# The Challenge



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

Hey, 

In a previous thread I made the point of people finding "common ground" in the midst of conflict, argument, debate and disagreement.
I was expecting more responses but I believe because of what the topic turned into many people have been ignoring it. 
So I am putting "The Challenge" in this thread.

*The Challenge....*
*When you are discussing a topic in this thread or any other first address your point of view on whether you agree or not. Address it as much as you like, in a nice way of course.  Then at the end or in a seperate post IMMEDIATLY following your first post find something to agree on with the person that you are disagreeing with.   Even if it is something very small.*
*Remeber the Domino effect when doing this.  It just takes one to start them all.*

Soo, that is the challenge.
I hope everyone on the whole site will get involved. I believe it could make a huge difference not only in the MA community but in everyones daily lives.

I will start...(post to follow)...

I hope you all will stand up and participate.  
Please.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

Ok I will try and start with something simple.
First I will put my point of view. As I am the first I will wait for a disagreement if one comes to put how I agree.



Ok, so the gas prices, just outrageous ha?  So I ask myself, what about the different types of fuel.  Well I like the hybrid cars, but you know I would probably never buy one. Not because I dont like the enviroment, just because in this day and age they dont seem real practical.  And Im like...hmmm...I have to plug it in??  LOL LOL.
So its like hey what about water cars?  Or ethanol cars? I wonder when they will make those more widly available right?   I mean geese get them out there then maybe we wouldnt need forgein fuel suppliers right?
Then I also think about how different fuel sources can not only help when it comes to cars, but also houses and so on.   I mean how cool would it be if we could use only a small amount of oil where it would not longer be such a "barganing" tool.  If you know what I mean.
So anyways..Lots more on what I think of that...LOL...later...LOL


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 14, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Ok I will try and start with something simple.
> First I will put my point of view. As I am the first I will wait for a disagreement if one comes to put how I agree.
> 
> 
> ...


 

I believe the hybird cars is this country future, we already have the technology it is our government that will not let them be mass produce for the general public and they can make a midsize car as well.
Now ethonal is a great option but do not know much about it.
Terry


----------



## crushing (Sep 14, 2006)

I worry about the true costs of ethanol as a fuel, and competing with automobiles for food.  We both have voracious appetites.

As far as the poll:

Can "common ground" be accomplished no matter the topic?

I voted "No it goes against our nature" because it was the closest to my thoughts.  I don't think finding common ground goes against our nature, I just think there are some things in which we end up agreeing to disagree.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Sep 14, 2006)

Personally, as long as the other combatant and myself have but one thing in common, I believe common ground can be found.


----------



## John Brewer (Sep 14, 2006)

I saw a special where a South American Country like Peru or something had completely converted to Ethanol. The vehicles were made by American companies like GM. Do we still pay farmers not to farm? If so couldn't we just have them grow products that we can produce Ethanol from?

I voted that yes we can find common ground. Isn't agreeing to disagree common ground?


----------



## crushing (Sep 14, 2006)

Crane557 said:


> I voted that yes we can find common ground. Isn't agreeing to disagree common ground?


 
I see agreeing to disagree as a recognition that common ground will not be found.  Agreeing to disagree may be considered a common ground separate to the dispute in which the common ground wasn't found.  What it seems to imply is that the parties won't be escalating the disagreement to violence or torture to impress their views on the other.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 14, 2006)

crushing said:


> I see agreeing to disagree as a recognition that common ground will not be found. Agreeing to disagree may be considered a common ground separate to the dispute in which the common ground wasn't found. What it seems to imply is that the parties won't be escalating the disagreement to violence or torture to impress their views on the other.


 
I believe if you would like to find common ground then you will and if you choose not to you want.
Terry


----------



## crushing (Sep 14, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> I believe if you would like to find common ground then you will and if you choose not to you want.
> Terry


 
I know this really oversimplifies typical disagreements, but:

You say 1+1=2.  Some person disagrees with you and says 1+1=3.  Are you willing to find that 1+1=2.5?  What if the other person isn't willing to meet you at 2.5 and still demands that 1+1=3?  They won't even meet you at 2.75 or 2.99.  If finding common ground means that you must think that 1+1=3, isn't that worse than not finding common ground, for you at least?  What have you given up of yourself?


