidate that is More to your Liking the Next Time Around."
I don't believe in guilt by non-association Lista. I am not liable for the actions of another. I am liable for my actions and my actions only. Simply because I might opt to vote 3rd party (as I did in the 2008 presidential election) does not imply that I endorse or sanction the actions or policies of Barack Obama.
To infer or suggest otherwise, as you've done, is laughable.
I Never Said that you "Endorsed or Sanctioned" Barack Obama, Soap. Compromising with an Opponent is not the Same as Endorsing their Ideas.
As to "Guilt by Non-Association", Haven't you ever Heard of the Saying that the Reason Why the Evil Takes Over is because those who are Good do Nothing. That is a Statement of "Guilt by Non-Association" and it is Very Much the Reason for the Decline of Our Country.
On a more Positive Note, Voting for Third Party Candidates is Better than not Voting at all cause at Least you are Making some Kind of a Political Statement with your Vote.
And I never said that you said that I did endorse or sanction Obama.
As to your second point, I do all I can so the adage doesn't apply to me. I won't be guilted into bearing culpability for the immoral actions of political leaders that I didn't vote for.
Not voting makes a political statement as well Lista. I've done it countless times.
"Simply because I might opt to vote 3rd party (as I did in the 2008 presidential election) does not imply that I endorse or sanction the actions or policies of Barack Obama. To infer or suggest otherwise, as you've done, is laughable."
I did not even "Imply, Infer or Suggest" that you Endorsed or Sanctioned" anything.
The Political Statement of not Voting is More Vague since there are some who do so Out of Apathy and there is no Way to Separate Your Political Statement from theirs.
Yeah, the statement of not voting ends up meaning "whatever happens, I am fine with the result".
Let that be your interpretation dmarks.
By opting for the lesser of two evils, you are still sanctioning evil.
Would you rather die by firing squad or would you rather die of starvation? Rationalize it however you wish.
I myself desire to live and if death be imminent then let it come to pass. But I will not sanction it.
Well, I Tend to Agree with Dmarks. What you said, Soap, is sort of a Black and White Form of Thinking. In this case, Black and White, Meaning Only Two Options or It's either One Way or the Other, It's either Evil or it is not.
How About if we Discard the Word Evil and say that it is a lot of what you do not like, or a little Less of what you do not Like. To Say that it is Either Evil or it is not, is to Deny the Reality that One Undesirable can be Considerably Worse than Another Undesirable. Calling that which is Undesirable Evil, though, is Making it into an Issue of Morality, when in Reality Some of it is just an Issue of Preference.
She Smiles. Boy, that might be a Can of Worms and we are Close to 50 Comments on this Comment Thread. Hopefully, I'll have the Time to do another Post Over the Weekend so that this Discussion can Continue on a New Comment Thread.
Perhaps where we are Disagreeing, Soap, is in Relation to the Idea that a Vote Motivated by Compromise is a Form of Endorsing and Sanctioning. I Do not Think that it is.
Soap, it is not interpretation. If you sit out an election, you are giving the choices entirely to others.
And if you don't sit out and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you want or desire, you're still giving choices to others.
I know black and white makes you squirm in your seat Lista but that's just something you're going to have to deal with on your own.
If one candidate is promising Liver and Onions and the other Tofu, while Tofu might be preferable to me over Liver and Onions, I want spaghetti and I'll work towards getting spaghetti.
If my efforts to do so fail, I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both and whether I vote for one over the other or not, in the final analysis, I'm going to end up with something I don't want.
Why would I sanction it with a vote of approval??? It's moronic.
Hi Radar,
Thanks for Commenting. I really do appreciate it, but I'm going to say something before I Respond.
Your Blog has entirely Worn me Out and I've been sort of Neglecting my Own Blog. I was Tired Today anyway, yet your Blog has made it worse. Your Commenters are very Persistent and well, actually sort of Annoying. I decided to Post the First of your Comments. I'll Read the other Two and give my Response to them Tomorrow.
Well, it took me awhile to get Reoriented again to where I am at with this Post, but I do Remember now. I have Actually Done Three more Posts, all Relating to this One.
More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Relationship Analogies
Which Summarizes the Relationship Analogies in the Above Comments,
More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics
Which is another Summary, but Focuses on the Definitions of Words, and
Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All
In Which, I Simply Copy/Pasted the last 10 Comments from this Thread.
I did all Three of these Posts Hoping that this Conversation would Continue on Newer Threads. Call me Strange if you want to, but I sort of Dislike Posts that are longer than 50 Comments Long because I Doubt that many of the New Comers are Actually going to Take the Time to Read them.
I Hope that When I Titled One Thread "More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Relationship Analogies" and Another One "More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics", that I was not Implying that the First of these is not Also about Politics. I have now Added an Additional Paragraph to that Post, to Assure you that Discussions about Politics are Perfectly Ok on that Post.
Sorry that it has Taken me so Long to Get Around to Writing this Closing Comment on the Bottom of this Comment Thread. From here on out, Please Direct any Additional Comment Relating to this Post to One of the Other Posts that I have just Mention and Even Left you Links to.
Hi Radar,
Please don't be alarmed when you Realize that I have just Deleted your Comments. They are not Actually Deleted, though, just Moved to other Posts. You will Find the First Two of them beneath the More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Relationship Analogies Post and the Last One beneath the Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All Post. The Responses will come Shortly.
My Response to Soapster's Comment is Beneath the Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All Post.
Post a Comment