Mediation Scale: Where are you?

[emilynghiem]

Where are you on this Mediation Scale?

* Far Right Fundamentalist (one way or no way)
* Right leaning Christian or Constitutionalist
* Right leaning Moderate or Mainstream
* Moderate / able to Mediate with most other people and groups
* Left leaning Moderate or Mainstream
* Left leaning Christian or Constitutionalist
* Far Left Fundamentalist (one way or no way)

I would like to propose a Scale to organize people by groups and parties per Issue.

The point is to identify key people who can interact/moderate with other opposing views, even if they cannot interact directly; so agreements on policies and issues can still be reached to include all views and beliefs, regardless of positions and inability to work with others.

Inalienable rights to beliefs, equal protections and representation, right to petition and due process should NOT be contingent on whether or not people can communicate with each other.

I am sick of waste and oppression by politicians, lawyers, and media EXPLOITING
conflicts and differences people NATURALLY have, by our culture of diversity and freedom.

I believe Govt officials, parties and offices should have means, even volunteers, set up to redress grievances by providing free assistance to represent and resolve issues and objections.

If you can please reply with EXAMPLES of how you do or do not fit into these basic
descriptions, this will help me refine and propose a model for accommodating religious and political diversity to ensure equal protection of representation, regardless who is in office.

Please note if you rank DIFFERENT on different issues (such as fundamentalist when it comes to some issues, but very liberal or moderate on others).

It's okay if you don't fit this scale: please specify what does describe you and your views.
Thank you!

 

[g5000]

Should there be a link or something?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well that's a problem, I couldn't find the column that says Humanity is a Disease.

Is there a 3D version?

 

[emilynghiem]

Well that's a problem, I couldn't find the column that says Humanity is a Disease.

Is there a 3D version?

Is that Far Left or Far Right?

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Mediation" of what?

ON EDIT:

Oh, I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

 

[R.D.]

Well that's a problem, I couldn't find the column that says Humanity is a Disease.

Is there a 3D version?

Yeah, pinch yourself. Hard

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well that's a problem, I couldn't find the column that says Humanity is a Disease.

Is there a 3D version?

Is that Far Left or Far Right?

I think I'd have to go with as far left as you can go, and then keep going for a few hundred miles.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Mediation" of what?

If we were going to set up constitutional conferences,
to organize people and groups around issues and conflicts of beliefs,
to mediate and either form solutions or separate policies where irreconcileable,

Where would you place yourself on this scale?

If you are a Constitutionalist/Christian, do opponents need to be able to argue in Christian/Constitutional terms to communicate with you?

Are you okay working with mainstream language and opponents leaning the other way?

How much help do you need to reach agreement with opponents,
or can you help others to mediate to reach agreements if they can't communicate easily?

Some rightwing conservatives REQUIRE Christian or Constitutional language
to communicate.

So this makes a difference when dealing with leftwing, since some may or may not
have ability to communicate using those same terms, and may require help to mediate.

is this more clear?

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Mediation" of what?

If we were going to set up constitutional conferences,
to organize people and groups around issues and conflicts of beliefs,
to mediate and either form solutions or separate policies where irreconcileable,

Where would you place yourself on this scale?

I think I edited my post above, after Emily hit the "Quote" button to make her reply.

I added:

ON EDIT:

Oh, I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well that's a problem, I couldn't find the column that says Humanity is a Disease.

Is there a 3D version?

Is that Far Left or Far Right?

I think I'd have to go with as far left as you can go, and then keep going for a few hundred miles.

Great! We need people like you to align with populations on the far far left reaches of the galaxy,
especially those who fell off the edge of the universe. At least you are still with us. You can help represent others who aren't.

You can help bridge the gap with people way off in space and not touching the earth at all.
People say I'm like that, sometimes, from another plane that does not intersect with reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mediation is not all it's cracked up to be. When engineers "compromise" on a design, folks get hurt.
What comes out of Congressional "mediation" has less of a prayer of ever being effective..

Really need to find ANSWERS to moral questions -- Mediating them does little good.
Same with most every other issue. There ARE right answers and BETTER solutions than most "compromises".. Isn't that how we got 1/5ths of a person staining our Constitution?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Mediation" of what?

If we were going to set up constitutional conferences,
to organize people and groups around issues and conflicts of beliefs,
to mediate and either form solutions or separate policies where irreconcileable,

Where would you place yourself on this scale?

If you are a Constitutionalist/Christian, do opponents need to be able to argue in Christian/Constitutional terms to communicate with you?

Are you okay working with mainstream language and opponents leaning the other way?

How much help do you need to reach agreement with opponents,
or can you help others to mediate to reach agreements if they can't communicate easily?

Some rightwing conservatives REQUIRE Christian or Constitutional language
to communicate.

So this makes a difference when dealing with leftwing, since some may or may not
have ability to communicate using those same terms, and may require help to mediate.

is this more clear?

Reminds me of Solomon attempting to figure out who was the real mother of the child only in this case, both sides are perfectly willing to settle for half a baby each.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is that Far Left or Far Right?

I think I'd have to go with as far left as you can go, and then keep going for a few hundred miles.

Great! We need people like you to align with populations on the far far left reaches of the galaxy,
especially those who fell off the edge of the universe. At least you are still with us. You can help represent others who aren't.

You can help bridge the gap with people way off in space and not touching the earth at all.
People say I'm like that, sometimes, from another plane that does not intersect with reality.

Reality is why I view humanity as a disease.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Mediation" of what?

