What would it take for you to believe....

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I spent far too much time watching atheism vs theism debates on youtube. The level of discourse was rarely impressive, and upon watching much of it, I realized it's circles and circles and talking past one another. However, there was a segment I saw on Fox, where, oddly enough, nobody got angry and raised their voices!

It was 3 women and 2 men. One of the men was the resident atheist (David Silverman) and the other was a pastor/preacher of some variety. The feminine presence may have helped it devolve in the way that the usual religious shouting matches on Fox become.

I often noted that atheists were virtually never (not once, that I recall seeing) debating a woman--it was virtually always male clergy, although sometimes it was not clergy and merely an academic believer--philosopher or religious studies usually. Anyway, in this Fox segment it was nice to see women involved and perhaps they helped keep the mood calm.

The question that this particular clip made me focus upon was: "What would it take for you to believe..." And obviously the atheist asks this about Thor and the religious ask the atheist this about God in general. But I want to make this a more political than religious question.
Assume the opposite of whatever you currently believe:

What would it take for you to believe the minimum wage is a good/bad thing? What would it take for you to believe raising the min wage is a good/bad thing?

What would it take for you to believe that abortion is moral/immoral?

What would it take for you to believe that we should legalize/criminalize marijuana or LSD?

There are a million such questions, and I think when we debate things, it would be most helpful to know what it would take to convince another person of something. While asking each particular would be agonizing, we might attempt to generalize into a principle. Minimize harm, maximize freedom and enjoyment. I suspect we might all agree with that principle, and then it's always the question of what specifics we think meet that principle.

What would it take for you to support/oppose UHC?

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

The love of a good woman.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Have you tried the love of a bad woman? It's a hell of a drug....

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

These questions itself aren't exactly about belief, unlike the atheism vs theism.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why not? Is not belief in the invisible hand of the free market similar to the belief in the invisible hand of the design-creator God?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It all comes down to evidence. Some things, like morality, are certainly more of a judgement call based on one's own values and such, but even those are subject to evidence (such as evidence of fetal harm or viability in the abortion debate, for example). Really, what does it take? Evidence. Information.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It all comes down to evidence.

Ender should have asked about Voter I.D. laws.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Be specific if you are able to.

What would it take for you to believe raising the min wage is a good idea?

What evidence would saw your opinion?

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

I'm amenable to peer reviewed facts on just about any subject.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Ah, but what about quantum mechanics?
I will try to describe, briefly, a problem. Roughly lifted from Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe:

Imagine Itchy and Scratchy are on a moving train and are going to have a duel. They are in a train car, at each end. In the exact middle between them is a lightbulb. When the light goes on, the duel begins.

To an observer who is on the train, the light reaches them both at the exact same time.
To an observer who is not on the train, but standing on the platform watching the train go by, the light reaches the one who is in the back of the car--since train is moving forward.

What is the factual answer to the question, who does the light reach first?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I was only so-so in Debate because I couldn't argue opposite of my beliefs with any conviction.

I could believe that raising the minimum wage was a bad thing if we lived in a world where everyone lavished in luxury and employers big or small struggled to make ends meet.

I could believe abortion was immoral if couples wanting to adopt could find no babies or foster children to adopt.

I could believe marijuana should be illegal if it killed people, destroyed families with addiction and led people to increasingly depraved and desperate attempts to obtain it.

I could oppose UHC if there was an industrialized nation anywhere that had a fully private system that delivered comparable results.

I believe in Thor because I look around and well, no frost giants. And during every thunderstorm, I hear His chariot racing in the clouds.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What if raising the minimum wage *did result* in there being fewer jobs available? Say, whenever we saw a min wage increase over $1/hour, we saw the number of min wage jobs decrease by 5%, or 10%? Would you still think we need/should raise the min wage?

What if legalizing marijuana increase rates of harder drug use? (cocaine, heroin, meth) I've heard it argued that: "It's good that marijuana is illegal. Kids want to mess around with the illegal stuff, and if pot was legal, they'd be experimenting with some really dangerous stuff, instead of a harmless plant."

