March 8th

It has been possible in nearly every situation (that I can think of that applies here) to get through to people who are holding convictions of rage. That said, it takes skill, time, patience and [here's the typical kicker for people] actually a bit of love and respect.

                      They will not hear you if they don't feel you're listening to them.

Of course often they're not listening to you, but that's the first trick. Both sides must be engaged to play the game and aware of what the game entails: in this scenario a debate in which you are each trying to sway the other's opinions.
           I'm going to use as an example a stalemate-debate that I had recently with an anti-choice extremist (a lot of them there were hardcore, this guy is taking it to the extreme). Using a simple good-cop bad-cop routine he was encouraged to step aside and talk to me reasonably calmly.

His first remark; "They're going to tell you I hate women, it's not true.... [etc] .." at this point he was talking, game mode not engaged. My reply ("I don't care for rumour, I'd like to know why you're here?") started the game.

[Add: there would have been a couple of examples here of how someone can get something past you openly, make you in conversation agree to something in principle by a round-about route and then start pushing you on it... It's [antisocial] manipulation style 001. A prime example is What'sHisName, ThatCockWhoFuckedOverTheUK and the breastfeeding thing "I don't think it's hard to.." no it's not hard but that doesn't make it right to literally force people into a corner either, what an asshole. Anyway so this a placeholder that's uh I guess sorta filled now.. Haha! Thanks asshole, you're such a smooth operator it was so fucking easy to find this link].

[...transition/cut...]



There's a hard white line when I'm debating. It's nigh-on impossible to break through... It's the opinions that I don't wish to change (almost regardless of evidence presented, though the scientist in me can't help but pay attention to shit like that.. which is why my opinions sometimes change and I admit that I was wrong, or way off base or whatever). I figure this is probably much the same for many people I meet/debate, you have thoughts that don't count for as much and things that are more core beliefs.

Pretty soon into the conversation with Bob [the most generic pseudonym] I realised that his hard line disagreed with something that [from my perspective] I didn't know how to explain to him. Life is ultimately death. There is no god and any person could (in action, if not conscience) murder another. We don't because at some fundamental level there are much better (for us and others) things to do with our time, even on really shitty days when you just want to punch the customer that's still complaining.. we don't because there's something better to do, and because actually literally killing someone probably has a high likelihood of break/damaging your psyche [perception through which you can interact and engage with the world external to self] [Add: uh, not to mention the legal and social ramifications].. But in physical actuality (i.e. reality) this and smaller (casual cruelty) versions happen all the fucking time.

The way I see it, people have an active choice. Assuming as I do that life with it entails some respect (human rights, which I see applicable to everything through to bugs because they're fucking alive too) and acknowledging that while respect remains constant for alive things my love/care for them shifts with how much I like them and how much I believe they've earned it. i.e. A squalling baby can make me grin with it's wonder for the sky and I feel some love, a wild bird flies down so close to my hand it's showing it knows I will never harm it and that earns a kind of devotion from me, someone beats a prisoner to death...* ** I would (try to talk them down but) do physically nothing to prevent them as they hung themselves in front of me though I'd put my body and mind between them and mob.

From which perspective: an unborn life has seen nothing of the world, has no connections beyond its mother and very little if any perception of the universe. It is the right of a mother (there's exceptions here, clearly) to take responsibility for their child, and if they choose to end a barely-aware life that is in utero - embryonic I have no problems with that. Because life is ultimately death and there's no fate carrying us along, only time.. [imo: fate is vibrations of the universe that people are miseeing]. We have done what we do because some part of us chose to do it; it's down to us to own the actions and responsibly move through our lives.

I'm reading this back (and I don't know right now that this is ever gonna be posted) maybe I am a bit antisocial. Hmmmm............
* [in present mindset at least]  ** [I have no right to decide for another what their purpose in life is, if a murderer cannot live with past actions then I am .. a citizen and I have no right to stop someone from taking their own life.. that said I've been in situations wherein my body has acted to hold onto people before mind as caught up, so who knows until they're presented with a real scenario..?]

[Final Add: ..So as you can see this piece didn't really get finished so much as.. (Like with the AHCA's old placeholder, you can see where I'm going with this...) so much as, I'm gonna post now before I get a better idea and delete the whole thing.. Happy Tuesday! (Mar.14)]