Two conflicting ideas can be correct at the same time. Both sides of one argument can have facts that support it. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is logically sound.
Two ideas that are founded on values can both be correct.
It’s when ideas are founded in mathematical fact that have conflicting ideas that we must remove opposing views. Differentiating between fact and feeling is important to this, but we must address both situations carefully to avoid emotional outburst and physical conflict.
Math is provable. Scientific experimentation can show correlation or causation.
An example of a mathematical debate is the shape of the earth. It is round not flat.
There are two sexes, which is proven in biology.
There are other “hot topics” that are rooted in the hard sciences and because they stem from the hard sciences they have solvable solutions.
An example of this is the gender debate. How many genders are there? There are two genders. This is provable from studying biology and the evolution of any animal, including human.
“But gender is the sex you identify as, not your private parts.”
I’m skeptical but I’ll even give you that. Even if that’s your argument, the psychology of male/female dynamics evolved from the biological differences related to the private parts. There were no additional private parts to evolve from and therefore only the two genders evolved.
Psychology evolved from biology which evolved from chemistry and physics. 30 genders on a job application evolved from screaming lunatics that deny science.
Liberals and conservatives are weird and selective in their science denials. Liberals deny the previously laid out logic and conservatives deny climate change.
Both of these rely more on the observation over time – the evolution of the planet and the species, and scientists support both climate change and no more than two genders.
These scientific claims are based on math, experiment, and observation showing causation.
I caution against claims not based on these. Not against their merit, but in their absolute rightness. Many claims are made in absolutes that don’t have the bullet-proof reasoning to back them up. Many of these claims, the political ones, are based on values.
I caution against using correlation when making your passionate argument. With large enough data sets, there will often be a correlation in favor of the other side of the argument. Correlation can be shown with all sorts of cherry picked statistics.
Conflict is fine. Ideas compete. Physical conflict isn’t.
So let’s talk about it.
Let’s focus on the grey areas. They aren’t even really grey areas though. These areas are black and white to people with one set of values, and white and black for people with the opposing set of values.
What are these values?
There are numerous values that have a virtuous opposite. Sharing versus self growth. Pleasure vs discipline. Honesty vs kindness.
All of these values show up in political debate to some extent, however there is only one that attempts to define the law.
I believe freedom is the core value that politics tries to define.
On one side of freedom you have capitalists that believe you are more free if you are enterprising and create in order to earn your keep. On the other side are socialists who believe everyone is more free if we all contribute and help the lowest out of their reliance on measly sums of income for their livelihood.
On one side of freedom you have feminists that believe women are more free if they can earn the same incomes as men and challenge them in the workplace. Traditionalists say women are more free if they don’t have to provide for herself and the family and instead focus her energy on growing said family.
Gun rights people find freedom in their ability to defend themselves from evil. Gun controllers say there is more freedom in walking around knowing their neighbor doesn’t have a tool that can kill them.
Globalists want to integrate and bring other cultures together, and eliminate the dependency and thought of culture. Nationalists say we can be more free by promoting and embracing our own culture, which they deem best. One wants to just be and the other says it is our culture that allows us to just be.
There are two sides to all of these debate topics and I argue that neither is wrong. There are numbers to support both. Not bulletproof math. But numbers that can show different correlations.
Socialism may not even have correlations to positive attributes. But there’s numbers to prove a capitalist system isn’t working, just as there are examples to show that it is.
This argument that two sides can both be correct bring up more questions.
Can an idea be incorrect? What makes an idea incorrect if two opposing ideas can be correct? Where do these values come from? And, naturally, what do we do about this – how do we live peacefully and productively with people that will never agree with our politics?
One at a time.
Can an idea be incorrect?
If it is not founded in science and is not solvable either by math or repeated experiment and observation then one could argue the idea is not incorrect.
There can be a morality behind some ideas that are unpopular but cannot be logically bulletproof.
An idea can have little political support, or moral support from others. But if 49 of the population thinks we should live in a capitalistic society and 49 percent think we should be socialist and one percent think we should have a national socialist party that forbids Jews, maybe that person has had poor interactions with Jews that shaped his mind to believing this.
It’s hard to prove the idea wrong with logic, and he would have facts to support his side that point to how Jews are a net negative on the planet.
Now, there are laws that dictate you can’t commit genocide to a group of people, and that was determined by a court system to be objectively a good thing. I agree. By the way.
The actions should be suppressed. The idea should not be suppressed. The better idea that appeals to the larger population should win out in politics.
What do we do about this – how do we live peacefully and productively with people that will never agree with our politics?
Not without removing emotion from the picture. You have to be objective and to see things as they are, which includes seeing people as these emotional side-takers.
This is hard. You can’t have a productive discussion of politics because you are challenging someone’s core values.
Core values don’t change. They are built in. Also built it are emotions. Emotions evolved from needs to survive and replicate also. So while they do help us avoid burns and to pursue sex, they evolved before there was a need for political agreement among tribes across a nation or planet.
This middle ground is politics. And it’s messy. Because of the inherent values in individuals, no one is happy in the middle. We are, by nature, extremely conservative or extremely liberal. We can deny this, and many do, but that’s not being honest.
That’s why politics are, by the nature of those arguing, so divided.
Let’s acknowledge that and move on. These huge battles that move the scale a little to the right or left are not only productive, but they are the only way to maintain peace in a world that will always, deep down, vote right or left.
We all want to be free. But freedom is different based on the side of this value-dichotomy you align with.
For modern conservatives, freedom is the ability to choose what matters and pursue that, uninhibited by the wants and needs of others. For modern liberals, freedom is the ability to do whatever, whenever, and if necessary to share so that others can do the same.
Accepting this doesn’t make decisions easier. It does allow you to understand why there is another side to, what appears to you, the obvious truth.
Acceptance of this view allow you to be less emotional and more detached from the decisions that have slight control over your life. You do not allow these decisions to change your emotion, because it’s natural that they will try to do that.
Why is the country split so massively in the core values it holds? Where do these values come from?
I have an answer to that, but it’s messy, and requires a post of its own.