----------



## zDom (Sep 14, 2006)

crushing said:


> I know this really oversimplifies typical disagreements, but:
> 
> You say 1+1=2.  Some person disagrees with you and says 1+1=3.  Are you willing to find that 1+1=2.5?  What if the other person isn't willing to meet you at 2.5 and still demands that 1+1=3?  They won't even meet you at 2.75 or 2.99.  If finding common ground means that you must think that 1+1=3, isn't that worse than not finding common ground, for you at least?  What have you given up of yourself?



I agree. Attempting to find common ground is noble, but not always feasible.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 14, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> I believe the hybird cars is this country future,
> Terry


 
I think the hybrids are a step in the right direction, but ultimately fall short. 

I am afraid that we have really pushed the limits with our consumption of oil based products, and the pollution that they generate.  We really need to find a way to eliminate our reliance on non-renewable resources like oil and coal.  If we don't, I believe we are going to be in for some serious global trouble within our lifetimes.  I am actually concerned that it may even be too late, we may have already crossed a critical line from which the planet will not be able to recover in a timeframe that is meaningful to humankind.  

Just this morning, as I walked to work, I saw the headlines in the San Francisco Chronicle, indicating that the polar icecap shows signs of continuous melting even during winter months.  I think more damage has already been done than we know, or that we have yet been willing to acknowledge.

I hope I am wrong about this, and I am just being overly paranoid.  But if I'm right, we are in for a rough ride, my friends...


----------



## John Brewer (Sep 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I think the hybrids are a step in the right direction, but ultimately fall short.
> 
> I am afraid that we have really pushed the limits with our consumption of oil based products, and the pollution that they generate.  We really need to find a way to eliminate our reliance on non-renewable resources like oil and coal.  If we don't, I believe we are going to be in for some serious global trouble within our lifetimes.  I am actually concerned that it may even be too late, we may have already crossed a critical line from which the planet will not be able to recover in a timeframe that is meaningful to humankind.
> 
> ...


Good Post! I was looking for the meaning of your signature is this it?

"There is no disputing about tastes."


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 14, 2006)

Crane557 said:


> Good Post! I was looking for the meaning of your signature is this it?
> 
> "There is no disputing about tastes."


 
Thank you, and yup, you got it figured out.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

Hey everyone, 

Thank you all so much for stepping up and at least trying to do the challenge.  I think it has gone very well so far. I am hoping to introduce more "intense" topics to put us all to the test.  Hehehe...Should be fun and very productive.

As far as if "common ground" goes against our nature I would have to say as I voted on the Poll, Only if we try really hard.
I do not think that you should give apart of you just to agree, because then that would indeed defeat the purpose of agreeing.  That would indeed you just doing what your told, would it not?
But as far as any topic goes I do believe that in them somewhere there is common ground even if it is as small as a penny.  It may indeed be hard to find but it is there.
I mean I hate to say this as much as the next person, but there are even a FEW of Hitlers ideas that I agree with.  Mainly because I believe that there is truth in every single religon.  
I believe common ground can be found in every topic.  It may just depend on the way you look at it, the way it is worded.
I know this may seem really abstract but I will put forth this...
If Hitler and a Jew are speaking, and Hitler says every Jew must die, and the Jew says well every Nazis should die....what is the common ground???
The common ground is this....That they both wish to kill a human.  They can agree that someone must die.
Very small indeed, and not a normal "in the box" way you would look at it, but indeed a common ground.
Now of course they will disagree on who the "someone" is that should die.
(the above example is not an insult to the Jewish religion in any way)

So I hope I have addressed my point of view on that.  But I can also see the point of view that it goes against human nature because in our past humans have not been very cooperative.  LOL.  To say the least, and yes we do tend to repeat history many times over.
*******

As far as the whole fuel thing, I do have to wonder like many of you, would we have to fight for our food if cars turned to ethanol??
And yes I do believe that it is our government and major car companies the refuse to make more hybrid cars in a number as regular cars. I also believe that because of that the school that teach our mechanics do not teach them about hybrids which make the maintence a huge *NO Dont buy* thing you know. 
So for me I would have to agree that our government and the car companies are to blame some indeed.