What if a 1-month old fetus could feel pain? Cause for me, when it comes to abortion, that's kinda my line. Wherever science says that the life form inside the mother can feel pain, that is when abortion is not OK (obvious exceptions for health of mother) cause then it's causing harm to another living thing. Until the collection of cells can feel pain, I don't, personally, feel that it's a human life. (life is suffering, after all)


It's very important to be able to see the other side. Audi alteram partem--hear the other side.
I try my best to be able to understand multiple viewpoints; I know where I stand on most of them, but I want to understand why others disagree. Sometimes I am so baffled it hurts my noggin--e.g. the lady who is in love with the Golden Gate Bridge

I cannot for the life of me understand that. Self-loathing jewish Nazis make more sense than that. At least with something like supremacist groups, it's an easy to understand ideology; wrong, but simple. Religion is sometimes wonderfully simple--but it is also complex. People believe for a bunch of reasons, most of which they would never admit.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

What would it take for you to believe the minimum wage is a good/bad thing? What would it take for you to believe raising the min wage is a good/bad thing?

For me to believe that the min. wage is a bad thing, a couple of troubling issues would have to resolve themselves. A: I would have to see a trend towards looser wages across the entire lower spectrum. (Lets say between $0 and $50,000.) Companies would start paying their employees a living wage, rather than a wage that continually loses buying power (read: inflation, CPI). B: A federal level program that allowed people to job train for a set number of months (lets say 12) and in return they were able to live off of government assistance. Both of these things, in conjunction, would allow me to believe that there is always a floor at which the lowest paid segments of our population would be able to better themselves, or at least live at a level that is above "all-but-in-name-slavery."

What would it take for you to believe that abortion is moral/immoral?

Unfortunately this question is so deeply tied into basic morality that very little would change my mind rather than a complete mind-wipe of my desire for scientific evidence. The question of "abortion good? abortion bad?" is ultimately what someone specific would consider "life." A scientific person would agree that life depends entirely on viability. If a 12 week old fetus were to be born, would it have any chance of life? Then no, it is not viable and as such not "life." I understand that the moral objections are many and just as sincere as my own, however like almost every other opinion I have my stance is based on factual understanding, and not moral hand-waving.

What would it take for you to believe that we should legalize/criminalize marijuana or LSD?

Devil's Advocate: Marijuana is tightly tied to addiction, mental health issues and of course illegal activity. There is a strong correlation between people with criminal or addiction issues and their use of pot (meaning that most criminals spoke weed somewhat frequently.) For all of these reasons it should be banned as a blah blah wharrgarble....can't possibly continue with this level of stupid.

Look, I live in Colorado, (near Boulder of all places) today we were able to buy weed LEGALLY and smoke it...you know what happened? Dick all. The moral fabric of society hasn't torn to shreds, there aren't raving bands of THC crazed lunatics cutting down your trees and molesting your dogs. There's going to be a lot of unintended consequences of this law change, but the reality is that the EVIDENCE doesn't back up 90% of what I said above.

As I see it, the problem with people debating isn't that one side's gonna give up and change their minds in most cases. The problem that we see these days is that people refuse to accept that other opinions have merit, and that the people who believe them have their own level of intensity and self-righteousness about their opinions. The problem with the state of things right now is that you cannot be liberal without being called a communist, a conservative without hating the poor, and a Tea Party affiliate without hating everything. (Okay, I'm signing onto the last one, but I digress.)

Our opinions don't have to change, our acceptance of people with different ones does.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

If I was shown evidence that every downside to raising the minimum wage that I have learned of thus far was wrong, I may be more inclined to believe in raising it.

If there were no miscarriages, I may be more inclined to believe there is a supreme being against the murder of an innocent fetus.

I have mixed feelings on marijuana legalization, but as far as LSD goes - I would be more inclined to support its legalization if I didn't have an uncle who was batshit crazy the last thirty years of his life because of it.

I would be more inclined to support UHC if I believed my government to be competent enough to handle such an order, and if the end result was more people having access to it, (and if my health insurance hadn't nearly doubled in the last eighteen months....)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I do not understand what your current health insurance, as run by private insurance companies, has to do with the idea of UHC.

Do you believe the govt is competent enough to provide healthcare to the military? Where does John McCain go when he needs surgery done? If it's good enough for top military brass, why is it not good enough for you or me? Or are military/govt run hospitals somehow different?


And, allow me to ask: Do you think alcohol should be criminalized? I cannot imagine you do not know any person/people who have been damaged by it. Surely, you aren't so selfish as to think any drug that harmed someone you care about should be ilegal, while the drugs that harm OTHER PEOPLE, well, you think are A-OK. I cannot imagine you are that kind of person.


What downsides do you believe exist to raising the min wage?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Opposing UHC would require me to have a shit ton of cash and to abandon my ethics.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What if (and remember, the whole point here is to create a "what if" that would make you change your mind!)

What if counties with UHC had lower life expectancy? Higher fetal death rates? Terrible teeth?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Evidence and reason should be the answer, though the problem is that the waters tend to get muddied by ideologues and moneyed interests. Beyond that, it usually comes down to how one's life is affected. We've seen time and again those who oppose homosexuality suddenly have a change of heart when their kid comes out (or steadfastly cling to their bigotry because their belief in ancient social norms trumped loving and supporting their child), or those who opposed marijuana but changed their mind when a family member or friend suffered through cancer, or those who oppose health care reform until they get priced out of the market or rack up outrageous bills leading to financial ruin. I suspect there are some who oppose a minimum wage that might also change their minds if/when they lose their jobs and are forced to flip burgers when their unemployment insurance dries up.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

[wiki] Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true.

minimum wage: oppose it because it sets a false floor; an arbitrary legal minimum for those businesses who have no idea what to pay a worker. I could support a base pay if the wage was tiered to reward the achievement of a skill level, if managers have a tiered skill level minimum wage as well.

Currently I think abortion is a final option that should be protected by law. Whether anyone thinks medically terminated pregnancies as 'moral' or not, is moot because this right has been upheld. Morality does not enter into the argument. If I could be considered to rethink my position that abortion is a pure political wedge issue for the right wing I might be more willing to listen to sound medical arguments.

Cannabis and LSD, currently I am proactive on re-legalizing both. I reckon I have cognitive dissonance on this issue. Knowing the facts, hearing the other arguments and understanding the difference,when it comes to self ingestion, I'm a freedom fighter. There is no other side of the argument when it comes to defending or attacking prohibition models.


UHC: I favor it. Anything that gets us to the level of The Federation, including advance free health care is a worthy goal. I could be convinced to oppose it if we all became immortal.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"when it comes to self ingestion, I'm a freedom fighter. There is no other side of the argument when it comes to defending or attacking prohibition models."


So no matter amount of, and again, this is hypothetical, no amount of harm to others could sway you?

I recall reading an argument about the criminalization/legalization of drugs, in general, and the author offered the idea that:

"If a drug, once ingested, made all users who consumned the drug violent and mindless, then yes, such a drug should be outlawed. No known substance works that way, so no drug should be outlawed" (rough paraphrase)

Now, if a drug did make all users violent and mindless, a sort of temporary zombie-like-haze, would you still believe it should be legal? What if, and again, hypothetical here, what if legalizing pot lead to a 10x increase in fatal car accidents? (I would want to investigate such data, but this is a what if here)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> What would it take for you to believe the minimum wage is a good/bad thing? What would it take for you to believe raising the min wage is a good/bad thing?

Good/bad for whom. I'm sure one group would consider it good, and another, bad. Good for society as a whole? Then we have to define "good" and "society as a whole". Is it used in the sense of "economically beneficial"? "Ethically consistent"? There's too much ambiguity in the question, to be able to give a definite answer. What we're left with, is feelings. Do I *feel* that having a minumum wage is "good" (as in, a "nice thing")? Probably. Why? I'm not sure from what angle am I supposed to explain it.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

It's good because it evens out the ups and downs of the economy on those who are most at risk of being marginalized. The biggest problem is that, at least in the US, it's set by the political whims rather than anything predictable, which isn't really good for either employers or employees in the long term. Setting it like Social Security payments wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a great improvement.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I'd like to say evidence is the one thing that tends to convince people in the veracity of an assertion, but if we're to be entirely frank, there's also personal, anecdotal experience that tends to turn things around. Take the abortion issue for example. One could argue that it's immoral for example - until they or their close ones are personally affected. Then chances are they'd turn the other page. Same with food stamps, minimum wage, etc etc.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Eventually, you reach a bootstrap. What's your evidence that evidence is convincing?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Evidence is fine and all, but most of the questions posed have more to do with unintended consequences than some lack of data in the decision making process. For example, I'm all for UHC, but not in the way the ACA was implemented. In the US, our biggest problem is that health care is too expensive. This forces more and more people out of the system every year. We've now modeled our national health care system off of Massachusetts' system. Massachusetts has the highest per capita health care costs of any state, so should expect health care costs to increase. This could very well cause more employers to cut health care as a benefit and more people to pass on individual policies, leading to more people being uninsured. Of course, I hope this isn't the case, but we are taking a big risk.

I'd have preferred an approach that tried to reduce costs. You can find dozens of articles comparing a certain procedure in the US with other countries where the costs in the US are five or ten times greater for no rational reason, yet controlling these costs weren't part of the ACA. What would make me change my mind on this? If US health care costs start dropping, I'll be onboard. Of course, the evidence will be after the fact, so I'm not sure it will do much good.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

ACA did NOT impliment UHC

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Just hypothesizing here: Minimum wage would be a bad thing if every job was unionized because it would give employers a price floor to negotiate on. Price negotiations in low skill jobs would always revolve around how close or far from minimum wage it was.

UHC is not the only solution. You can oppose it on the grounds of wanting a system like in Germany/Japan, which basically government-mandated, heavily-regulated private insurance. The US might be heading towards such a system anyway.

Moral/Immoral is not a facts-based position, so I can't comment on that.

You can oppose current drugs if they made cheaper, safer versions of them that were basically mass produced by the government. More tax income and a controlled environment.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

An excellent query. Far too many spout their opinions without realizing they are just opinions, not facts.

I would indeed challenge you to challenge your questions. Instead of the minimum wage issue, why not focus on a maximum wage? That is indeed the crux of the biscuit. Without a cap on maximum wages—even a non-specific cap like a continuing escalation on top marginal brackets—the minimum wage will constantly need to be revised upward to silly town.

Oh, even better: why not just link the two? The lower the median wage/higher the unemployment rate, the higher the upper brackets and the percentage they demand!

Sadly, I think Jeff nails it, but doesn't go quite far enough. Economics today (and yesterday, and the day before) is largely just a bunch of numbers designed to make a particular moral mindset feel good about having a particular moral mindset because it's supported by "science."

There's a reason Alfred Nobel never endowed this "science," and a bigger reason the prize has been since 1968 offered in his name . . . by a bank.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Economics is not just a bunch of numbers; it is a representation of reality. It's one lens to look through, but "economics" is the stuff of life!

Economic impacts are very real, and not merely a matter of framing numbers this way or that. A million unemployed people are real people, not just numbers on a graph.

And sure, maximum wage is also fair game; I was using things that people have opinions about.

The theism/atheism debate is usually like that too; most people are totally aware of what side they are on, and to get them to change their minds would require something....note-worthy. Introducing a new concept changes the game, a little.


I assume you think a maximum wage is a good idea. Let me try to flip it:
What would it take for you to think a maximum wage is a BAD idea?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I roll a d-20 and attempt to disbelieve.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]