• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

International Diplomacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cap
  • Start date Start date
C

Cap

Guest
It appears to me that trying to negotiate two or more women to come to a place of mutual understanding is on the same levels as high ranking state officials of advanced international countries trying to get their countries to understand each other before all out war between them begins.

I have respect for international diplomatic negotiators.
 
Agreed 100%.

Not on the international level of operation, but I am finding that in my work with the Libertarian Party I seem to have a very natural and unforced aptitude for conflict resolution within the group. I would give all the credit for that to having spent many years resolving disputes between women and children (that is, two or more parties that I actually care deeply about and want both (or all) to walk away from the conflict feeling that they were dealt with justly).

All of which is a fancy and specific way of illustrating what we mean when we say plural families make men better husbands and women better wives....
 
Dogpile!! :p

Yeah, I was going to say 'excellent question' myself. Like the rest of our operation to date, it's percolating on a 'need to know' basis. The two guys who interviewed me back when I got appointed county chair know, and their "oh, that's interesting; no, it's not a problem" reaction was very encouraging. (I had told them I was interested in "marriage equality", and one of them admitted that's not exactly where he thought I was headed, but we're all agreed on the need to get the state out of personal relationships.)

Most of the members in my county know. One guy doesn't, but I'll tell him when it comes up. (We never lead with that or get pre-emptively defensive about it, and we don't lie about it or try to hide it. It comes out when it comes out, in the ordinary course of getting to know each other.)

I got asked by another candidate to run for AG in Texas this year. Gave them a couple of good reasons why I thought that was a terrible idea (at this point I've been inactive as a lawyer more years than I've been active, and you know, the whole countercultural lifestyle thing...), so now some people know in that campaign....

Ginny and Ann are accompanying me as delegates for our county to the state convention in a few weeks (Cheryl has a schedule conflict), and I expect things to get interesting there. I'm looking forward to introducing ourselves in informal circumstances (meals, cocktail hours, etc) to more of the people that I've only met online or have only seen and worked with at quarterly committee meetings, without SOs.

I don't expect any significant pushback from this group. There will be a few of the more conservative that give me the raised eyebrow, and I don't expect to ever run for office, but the work I'm doing within the party gives me an entrée and from there I can introduce liberty-minded people to our lifestyle as opportunities arise.

--------

FYI, from the LPTexas platform:

II.1.e. Marriage and Domestic Partnership
The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPTexas) believes that marriage is a matter of private contract, and should not be defined or licensed by government. We believe that government should not treat individuals differently based on their marital status.

II.1.f. Family Values
The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPTexas) seeks to abolish legislation and policies that define what a family is.
 
I was thinking that a bunch of libertarians having an issue with marriage arrangements would be...anti-libertarian. It may be the eventual home for many of us. I supported the national Libertarian Party candidate for POTUS in 2016.

I have a problem with the abortion stance, but pretty much agree with most other principles.

*note: I know there are plenty of prolife libertarians within the party systems.
 
FWIW:

II.2.c. Reproductive Rights
Recognizing that reproductive rights are a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, the Libertarian Party of Texas (LPTexas) believes that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPTexas) does not condone that tax dollars be spent for any such medical cost.

Getting the government out of the business of paying for abortions would be a huge step in the right direction. And if you think the Republican Party gives a rip about abortion other than locking up pro-life votes, then (a) I'd like you to point me to the great strides the Reps have made in outlawing abortion over the past 45 years, because I must have missed something, and (b) I have a really great, billion percent return, no-risk investment I'd like to discuss with you….
 
Wait...who as propping the elephants? I, for one, wasn't.

I agree that stopping funding is the first part. It's true to libertarian principles, and constitutional limitations.

I just can't reconcile:
"Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" (DOI)
"...establish Justice...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."(Constitution)

With "leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration..."

Murder is against natural law and God's law. It's not a matter of conscientious consideration. Abortion is the epitome of a lawless society doing that which is right in their own eyes. Hitler's conscientious consideration of a gas chamber, or Pol Pot's conscientious consideration of his killing fields is no different than the endless slaughter of millions in the womb via conscientious consideration. All are travesties.

The Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties will do nothing to stop it (an equal travesty)

In the end, we need to be salt and light spreading the gospel, and encouraging others to choose life. The epidemic won't stop without those two things. Damn the government.
 
The government can never fix this, the church is the only solution -but that is the big picture. Within the narrower field of politics, don't use such arguments as a reason not to vote in a way that is at least incrementally less bad than the status quo. Such arguments are too often used as an excuse to dismiss real incremental improvements in favour of principled grandstanding that achieves nothing.
 
Familiar arguments all, @Mojo. And I wasn’t assuming your political affiliation specifically, I just know a lot of folks who end up voting “R” because they think they have to because of the nominal pro-life connection, even if it’s demonstrably lip service, and even though we have taken a lot of innocent lives through needless foreign wars that probably ought to get some attention, too.