As far as the whole global warming issues, I could not honestly state if it is because of all the polutions or because of underground volcanos becoming more active.  There are so many different reports out there that are very plausible.  One group of scientist say this and another say this, and they of course are all  "experts".   LOL...ironic.
But what I can agree on is that even IF pollutant are or are not harming the ozone layer they sure do harm us as far as what we breathe and eat yes?    that we need to do stuff to help Mother Earth anyways.  Not just to save us, but to save her and out of respect dont you think?
I think that at our point of evolution that we could survive most major natural disasters if one should happen, if we get enough warning time you know.   I believe that Mother Earth, could restore herself in time no matter what she went through.   I believe that the human species will always exist in one form or another.
******

Anyways....Thank you all again for contributing.  I hope that you will continue to do so, and not only in this post, but in any post or life discussion you might have.  It can make a difference thats for sure.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 14, 2006)

Elayna said:


> As far as the whole fuel thing...
> 
> As far as the whole global warming issues, I could not honestly state if it is because of all the polutions or because of underground volcanos becoming more active. There are so many different reports out there that are very plausible. One group of scientist say this and another say this, and they of course are all "experts". LOL...ironic.


 
Here are a few thoughts for you to chew on.  Keep in mind, these are my own thoughts, taken out to the Nth degree, I don't have long term studies and whatnot to back up these thoughts, but I think it's good to consider "what if", and take it to the worst possible situation.

Given the fuel thing.  Fossil fuels are non-renewable.  Well, that isn't completely true, but it takes millions of years to renew them.  So for our purposes, they are non-renewable, and should be considered limited in supply.  Once the supply is gone, that's it.  And nobody knows really, how much is still in the ground.  They just found more in the Gulf of Mexico.  And technology has advanced to allow us to extract more from the ground that we could a generation ago.  Supplies that were out of reach are now accessable.  So for now we have managed to keep on exploiting these resources, and we will be able to continue to do so for a while yet.  But nobody knows how long, and given the rate of increase in demand around the globe, it's tricky to judge.  But we in the US use far more petroleum products than the rest of the world combined, so we are the biggest abusers, if this use can be considered abuse.  Meanwhile, nations like China and India are demanding ever more and more, and with their populations, this will have take a big toll on world supplies.

But what happens when they run out, if we haven't developed other fuel sources?  We continue to be heavily heavily reliant on oil and coal, and even much of our electicity is generated from burning these fuels.  We have NOTHING else at this point that could actually step in and take the place of fossil fuels, if the supply should suddenly run out next month.  So what does this mean?

First, it means that our transporation shuts down.  Completely.  Nobody goes anywhere, if they can't get there by walking, or riding a bike, or a skateboard, of if they managed to install solar panels on the roof of their car.  We stay put.  This is an inconvenience.  We can't get to work, or to the grocery store, or to go visit Aunt Matilda.  Bummer.

But it gets worse.  A huge majority of the population of our nation lives in large cities.  This is probably true around the world.  People who live in cities are removed from food production.  Cities don't have the space to grow crops and raise livestock.  City folk are COMPLETELY dependent on shipments of food to keep the supermarkets stocked, so we can eat.  When the fossil fuel supply runs out, we have no way to ship enough food supplies into the cities to feed even a small percentage of the population on a level that will enable them to survive.

This would hold true for smaller towns and those living in the countryside.  Most people in the US today are completely removed from food production, and have no idea how to grow or raise or hunt or fish or slaughter food sources.  Some people do, but the vast majority do not.  

So even tho food may be growing in the Bread Basket States, very very little of it gets to anybody.  The food rots, and within a couple weeks, people are dying of starvation.  Dying by the thousands, and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, and even millions.  And nobody can get anywhere, to get to the food.  And as the supplies dwindle in the first couple of weeks, things get violent as people get desperate, and it all escalates.  And the cities are full of rotting corpses, and disease is rampant for those who somehow manage to survive.  Population centers become uninhabitable because of this, and water sources are contaminated by disease, and probably people can't access them anyway, without an energy source.

So this is what we can expect, if we suddenly run out of fossil fuels without an adequate replacement for that energy source.

