Critical thinking skills: Who here has them?

I will start. In each of these cases note that "having a valid point" doesn't necessarily mean I would change the policy. Sometimes rights conflict and you have to choose one. "Valid point" means just that. It is a valid point.

1) I believe the conservatives make a valid point about free-speech. Speech, particularly on certain topics, is being suppressed in campuses and there are viewpoints that are being squelched on campus and in the media.

2) I believe conservatives made a valid point about religious liberty. Forcing bakeries to create cakes for a marriage of which they don't approve does impinge on their freedom of association.

3) I believe that conservatives have valid points about the rapid societal change around ideas about gender. Issues around transgender athletes in woman's sport are real. And there are legitimate concerns around the impact that new ideas challenging gender roles have on the education of young children.

1) I believe that liberals make a valid point about systemic racial injustice in law enforcement and in society in general. There are demonstrable ways that policing and police attitudes unfairly treat minority communities and cause damage.

2) I believe the liberals make a valid point about Universal Health care. In a society that values equity, fairness and compassion (we don't let poor people die), it doesn't make sense to have profit-based institutions at the core of our health care system.

3) I believe that liberals make a valid point about voter fairness. We want an equal democracy where voting is the same for Americans regardless of race or wealth (i.e. it is equally easy). There is no evidence of significant fraud, making voting as easy for minority communities as it is for everyone else is the only way to have a free and fair democracy. This should mean making voting open and easy for everyone.

Conservative points:
Gun rights are vital to our freedom regardless of the costs, even if the costs are high.
Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates. The costs of widespread gun ownership are low.
We need a strong and powerful military to keep the bad guys in check.

Progressive points:
A strong social safety net paid for by high taxes on the ultra-wealthy is good for the nation.
Nonviolent unions are good for workers and good for the nation.
We should protect the environment and our ecosystem.

That's interesting Oralloy.

1) I don't remember seeing you argue for a social safety net. Did you support either Obama care, or Obama's attempts to strengthen the social safety net?

2) And what specific policies from the left do you support to strengthen unions? A pro-union stance means getting rid of the so-called "Right to work" laws (which Unions hate). Do you support getting rid of right to work laws?

3) How would you protect the environment and the ecosystem? Do you support the attempts to block pipelines and stop drilling in the ANWAR?

I am pushing you a bit here Oralloy, because if you are just saying platitudes "social safety net" and "unions" and "environment" without talking about them the way that liberals do, then it doesn't count.

I am asking how "liberals have a valid point". So for this to count, you have to support specific points that liberals actually take. If you are actually in favor of the efforts to stop drilling in ANWR, that would be something.

Are you doing that?

I do it on rare occasions. The Second Amendment takes precedence.

By the way, going way off topic for a single line here: Have you gotten yourself vaccinated? If not try to get yourself vaccinated really fast. The UK strain of the virus is about to clobber the nation.



That depends. When it was being passed I mostly ignored it and argued about the Second Amendment instead.

When it first came into effect in 2014 I did have a couple misconceptions against it that I spouted in ignorance in the first few days. I was quickly corrected, and I didn't repeat them once I knew better.

Mr. Obama did lie to justify the program, and I have called him on the lies vociferously. But calling him on his lies is not really opposition to the program.

I view the Healthcare exchanges and the subsidies as a good thing. I support that part of Obamacare.

I view Medicaid as abysmal. I think instead of expanding Medicaid, they should have directed the poor to the healthcare exchanges and given them subsidies. I think that would cost a lot more, but I think the poor would be much better off for it. So I oppose the Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare. But my opposition is from a leftist position of opposing it because it should be doing even more for the poor.

Now and then throughout the years I see leftists arguing for a "public option" or for a "single payer system". I find that most of the time these leftists don't have any idea what either term means. I generally oppose these people because I think it's bad for laws to come from ignorance. Due to such ignorance, a law implementing one of those terms might actually be implementing something entirely different.

I don't however actually oppose the public option or a single payer system if that is actually what is on offer (and I do understand what both terms mean). In fact, Obamacare actually had a public option until Mr. Trump eliminated it. I get my health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges, and I took the public option every year until it was abolished.

So, a bit of a complex answer there. I supported and opposed different things at different times.



Aside from Obamacare, I cannot think of any other attempts. If I'm forgetting something, feel free to refresh my memory.



It's not an issue that I have given much thought to.



Again it's not an issue that I've given much thought to.



I think as much electricity as possible should come from renewables. If all of our electricity can come from renewables that will be great, but I am highly skeptical that it can.

I support more nuclear reactors (preferably sodium cooled) to provide clean electricity to make up for whatever renewables cannot produce.

I'd like to see North America's primeval forests replanted and restored.

There is a huge chuck of primeval forest left unlogged in Maine. I'd like to see all of that protected and preserved in a wilderness state.



No. I see pipelines as the most environmentally friendly way to transport fuel.



Since that land is pristine, I support keeping it that way.



Progressives are not liberals and should not be allowed to claim that title for themselves.

I can support issues differently from the way the left does and still support the issues.



Since ANWR is pristine, I support keeping it pristine.

Same for that huge swathe of pristine forest in the center of Maine.

Ok Good. After parsing that (and filtering out the irrelevant comments about your opinions of progressives), you met you criteria I set.

You are willing to support parts of Healthcare, and don't oppose single payer. Those are liberal positions.

And your views on ANWR are definitely a liberal position.

I accept that.

I have not been vaccinated. I work from home, don't have any comorbidities, and am under 65. I will wait my turn but get my vaccine as soon as I am told it is appropriate. My brother got it, but he does work in an emergency room.

I'm spending most of my time at home too. But you never know when something will go wrong and you will end up exposed to the virus despite your precautions.

Another deadly exponential spike in cases is imminent. This time it's the UK strain that is exponentially spiking, and it spreads much more easily than the original strain.

If I recall correctly you are in Massachusetts.

According to this page:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-covid-19-vaccination-phases

On April 5 they will start doing people age 55 and over.

On April 19 they will start doing everyone.

No need to post your age. But it's time to start trying to book the first available appointment after either April 5 or April 19.

npr

Do you agree with this law Hightor? If you do, I would

1) Be a little surprised.
2) Count it as an opinion you hold that is outside your partisan bubble. This would challenge my opinion that you always take the predictable politically left view on any issue.

Should I be surprised?

Critical thinking is about questioning the beliefs of your own side. The point of this thread is to point out positions you take that are outside of your predictable ideological bubble.

Every other thread will allow you to line up on issues in lockstep agreement with everyone else in your ideological side. The point of this thread is to see where you can think freely enough to accept a position from the other political side.

The question I have for Hightor (or any other liberal here) is what are the issues on which you think the conservatives have a valid point?

The measure means that health care workers are compelled to participate in emergency treatments that violate their conscience. What's the deal?

This is a thread about the ability to see the validity of positions outside of your own ideological bubble.

Are you doing that? If not, than your post is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. It seems to me your position on this issue is exactly what I would expect given my understanding of your political ideology.

Do you want to try again with another issue where you aren't in lock-step agreement with predictable liberal dogma?

The point of this thread is to find examples of critical thinking, where you can step out of your ideological bubble and see the validity of points made by the other side. You seem to be having trouble with this.

It is not necessary that one feel a particular position is "valid" (virtually all positions are valid)...if one agrees with the thrust of the position. If American conservatives see position "a" as one they favor...and a liberal sees opposition to position "a" as a political liability...it makes sense for the liberal to avoid opposition position "a" if a greater good can be achieved by avoiding it.

I think you are confusing political partisanship with critical thinking.

Of course, the partisan thing to do is to refuse to give an inch when fighting with the "other side". Your side is always right. Their side is racist and stupid. That is the way the political game is played these days.

Critical thinking means that facts and reason are more important than the political fight. When the other side makes a valid point, I feel it is good to say "hey that is a valid point".

The lie of 21 century American politics is that you have to choose a side when it comes to facts.

I listen to the members of African American communities who are upset with the deaths and abuse coming at the hands of police. I also listen to the members of the Police who are upset they are being demonized in spite of doing their best in a difficult job and that these protests are making their job more dangerous.

Both of these points of view are valid (and fact based). And if you want to make things better, you had damned well listen to the needs of both groups of American citizens.

I don't think that living in ideological bubbles is a good thing. I get it; liberals want to win the fight and show that the conservatives with whom they share a country are all stupid racist fascists. And, conservatives what to win the fight and show that liberals are all America-hating socialists. And so we keep getting more and more divided.

When winning is more important than facts or reason, it is not good for you. It is not good for our society.

Ok... this thread has been here for more than 24 hours now. Let's look at the results of this little experiment.

Of all the self-identified liberals here (myself excluded) there is not a single example of where they are willing or able to admit that the other side has a valid point; not even in a single case. I think Oralloy identifies as a conservative (he can correct me if I am wrong). He came up with some good examples where he accepts typically liberal positions.

Being able to see good arguments from different viewpoints is a an important cognitive skill. I wish that people could drop the endless partisan fighting and make an attempt to do this. This continual sniping from the two political streams seems meaningless, I don't get the appeal.

Um...I didn't state my position on the issue.

It's not an issue which directly affects me and I don't mind considering it from different perspectives. Venturing outside of max's "ideological bubble" and looking critically at the ramifications of the law from a libertarian perspective leads to one position; a communitarian point of view will be completely different. My comment addressed the validity of a particular libertarian viewpoint on a subject which I have no occasion to think about in my daily life. How is this "lock-step agreement with predictable liberal dogma"?

Exactly. That is the problem. The whole point of this thread is for you to state specific political points made by conservatives that you think are valid. From the first post, I have asked you to give me three (significant, non-ironic) points where you think conservatives make a valid point.

So far you have failed to give me one. All you have done is make the types of predictable partisan posts that I would expect.

So please, the point of this thread is for you to say where you think conservatives make a valid point. Can you do that?

Sure. The whole point of my post was to show how, when played out in the practical world, the binary distinction is often deceptive.

Where did I make a "partisan post"? You asked me if I agreed with a law. I pointed to a possible objection from a very libertarian perspective, a view outside of your predicted "ideological bubble".

It is very simple Hightor.

I am asking for you to state an significant issue where you think conservatives make a valid point. You can either do this, or you can't. The rest is blathering.

That is the point of this thread. I have given you several examples on both sides. Can you do it?