If we were going to set up constitutional conferences,
to organize people and groups around issues and conflicts of beliefs,
to mediate and either form solutions or separate policies where irreconcileable,

Where would you place yourself on this scale?

If you are a Constitutionalist/Christian, do opponents need to be able to argue in Christian/Constitutional terms to communicate with you?

Are you okay working with mainstream language and opponents leaning the other way?

How much help do you need to reach agreement with opponents,
or can you help others to mediate to reach agreements if they can't communicate easily?

Some rightwing conservatives REQUIRE Christian or Constitutional language
to communicate.

So this makes a difference when dealing with leftwing, since some may or may not
have ability to communicate using those same terms, and may require help to mediate.

is this more clear?

Reminds me of Solomon attempting to figure out who was the real mother of the child only in this case, both sides are perfectly willing to settle for half a baby each.

While the extreme leftists insist THEY are the rightful possesor of the baby the other side created, gave birth to, and nurtured, and that no other "solution" is possible.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Mediation is not all it's cracked up to be. When engineers "compromise" on a design, folks get hurt.
What comes out of Congressional "mediation" has less of a prayer of ever being effective..

Really need to find ANSWERS to moral questions -- Mediating them does little good.
Same with most every other issue. There ARE right answers and BETTER solutions than most "compromises".. Isn't that how we got 1/5ths of a person staining our Constitution?

3/5ths.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If we were going to set up constitutional conferences,
to organize people and groups around issues and conflicts of beliefs,
to mediate and either form solutions or separate policies where irreconcileable,

Where would you place yourself on this scale?

If you are a Constitutionalist/Christian, do opponents need to be able to argue in Christian/Constitutional terms to communicate with you?

Are you okay working with mainstream language and opponents leaning the other way?

How much help do you need to reach agreement with opponents,
or can you help others to mediate to reach agreements if they can't communicate easily?

Some rightwing conservatives REQUIRE Christian or Constitutional language
to communicate.

So this makes a difference when dealing with leftwing, since some may or may not
have ability to communicate using those same terms, and may require help to mediate.

is this more clear?

Reminds me of Solomon attempting to figure out who was the real mother of the child only in this case, both sides are perfectly willing to settle for half a baby each.

While the extreme leftists insist THEY are the rightful possesor of the baby the other side created, gave birth to, and nurtured, and that no other "solution" is possible.

Interesting but in this case the baby is ours. We founded the place.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Reminds me of Solomon attempting to figure out who was the real mother of the child only in this case, both sides are perfectly willing to settle for half a baby each.

While the extreme leftists insist THEY are the rightful possesor of the baby the other side created, gave birth to, and nurtured, and that no other "solution" is possible.

Interesting but in this case the baby is ours. We founded the place.

Not even close. People running away from your kind of "government" founded the place, and then kicked your ass out, from Concord & Lexington thru Yorktown.

"Your people" have been trying to crawl back in ever since.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While the extreme leftists insist THEY are the rightful possesor of the baby the other side created, gave birth to, and nurtured, and that no other "solution" is possible.

Interesting but in this case the baby is ours. We founded the place.

Not even close. People running away from your kind of "government" founded the place, and then kicked your ass out, from Concord & Lexington thru Yorktown.

"Your people" have been trying to crawl back in ever since.

The Tories were your kind of people, not mine. Mine threw a Revolution. We do that sort of thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Mediation" of what?

If we were going to set up constitutional conferences,
to organize people and groups around issues and conflicts of beliefs,
to mediate and either form solutions or separate policies where irreconcileable,

Where would you place yourself on this scale?

I think I edited my post above, after Emily hit the "Quote" button to make her reply.

I added:

ON EDIT:

Oh, I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

NO whoa it is to PREVENT compromise by not letting the process get hijacked.

If we don't communicate and defend those principles,
opponents abuse either the far right or far left to "justify"
cutting out all other representation, claiming communication and solutions are impossible.

And then the politicians go implement whatever the heck they claim is "the best they could do"

Instead, if they COMMUNICATED what the objections were, then no compromise is needed.
We can solve problems and NOT COMPROMISE PRINCIPLES.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression.
This is why we NEED full inclusion in conflict resolution.

If people LIKE YOU keep "giving up," then others RAILROAD right over those principles
and don't respect them. We need to stand up and enforce those principles in the process.

I think you are somewhere between RC and RF, but with help you can work between RC and LC and NOT FEAR COMPROMISE. If the RC and LC stand together, we can ENFORCE those principles and those are the basis of all other solutions within that Constitutional framework.

So it is very important to unite the RC and LC. I am both, for Christian views I'm probably LC, but for Constitutional principles I am more RC or M. The main thing is I don't believe in compromising the RF or the RL for each other; so it is up to the Christians/Constitutionalists in the middle to unite on the foundation principles where we agree, make SURE those are not compromised, and SEPARATE policies where people disagree (and keep these out of govt) so that Constitutional principles ARE NOT compromised for political beliefs and biases (that should be kept private) unconstitutionally imposed by Govt.

The whole point is to PREVENT compromise because communication breaks down
and we fall short of solving the conflicts (so politicians take that as a green light to pass whatever they want, BOTH blaming their opponents for not working it out).
Instead, why not REQUIRE mediation to reach a consensus without compromise, and ANSWER all objections, not skirt them off as invalid as is happening now.

Not if we can help it. What if we refuse to given in to negligence and failures in representation, and demand solutions that represent our views WITHOUT political compromise.
Why can't we solve problems so nobody has to compromise, claiming the process failed.

Why not appoint counselors and authorize leaders who CAN facilitate Constitutional solutions.
That is what I want to push for. No more compromising and selling out for politics.