Now lets discuss the global warming issue.  There is no dispute about global warming.  It is happening.  Sure, there are natural cycles that the earth goes thru, and there are natural events that can contribute to it, but it is undenyable that human activity, and especially human generated pollution is contributing enormously to this problem, and making it happen far far more quickly than it would happen on its own.  It is happening so quickly that the earth and its inhabitants have no time to adjust and adapt to it.  

A vast percentage of the population lives on the East and West coast.  More so than live in the interior states.  So with global warming, the sea level begins to rise, and coastline is lost.  This could cause entire cities to become unliveable, as they flood.  In addition, the warmer sea temperatures cause fish to die off, eliminating another source of food.  So now these coastal populations need to relocate.  But how do you relocate a city of several million (think New York, Los Angeles, etc.)?  Where do they go?  How are they housed?  maybe they end up in the interior states, living in tent cities and refugee camps.

But things are heating up.  This summer, here in Northern California, we had a heat wave hitting around 120 degrees for over a week.  How do millions of people living in a tent city deal with that? How do they get enough water to get thru it?  How do you deal with sewage and other sanitation needs?

And in the meantime, weather patterns are getting crazy, due to global warming.  This doesn't just mean everything is getting a little warmer.  It means some places get colder in the winter, and hotter in the summer, and storms get more and more powerful  (think Hurricane Katrina and worse, over and over).  Global Warming actually means weather patterns of all kinds are getting more and more erratic and intense.  So now we have refugee camps, tent cities in the midwest, housing all the people from the coasts.  And summer rolls around and they are fighting heat wave, and then the tornadoes hit.  And they are Super Tornadoes.  What would a Super tornado do to a tent city with a million people living in it? 

Now lets go back to the first picture, running out of fossil fuels.  How much worse would it be if this happened first, and the extreme results of global warming, exacerbated by all the fuel we burned up, hit shortly thereafter.  As coastal cities flood, and transportation has been eliminated, nobody has a way to get out.  

This could happen all over the world.  The current population of the planet is about 6 Billion people. I think that if this worse-case scenario happened, global population could drop to about a million.  Small pockets of people would find a way to survive, but most would not.  And the planet would become one huge graveyard of unburied, festering corpses.  And those that manage to survive are thrown back almost into a stone age, but with memories of how great life once was...

I hope I am wrong, but I can't get this image out of my head.  Something for you all to chew on.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

Flying Crane...

OMG kinda morbid.  LOL...joking.  I do have to agree with your worst case scenario.  We dont know when or whatever, but if things dont get better we could definatly see that happening.  Because I firmly believe "Mother Earth" will take care of her first before us if you know what I mean. The earth will purge it self and only a handful (millions at the most) will survive. Of course that will be enough to continue the human race but we will definatly have to redo alot of stuff.

Now the global warming...Im not sure on all of that. I mean even scientist have  yet to figure out why the Dinosaurs died of. I mean they have "theories" but nothing conclusive. So maybe what we are going through it what they went through?  True we humans are probably speeding the process up, but we never know for sure.

I think it would be tottaly cool if we could come up with technology were we could use water as a power source for nearly everything.  I mean it is 70% of the earth. LOL. Talk about a good fuel source.  And then we definatly wouldnt have to worry about the Ice caps melting.  LOL LOL. Joke.
As far as i know there are actually plans that have already been made for water powered cars,but they were "hidden" away according the the conspiracy theorist...so who knows.

So flying crane...I do agre...we need to do something and soon to help out.  And a huge country like China will get us all in trouble if they dont do something with their population you know.  I mean they consume soooo much.  But anyways...a whole different topic not wanting to get into.

Oh BTW...I do not endorse the Kyoto protocall.  Something else needs to be done.  Something Less anti-american.  Just my opinion though.

Anyhoo....TTYL


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 14, 2006)

*Now the global warming...Im not sure on all of that. I mean even scientist have yet to figure out why the Dinosaurs died of. I mean they have "theories" but nothing conclusive. So maybe what we are going through it what they went through? True we humans are probably speeding the process up, but we never know for sure.*

No credible environmental scientist disputes this.  A few with a political agenda try to cling to the notion of doubt, but they are very few, and are typically linked to the Oil industry or politicians.

*I think it would be tottaly cool if we could come up with technology were we could use water as a power source for nearly everything. I mean it is 70% of the earth. LOL.* 

Agreed, and I have also heard of some of this technology in development.

*So flying crane...I do agre...we need to do something and soon to help out. And a huge country like China will get us all in trouble if they dont do something with their population you know. I mean they consume soooo much. But anyways...a whole different topic not wanting to get into.*

We cannot blame this on China.  They have almost 1/4 the population of the planet, yet the US still uses far far more energy than they due.  Their useage is increasing, but it would be extremely arrogant if we tried to blame countries like China, when we use about 80% of all fossil fuel consumption, when we only have about 5% of the world population.  Clearly we are the ones who are out of line.

*Oh BTW...I do not endorse the Kyoto protocall. Something else needs to be done. Something Less anti-american. Just my opinion though.*

Unfortunately I am not very familiar with Kyoto's parameters.  I do find it disappointing that so many nations see fit to sign on, yet we are the one holdout.  We seem to think that we deserve a special place in the picture, and that arrogance is to everyone's detriment.  As I said, our own use of fossil fuels far outpaces the rest of the world combined.  Perhaps it is not unreasonable to think that we need to make some serious concessions.


----------



## zDom (Sep 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I hope I am wrong, but I can't get this image out of my head.  Something for you all to chew on.



If you'd like a very depressing book that goes into these issues in depth, try

"The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" by James Howard Kunstle

He addresses some of these very same issues.

In a nutshell, if Kunstle is right, we need to develop alternative fuels NOW while we still have the "petroleum/natural gas platform" to operate from.

i.e., if we run out of petro FIRST, we won't be ABLE to develop alternative fuel sources.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 15, 2006)

I dont think we should blame China at all for how much oil we use. Thats our thing you know.  I was just meaning I didnt want to get into a debate on where China stands on alot of issues.  A very hot topic for lots of people that I didnt want to do at the moment.
China I believe doesnt use alot of fuel because so many of their people are still farmers you know.  Very few of them live in big cities like americans do, and also for alot of reasons.

I do agree that we need to come up with some fuel options. I think not only would it save our earth, but it would take care of alot of the whole "politics and oil" issues you know.  I mean I think arguing over something everyone needs and all the crap they do is just ridicoulous.   But just you wait probably when we use water for power theyll want to charge us just to drink it.  Even more then they already do.  They wont charge us to bring it to our homes, theyll actually charge us for drinking.  LOL....just a whole nother politicians scheme.  LOL...dont know for sure but you never know these days.

I have not done extensive research on the Kyoto protocal, that is my husbands area, but from the research that he has given me, it is a very big thing that plays into the UN having control and dominance over every country.  Just like the International Criminal Court.   Apparently from the reasearch he has showed me, which is extensive, they play into each other.   So if that is the case I would definatly say staying out of it is a good thing.
I personally dont believe that there should be one agreement for every country to follow by as every countries needs are different and always changing.  I think each country should just make an internal agreement to its people you know.  Not an external agreement to the rest of the world.

Anyhoo...Good morning everyone...have a good one.   

Oh Love how everyones stepping up to the challenge.   Thank you all.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 15, 2006)

zDom said:


> i.e., if we run out of petro FIRST, we won't be ABLE to develop alternative fuel sources.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 15, 2006)

*I dont think we should blame China at all for how much oil we use. Thats our thing you know. I was just meaning I didnt want to get into a debate on where China stands on alot of issues. A very hot topic for lots of people that I didnt want to do at the moment.*
*China I believe doesnt use alot of fuel because so many of their people are still farmers you know. Very few of them live in big cities like americans do, and also for alot of reasons.*

Fair enough.  My only point with regards to nations like China and India are that they have a much larger population than we have.  This alone gives them claim to use oil at a higher rate than we do.  However, we continue to be responsible for the vast majority of oil consumption.  If we attempt to tell nations like China that they cannot increase their oil consumption, while our own consumption spirals out of control, that arrogance and hypocrasy will/should not be tolerated by the rest of the world, in my opinion.  