Political processes are based on incremental change accomplished through compromise. “Principled grandstanding that accomplishes nothing” is pretty strong medicine (one of the things I love about Samuel—he calls ‘em the way he sees ‘em), but it is the right prescription for the malady of our political body. (Again, not aimed at you personally, Mojo, but it appears that Samuel knows some of the same people I do.)

We dug ourselves a hole one shovelful at a time, and we’ll dig our way out again the same way. Defund first, then go after partial-birth abortions, then work on late term (last trimester) abortions, while at the same time working on notice, fathers’ rights, and grandparents’ rights (which are more cultural problems than political ones, and as Samuel said, matters for the church to take up).

A long term plan that works incrementally has a chance. Railing against the injustice of abortion while refusing to co-labor with those who would work with you on first steps does not.

A libertarian culture is a culture of personal responsibility. I do not need laws against abortion to protect the women of my household (including daughters) from that curse, so my first political concern is seeing that my taxes are not paying for someone else’s bad choices. Beyond that, it’s time to look hard at the meaning of “community” and figure out how we can create communities of faith that share the same values and can competently pass those values on to our children and grandchildren. After we get that right, we can take on the broader culture (if there’s anything left of it by then...).
 
Maybe I am being misunderstood or or not communicating well either. In post #7, i implied that the Libertarian party may end up being the natural home for many of us. I have never really had a home, as I've always registered as "decline to state". I gave financial resources to Gary Johnson too. I don't think that's principled grandstanding.

But a party platform that says we don't want to fund abortion...because we don't want to fund anything else either...is not principled at all regarding life. It's just a principle of economics. Life is a higher law of principle in my book.

I don't want to get sucked into electoral politics being the solution to our ailments, that's why I included my last statement about the government. I do believe a principled and moral people/party need to express more than just economic justifications.

And the whole eat an elephant one bite at a time argument has been made by Republicans for years too. It's gotten some results, but the power of persuasion has yielded much more fruit.
 
Extended point: I'm not an advocate for legislated morality. Prohibiting alcohol production and homosexual acts never improved the morality of our nation. Those are areas where liberty and responsibility play out. I just don't know of too many societies that have sanctioned and promoted murder as an issue of personal conscientious consideration. That may be a familiar argument and without originality, but I don't see how it has a trump card against it. Another man's liberty ends at the doorstep of shedding another's blood. That is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

Going down the road of unjust war being murder is a valid point, but it doesn't help solve the issue at hand. Outlawing war is really not a viable option for a nation as large as ours and just vs. unjust wars can be truly debated. There really are "good faith views on all sides".

Outlawing murder of any form is an option and the arguments of justification against it are deficient in my opinion.
 
We all know though that this is not an argument about whether murder is ok, but when someone should be considered a real person and thus killing them should be considered murder. Obviously we have very firm views on the issue and science is very firmly on our side, the pro-abortion side having only emotion. However, we do need to acknowledge that even they are not, in their minds, "sanctioning and promoting murder". They are doing that, but they don't think they are doing that. This is a debate about when life begins, not whether murder is acceptable. It is ultimately a religious and scientific question, rather than purely a moral one, since the sides disagree on where the moral lines lie due to science and religion. By which I mean that believing life starts at conception is scientific, and any view other than that is purely religious... So any law passed in this area is in the realm of religion, and that becomes really tricky and will never be done right by a secular or pantheistic government.

Ultimately we think basically the same @Mojo, we're just fleshing out the details from different angles!
 
Yeah, what Samuel said. It's not about sanctioning murder, it's about when life begins for a person, which depends on what one means by "life" and "person". Those are the matters on which people in this country hold different views, and the best solution in my experience appears to be allow for freedom of conscience and then rely on some of that "power of persuasion" Mojo was talking about, and the "power of example" I like to talk about.

Lots more to talk about here, but once upon a time this thread was about the relationship between negotiations in the home and other kinds of negotiations, so I'm gonna try to get back to that. @Mojo, I'm neither picking on your politics nor even specifically arguing with you; we've all gotta do what we've gotta do. I just wanted to reference the actual platform re abortion since the subject came up, because a lot of of Christians or political/cultural conservatives tend to close the door on the LP without much investigation, thinking we're "pro-choice" in the same way Democrats are, which we're not.

As an exercise in negotiation and thinking outside the box, consider the possibility that one could reasonably support the LP in the political domain, and also give time and treasure to local pro-life ministries and counseling and support centers to help individual women make the right choice by helping them with whatever went wrong in their life that led them to the point of considering an abortion. More to that line of thinking, but again, maybe for a different thread.

Meanwhile, coming full circle, @CAP's OP contained the following:
CAP said:
trying to negotiate two or more women to come to a place of mutual understanding
Click to expand...
CAP said:
trying to get their countries to understand each other
Click to expand...

Seems to me "understanding" is the key word there, and any good negotiator has to be able to empathize with and get inside the head of all parties, actually seeing the situation from each party's perspective and feeling what each party feels, whether we're talking about countries, businesses, parties to a lawsuit, political factions, children, or wives.
 
