- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,838 (0.78/day)
System Name | Aquarium |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 9 7950x |
Motherboard | ROG Strix X670-E |
Cooling | Lian Li Galahead 360 AIO |
Memory | 2x16gb Flare X5 Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-6000 PC5-48000 |
Video Card(s) | Asus RTX 3060 |
Storage | 2TB WD SN850X Black NVMe, 500GB Samsung 970 NVMe |
Display(s) | Gigabyte 32" IPS 144Hz |
Case | Hyte Y60 |
Power Supply | Corsair RMx 850 |
Software | Win 11 Pro/ PopOS! |
It's one thing to dream and something completely different to legislate. With legislation we have only four options: 1) decide this is not something government can or should define and do nothing, 2) repeal a previous law, 3) amend a previous law, or 3) author something entirely new. In every case, it comes down to one of four choices: 1) Don't show up at all (don't support), 2) YAY (support), 3) NO (don't support), or 4) Present (don't support). As pointed out in the parenthesis, there's only two options: support or don't support. There is no middle ground. In law, you are in support of, or opposed to, everything. Anything between the two extremes is considered as being opposed. Nuanced answers like the one you gave doesn't work in legislation--that's why it comes down to support or oppose.
It really doesn't matter how nuanced something is, it can always be broken down to a support or oppose vote. Just try to think of a situation--a theoretical law--where support or oppose wouldn't work. You'll eventually come to a conclusion one way or another eventually. That is why legislation works. It asks the politicians if they fundamentally agree or disagree on the subject: nuance, if included, plays little role in the outcome.
I belong in bed so I may have to rewrite that one later...
Your right, and my idealism and abstractness sometimes has no practical place, but that's really goal right, to meld dream and reality. I understand what you mean, it can eventually only go one of two ways when it comes to the vote, if we constantly debated everything with ourselves nothing would get done. Still, it seems to me like the thought process leading up to those votes may be where the nuanced collectivism can take place, and perhaps where we differ most is w/ the word fundamental. Fundamentally, I believe no one should own a gun. If I were to be congressman though (heaven forbid) and devoid of the external influences of partisanship and lobbyists, I would probably vote for gun rights (excluding the notion that everyone owns guns all the time anywhere, I would vote against that one). This wouldn't come from a fundamental belief or disagreement that guns should not be permitted, but an understanding of why they should (at least for the time being). And that thought process should in no way align me with any partisanship, nor should it have any effect on completely different subjects (making me fundamentally conservative or liberal). Hence, again, a lack of fundamentalism, in it's stead perhaps an overarching line in which I could be compared to many, with many schools of thought and others ideas. I am too small to believe I am fundamentally right all the time about the well-being of everyone, thus my vote does not, can not, stem from any fundamental opinion I hold.
Have a good one, thanks for humoring my meanderings.
Last edited: