> You say that another entity deciding what you, as an adult, can interact with is unacceptable.
To be a bit more precise, what I am saying is that I prefer a higher level of autonomy in general.
Any society needs to agree on how to organize itself, and questions of power seem central to this.
What I am saying is that I prefer
(a) to be consulted about decisions that affect me, and
(b) that I'd like for these decisions to be based on rational, open-minded, curious, where possible fact-based dialog and eventual agreement rather than power politics or undisclosed, possibly questionable reasoning.
I like to have a say in things, and I like to do so based on arguments I can follow.
> It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.
I question the basis of the disagreement, not the disagreement itself.
Why, exactly, do we disagree?
Here I am just not convinced that it's impossible to move beyond said disagreement if both parties are willing to approach the topic in question with an open mind and, and this seems to be a big challenge, in agreement as to the frame and approach and reference points for said discussion.
In other words, there seem to be people who are quite content with being more impulsive and judgmental when forming their opinions, who feel the need to question themselves and others to a far lesser extent than I seem to do.
There seem to be people who are quite happy to make assumptions I would question.
And there seem to be quite a lot of people who dislike being questioned or shown the flaws of their reasoning.
Even if emotionally unpleasant, I prefer to be questioned in good faith than just being agreed with. It's one way for me to learn and grow.
This, in part, seems to drive a lot of disagreements.
I just want to say that I read this whole thread and while I'm not entirely sure i agree with you politically I think this statement is amazing and very well said.
To be a bit more precise, what I am saying is that I prefer a higher level of autonomy in general.
Any society needs to agree on how to organize itself, and questions of power seem central to this.
What I am saying is that I prefer
(a) to be consulted about decisions that affect me, and
(b) that I'd like for these decisions to be based on rational, open-minded, curious, where possible fact-based dialog and eventual agreement rather than power politics or undisclosed, possibly questionable reasoning.
I like to have a say in things, and I like to do so based on arguments I can follow.
> It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.
I question the basis of the disagreement, not the disagreement itself.
Why, exactly, do we disagree?
Here I am just not convinced that it's impossible to move beyond said disagreement if both parties are willing to approach the topic in question with an open mind and, and this seems to be a big challenge, in agreement as to the frame and approach and reference points for said discussion.
In other words, there seem to be people who are quite content with being more impulsive and judgmental when forming their opinions, who feel the need to question themselves and others to a far lesser extent than I seem to do.
There seem to be people who are quite happy to make assumptions I would question.
And there seem to be quite a lot of people who dislike being questioned or shown the flaws of their reasoning.
Even if emotionally unpleasant, I prefer to be questioned in good faith than just being agreed with. It's one way for me to learn and grow.
This, in part, seems to drive a lot of disagreements.