I'm watching the current Q and A today.
I like this quote from Archbishop Peter Jenson.
Amen to that.
I lost a lot of respect (not that I had much in the first place) for the Liberal party when they gave so much grief to the Labor party for reopening the Nauru thing.
And it seems to me that one of the reasons the Labor party went back to Nauru is that the Liberal party was so stubborn about Malaysia.
I'm trying to think of an analogy here.....
Okay.
Here's a rather dumb one. But I'm going to go with it anyway.
Let's say we have dinner plans with my sister's family this weekend.
We really want Indian food.
They really want Mexican.
None of us will budge.
Then finally Tim says, Look we need to eat something. Let's just give into them. Otherwise we're going to have to cancel the whole dinner. It's important that we get together so the kids can play.
We agree to have Mexican.
Instead of being grateful for our compromise, my sister criticizes us for taking so long to agree to the Mexican food.
It would be incredibly immature of my sister. But it's only food. It's not people's lives at stakes.
People should be able to change their mind. This is especially the case when they're the ones doing the most compromising.
As for changing your mind after an election....
I think it was kind of stinky of Julia Gillard to do that. What if people voted for her because she promised no carbon tax?
Okay? But maybe there were people who did NOT vote for Gillard because there was no carbon tax. They might have been delighted to see she had changed her mind. Or....that she was pushed to change her mind.
Obviously, it's easier to accept mind changing when the politician switches to our side of things.
I was happy when Obama changed his mind about gay marriage. That was awesome.
I wouldn't be happy with a pro-gay marriage politician who suddenly decided there shouldn't be any gay marriage. Yet some other people would be pleased about that.
I think there's also the question of why someone changed their mind. It's more tolerable when I believe they did it for personal reasons and not political gain.
Maybe that's the wrong choice of words.
It's more along the lines of them changing their mind because they truly have a change of heart.
That's different from the times in which we can't tell where the politician truly stands on an issue.
Did he really believe this, and now he believes that? Or was he being untruthful before, so he wouldn't suffer a political loss, and now he feels safer revealing his true feelings?
Or what if he was truthful before, but now he's being pushed to tell an untrue story?
In the end, I think we should be skeptical about people changing their mind, but at the same time try to give the politician the benefit of the doubt. That would be the most fair thing to do.
I like this quote from Archbishop Peter Jenson.
I do think, in terms of our political discourse, I'm sorry we can't let the Government change its mind and get away with it because, after all, when new facts come in we've got to have people to change their minds
Amen to that.
I lost a lot of respect (not that I had much in the first place) for the Liberal party when they gave so much grief to the Labor party for reopening the Nauru thing.
And it seems to me that one of the reasons the Labor party went back to Nauru is that the Liberal party was so stubborn about Malaysia.
I'm trying to think of an analogy here.....
Okay.
Here's a rather dumb one. But I'm going to go with it anyway.
Let's say we have dinner plans with my sister's family this weekend.
We really want Indian food.
They really want Mexican.
None of us will budge.
Then finally Tim says, Look we need to eat something. Let's just give into them. Otherwise we're going to have to cancel the whole dinner. It's important that we get together so the kids can play.
We agree to have Mexican.
Instead of being grateful for our compromise, my sister criticizes us for taking so long to agree to the Mexican food.
It would be incredibly immature of my sister. But it's only food. It's not people's lives at stakes.
People should be able to change their mind. This is especially the case when they're the ones doing the most compromising.
As for changing your mind after an election....
I think it was kind of stinky of Julia Gillard to do that. What if people voted for her because she promised no carbon tax?
Okay? But maybe there were people who did NOT vote for Gillard because there was no carbon tax. They might have been delighted to see she had changed her mind. Or....that she was pushed to change her mind.
Obviously, it's easier to accept mind changing when the politician switches to our side of things.
I was happy when Obama changed his mind about gay marriage. That was awesome.
I wouldn't be happy with a pro-gay marriage politician who suddenly decided there shouldn't be any gay marriage. Yet some other people would be pleased about that.
I think there's also the question of why someone changed their mind. It's more tolerable when I believe they did it for personal reasons and not political gain.
Maybe that's the wrong choice of words.
It's more along the lines of them changing their mind because they truly have a change of heart.
That's different from the times in which we can't tell where the politician truly stands on an issue.
Did he really believe this, and now he believes that? Or was he being untruthful before, so he wouldn't suffer a political loss, and now he feels safer revealing his true feelings?
Or what if he was truthful before, but now he's being pushed to tell an untrue story?
In the end, I think we should be skeptical about people changing their mind, but at the same time try to give the politician the benefit of the doubt. That would be the most fair thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment