I am choosing to begin this section on Perceived Failure with the “icing on the cake” rather than the cake itself. The conversation that follows was one of the last I had before I began my hiatus but it provides the simplest example of conversation gone awry. It does not involve a complicated and nuanced argument or the allure of a potentially deepening understanding by either or both parties.
In this brief interaction I was judged, categorized and stereotyped, and had selectively chosen words turned back around and used against me. Although frustrating, this type of reasoning is transparent and sophomoric in its obvious approach; this is made especially apparent when the conversation automatically provides written proof of context. Of course, this is not something that I have newly experienced and it can be witnessed regularly on almost every news source available. (I say almost, simply because always and never are terms that do not apply to the reality of inconsistencies in human behavior.)
What follows below is a thread that diverged off of a conversation about abortion. This was my first attempt to address a topic mired in controversy due to its highly emotional charge. The difficulty in approaching topics like this one lies in the emotional and religious rationale that hinders more objective techniques. In other words, if someone really believes that life begins at conception because of a religious belief, it is difficult to utilize a scientific approach to the conversation simply because one belief system overrides the other. I have yet to discover a way into this debate which is so clearly divided along these parallel sets of rationale; however, creativity and ingenuity are a developing aspect to this project and one which can only foster with continued persistence and experience.
My perceived failure in this conversation stemmed from the fact that it led to a dead end and I did not receive a response from M.B.; I had the last word, but I didn’t want to.
————————————————
M.B.: (Addressed to the originator of the thread) E.S., When you become as enlightened as Meg, you can rejoice in the killing of a human life by simply calling it a cluster of cells. Then, maybe you can hug a tree or attack someone for wearing a fur coat because of their barbarity. Do your research Eric! You can find it on CNN. Or, if you don’t find it there, I’m sure you will find it on MSNBC or maybe Occupy Democrats. The bliss world of alternate reality awaits you.
Meg Phillips M.B. You do not know me and I do not know you. I would never get my news from any of the sources you listed above. I often use them as jumping off points for research but I also use OANN, Heritage, and other more conservative networks. I prefer to go to the source and make my own opinions based on what I find. I don’t trust any newscasters and I don’t simply take someone’s word for it.
M.B.: Meg, You use liberal propaganda sites like CNN and MSNBC for your “Jumping off points”? Isn’t that just a euphemism for talking points? Then, your “research” always seems to arrives at the same hard left conclusions? That can only happen by ignoring any evidence contrary to your “jumping off” views. I may not personally know you, but I’m sure I’ve got your number.
Meg Phillips M.B. Check out CreatingaNationUnited.com I like to read the legislation, press briefings, and get most of my information from government websites. I don’t always come to the same hard left conclusions and I’m not quite sure how you arrived at that idea after two interactions. Part of the research process includes a willingness to change ones mind when confronted with information that was previously unknown. Are you unfamiliar with OANN? Once again, you really know nothing about me aside from assumptions and judgments.
M.B.: Meg, Yes, I watch quite a bit of OANN and my observations are based on several of your posts I’ve seen of over time. Each of them were hard left opinions and many included self congratulatory pats on the back about your “research” used to reach your point of view. However, they suspiciously always seems to reflect that of CNN and MSNBC. Please tell me of a conservative point of view that you hold, contrary to the likes of CNN and MSNBC, that will change my mind by confronting me with information that was previously unknown. Thank you.
Meg Phillips I cannot agree with social conservatism; it my opinion it means going backwards and taking away rights that have been already granted. I do not support limiting the private freedoms of individuals. However, I can support fiscal conservatism much more readily as well as states rights. I agree with the second amendment but I do not agree with concealed weapons, readily accessible silencers or needing automatic weapons that have the ability to kill massive amount of living beings in seconds and I do believe in background checks. I believe hunters are essential in maintaining ecological balance and are often much more knowledgeable about gun safety than anyone else (I support the NRA’s principles from the 60’s much more readily than the fear based ideology they push today). I support the police and law enforcement in general but I think they need to be more involved and knowledgeable of individual communities. I am mixed on the charter school debate but am open to conversation; I don’t think politicians are having enough of a nuanced debate or demonstrating a semblance of practices involving compromise.
Overall, I think the biggest problem facing America right now lies in the inability for people who think differently to engage one another in an open and respectful way; malleability and compromise are essential and if we only talk to those who agree with us we can never move forward together as a nation. Most people I meet have little willingness to exchange ideas, let alone learn about a different point of view; instead they belittle, insult, label, and remain firmly rooted in their own opinions.
I list all my sources on my website. The secondary sources (my jumping off point) are fairly diverse but if you’re actually interested in where I get my information, refer to the primary sources which are mostly websites of local and federal government organizations.
M.B.: So, your opinion simply mimics CNN and MSNBC, that conservatism is backwards. That’s what all your “research” concludes? You may have fooled yourself about objectivity, but although I don’t know you, I’ve got your number.
Meg Phillips I do not agree with social conservatism for the reasons outlined above. Do you have no conservative ideas beyond the social ones? Did you even check out the website? I have sent you a few ideas about my opinion and you only responded to the first sentence. I didn’t say conservatism is backwards but taking away rights already set in place is moving backwards. Slow down and please read what I take the time and care to write.
Creating A Nation United 