*I do agree that we need to come up with some fuel options. I think not only would it save our earth, but it would take care of alot of the whole "politics and oil" issues you know. I mean I think arguing over something everyone needs and all the crap they do is just ridicoulous. But just you wait probably when we use water for power theyll want to charge us just to drink it. Even more then they already do. They wont charge us to bring it to our homes, theyll actually charge us for drinking. LOL....just a whole nother politicians scheme. LOL...dont know for sure but you never know these days.*

I just watched a documentary about Corporations.  Sorry, I can't remember the title.  Apparently in one of the South American countries, water rights were privatized, and were owned by Bechtel Corp., which is based in San Francisco.  This company tried to control all water access and use, and charged up to 25% of a worker's daily wages for their water supply.  They even made it illegal to collect rainwater.  The people revolted and took back their water, but people were killed in the process.  It's all about greed.  It has happened before, and it could certainly happen again.  We The People need to be vigilant and never let that happen.

*I personally dont believe that there should be one agreement for every country to follow by as every countries needs are different and always changing. I think each country should just make an internal agreement to its people you know. Not an external agreement to the rest of the world.*

Well, the problem is that this issue is way bigger than any one nation.  The entire planet is in danger and I believe we, as the largest consumer of oil by a long shot, have a responsibility to all nations and all people.  When we are faced with the possibility of depleting and eliminating the world's oil supply completely, and creating global catastrophe in the process, then our "needs" with regard to oil use just can't stand up to scrutiny and cannot be justified.  We are the biggest abusers of oil.  We hold the biggest responsibility in spearheading technologies to take us away from reliance on oil, and averting global disaster.  We must be answerable to the rest of the world.  To think otherwise is selfish, greedy, and arrogant.  This isn't a personal attack on you, it is just a commentary on the prevalent attitudes that allow us to think that we hold a special place in the world, and justifies our notion that we have special rights and can continue with our consumption regardless of the damage being done to everyone else.  We have no right to think this way.


----------



## zDom (Sep 15, 2006)

But.... but.... I *like* driving my classic 1969 Pontiac LeMans convertible four-barrel 8-banger (7-9 mpg) around!

Can't we just bring back imperialism? Conquer oil-rich countries, take their oil, and make them use animals for transportation?

This Superpower With a Conscience thing isn't working out for us anyway. Other countries still hate us anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 15, 2006)

zDom said:


> Can't we just bring back imperialism? Conquer oil-rich countries, take their oil, and make them use animals for transportation?
> 
> This Superpower With a Conscience thing isn't working out for us anyway. Other countries still hate us anyway.


 

heh heh heh... well, we're having a hell of a time conquering Iraq as it is...How many other oil-rich nations would we have to start wars with, before we possess all the oil in the world?

And then we can just hope that global warming is a myth, or at least doesnt kick in until after I grow old and die, so it's not my problem...


----------



## Domino (Jun 22, 2009)

I saw on the news the other day, china is pioneering the new rentable fuel cells cars already, looks a great idea.


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2009)

crushing said:


> I know this really oversimplifies typical disagreements, but:
> 
> You say 1+1=2. Some person disagrees with you and says 1+1=3. Are you willing to find that 1+1=2.5? What if the other person isn't willing to meet you at 2.5 and still demands that 1+1=3? They won't even meet you at 2.75 or 2.99. If finding common ground means that you must think that 1+1=3, isn't that worse than not finding common ground, for you at least? What have you given up of yourself?


I think that in most things, common ground can be found. Or said another way, most of what we discuss is opinion, not fact. Facts make for very short discussions. 

Man 1: Hot, eh?
Man 2: Yup.

It's only when we introduce an opinion that we really have a discussion:

Man 1: I think it's global warming.
Man 2: That's because you're a hippy.
Man 1: You don't think global warming is a legitimate concern?
Man 2: Screw you, hippy.

Okay, so maybe not like that, but hopefully you get the picture.

So, where facts are being shared, there is often little room to debate. But there are almost always opinions being tied to the facts, and we can often (if not always) find some room for consensus.

So, to find some common ground, I agree that facts are difficult to dispute.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 2, 2009)

I think on most issues, common ground can be found.  I have found that the most difficult, maybe impossible, situations in which to achieve common ground involves faith.  For example:

My religion holds that human life begins at conception.
vs
My religion holds that human life begins at birth.

Or

The bible tells me that birth control is wrong.
vs
I'm an atheist, and birth control is perfectly OK with me.


What's the common ground?  You can't argue faith.  It's what someone believes.  That's very different from considering various options in health care delivery.


----------