Gosh, hope it didn't seem like I was heated or anything. I just thought a little spirited foray into these matters was fun.:D

Totally get where y'all are coming from. It may not seem like it based on this post, but I'm generally pretty skilled at maneuvering differing viewpoints and mediation;)

I also dont mind a little debate here and there with folks, but I've learned that letting others frame the debate on their own terms is not very smart. I deliberately used "murder" not for sensationalism, or narrow minded talking points, but as a way to emphasize the gravity of the issue. It's not a choice, or even a preference. It's premeditated murder by the most stringent legal terms.

Framing it as when life begins also cedes ground in the wrong direction especially since unbiased science, as has been said, has come out in the favor of conception. The greatest tool of persuasion has been an ultrasound, not images of aborted fetuses. Failure to call it what it really is...murder, devalues it and places it in the realm of theory or the political. It is neither. No viable party wants to address it in this manner. Some parties may have splinters in their eyes, while others have beams, but something's amiss either way.

There are no perfect parties, candidates, or people. Pointing out their flaws, though, isn't wrong nor does it mean you reject them entirely for infidelity to complete perfection.

Blessings.
 
It's not a question of framing, it's a question of understanding what the argument is actually about. Assuming the truth of the point in question is a classic logical fallacy referred to as "begging the question".

Full disclosure: Many years ago I spent almost two years posting regularly on both a strident pro-life board and a strident pro-choice board. I went to the pro-choice board because I saw a couple of pro-choice guys who had come on to the pro-life board to ask some questions get belittled, insulted, and run off, and I was curious to see what would happen to me on their board.

I encountered a fair amount of skepticism and hostility initially, but it leveled out, and while I was there I got advanced training in earning the respect and the listening ear of people who disagreed with me strongly and disliked me on principle at first. Came in handy later doing worship evangelism on the streets of Houston....

Going back to CAP's OP, for anyone who intends to manage two or more women in the same house, I strongly encourage you to develop your capacity to actually understand the POV of your first wife, to the point where you can appreciate and articulate why she thinks she's right in any particular matter (you should be able to argue her side of any point on her behalf better than she can argue it herself). You can then extend that skill to wife #2 when the time comes. But you can't help them understand each other if you don't understand both of them first.
 
The argument in the public square has been deemed to be about when life begins, but that's not the issue with me. I don't need to beg the question with myself. I've already made that conclusion and concluded that it's about murder since I believe life begins at conception. The pro abortionists want to extend that time even though science and the court of public opinion keeps moving it closer to conception.

That being said, I would never begin the persuasion process with that statement or premise. Give me some credit. Sheesh:confused:. We are amongst a friendly audience. I don't think I need to convince you guys. I believe the ultimate problem lies in a disregard for life; a murderous attitude rooted in selfishness.

Regarding the OP, what if there is an actual act of war between two parties (Sisterwives)? Let's say one of them slaps the other in anger? It would not be begging the question to conclude that that act is an egregious violation of respect and personal dignity under any circumstances would it? Would you not start with that premise and work your way backwards while looking for the reason/motivation for such an act? Regardless of motivation, discipline and consequence is needed, correct?
 
Mojo said:
It would not be begging the question to conclude that that act is an egregious violation of respect and personal dignity under any circumstances would it?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a textbook example of begging the question. If someone asks the question, "When and under what circumstances might the use of physical aggression in the form of a face slap be justifiable?", then there's an interesting conversation that could be had around that question, with different people having different opinions re what kinds of provocations might render such a response 'reasonable'. If you're of the school of thought that physical violence such as a face slap is never appropriate, then you're not really "concluding" anything to judge that act as "an egregious violation of respect and personal dignity", because you have predetermined (for reasons of your own, not being advanced in the argument) that such a slap is such a violation "under any circumstances". That's the definition of begging the question. It's wrong for one wife to slap the other wife. How do I know it's wrong? Because such an action is wrong under any circumstances.

So to answer your question, no, I would not start with the conclusion and work backward to the facts. My first move would be to get all the facts (everybody's story), then figure out what to do next based on that information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
Thank you. I think I have both a problem expressing myself in what I'm actually thinking in my mind and what's coming out on the screen, and an unsophisticated development of dialectical logical patterns. It's been years since I was exposed to that, and that's all it was...exposure. Thanks for being patient with me.

I just prefer to have a few select set of absolutes in my household and life and that's what I'm trying to express. Having those absolutes and established consequences makes administration much easier. However, even those absolutes are very broad categories. We have an expectation of "respect" in our household. It's a broad term that allows me to maneuver around, but it's still an absolute principle.

So, the concept of abortion being murder, and a slap in anger being unacceptable under any circumstance are personal expectations, not something I would expect of someone else without trying to persuade them of my reality (which would not dwell in the realm of an absolute for them. Confusing? It makes sense in my twisted mind.

That being said, other than trying to swat a wasp off another wife's face, what explanation would justify one wife slapping the other wife in your household?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top