Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2839580" data-attributes="member: 23012">I agree that politics is vastly more important than gaming.&nbsp; But that doesn't mean that you can't 'bracket' the 'far more important' concerns in certain 'less important' social situations.&nbsp; If I'm in a bookstore talking about fantasy fiction with the store keeper, should I direct our discussion towards the weighty political affairs of the day?&nbsp; Or can we simply 'bracket' those issues in order to talk about the recent novels we've read -- even if I think that certain political affairs are more important than the merits of&nbsp; RR. Martin's most recent novel?&nbsp; Also, as someone very concerned with political matters -- indeed, as someone who writes about political philosophy professionally -- I would think that only hanging out with people who agree with me would be stifling.&nbsp; My political views have evolved greatly over the years.&nbsp; I'm open to the possibility that people who disagree with me might nonetheless be rational and decent people.&nbsp; The soundness of my own views could only be strengthened by understanding their positions.Of course, what 'disagreement' means needs to be specified.&nbsp; I'd have trouble associating with people who reject the notion of universal human rights and the basic principles of democratic government.&nbsp; But above that minimal threshold, if someone is intelligent and respectful, I'm interested in talking to them, whether they be a social conservative, democratic socialist, libertarian, or whatever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 2839580, member: 23012"] I agree that politics is vastly more important than gaming. But that doesn't mean that you can't 'bracket' the 'far more important' concerns in certain 'less important' social situations. If I'm in a bookstore talking about fantasy fiction with the store keeper, should I direct our discussion towards the weighty political affairs of the day? Or can we simply 'bracket' those issues in order to talk about the recent novels we've read -- even if I think that certain political affairs are more important than the merits of RR. Martin's most recent novel? Also, as someone [i]very[/i] concerned with political matters -- indeed, as someone who writes about political philosophy professionally -- I would think that only hanging out with people who agree with me would be [i]stifling[/i]. My political views have evolved greatly over the years. I'm open to the possibility that people who disagree with me might nonetheless be rational and decent people. The soundness of my own views could only be strengthened by understanding their positions. Of course, what 'disagreement' means needs to be specified. I'd have trouble associating with people who reject the notion of universal human rights and the basic principles of democratic government. But above that minimal threshold, if someone is intelligent and respectful, I'm interested in talking to them, whether they be a social conservative, democratic socialist, libertarian, or whatever. [/QUOTE]

Verification