chedster

I told him that his comparing how I vote (again, he knows I no longer vote) to someone who condones rape was insulting to me as a husband and as a father of a young daughter. He said he was sorry I felt that way, but that I was wrong in my understanding of what he said. His explanation wound up being an incomprehensible rambling about the evil elected officials in the GOP, something that is completely unrelated to my belief system. I was tempted to remind him that his party elected a Klansman (Robert Byrd) to the Senate for 50 years, many of which included national leadership positions, but that would have just poured gas on the "my party is better than your party" nonsense. That's a pretty solid assessment. In hindsight, I've come to view him this way. Imagine that you have a tattoo, and a friend of yours says to you that "Everyone who has a tattoo is lazy and stupid... except you - you're energetic and smart." At first, you might dismiss it as nonsensical rambling, but after you hear it a dozen times, you've had enough. He's stereotyping an entire group without knowing them personally, and he's contradicting himself by making an exception for you just because he's your friend. That's what it really came down to. I am morally opposed to forcing anyone to participate in a government program; therefore, I am opposed to Obamacare. He essentially said that everyone who opposes Obamacare is willing to let uninsured sick babies die. When I asked him if he thought that about me, he said of course not. I think that was the point where he became unglued, simply because I blew a hole in his stereotype. I was going to point out to him that maybe he would think differently about the views of others if he got to "know" them as well, but he started with the GOP name-dropping and insulting comparisons.

Well, I have to say that while I don't post here much, I really needed discussion with like-minded people for me to achieve the closure that I have now attained. I was a patient of Dr. John Sarno, a now-retired doctor of mind-body medicine in NY. (He has some fame for treating Howard Stern years ago.) His treatment literally saved me from having what would have been unnecessary back surgery. He focuses on how tension can cause chronic conditions. I attended a few of his "alumni lectures," in which a panel of cured patients would tell their stories of how they were healed. In the Q&A that followed one of them, an older woman, who had suffered extreme back pain for 20 years before being treated successfully by Dr. Sarno, said we had to find a way to spread this knowledge to all the people who were suffering needlessly and having unnecessary surgeries. Dr. Sarno got up and said, "I wish we could. But until people are able to intellectually and emotionally accept a treatment that is so radically different from what they've know for their entire lives, it won't work." I think that's where I stand regarding people comprehending concepts like the NAP. Maybe I'd be more flexible if I were 20 years younger, but at 50 I don't have the time or patience to deal with very close-minded people any longer.

She's using "politics" in the generally accepted sense. I agree about the reference to initiation of force. Let me use a real-life example. The charity that I worked on also has a few members who are local elected officials. Very nice in their interpersonal dealings with me. (And no, it's not for my vote, because I don't live in their district.) I don't believe that work (or in this case, charitable work) in the place for political/philosophical discussions. But a couple of times, a group of us went out for a drink. And inevitably, the topic of politics (again, in the generally accepted sense) came up. Had I interjected my opinion the fact about politics, most, or probably all, of them would have looked at me as if I had 3 heads. Especially the elected officials, because such truth would be threatening to their ways of life. So I held off - not because I was afraid to discuss my views, and not because I don't fully believe them, but simply because it would make part of my life that I enjoy quite a bit (working on the charity) become uncomfortable at best. I really don't care what others think of my views. I wear them proudly, and have no problem explaining them to anyone. But if I didn't restrain myself from doing so in most of my 3D life, I'd lose out on a lot of the more light-hearted activities that I participate in.

I have learned not to debate such topics online with people I know personally, that's for sure. In this particular case, my former friend is an entertainer by trade. It seems that for him, any interaction in front of 3rd parties is the equivalent of being on stage, so I think he felt threatened both intellectually and professionally on FB. My wife has always recommended that I not talk politics with friends, and I see the point. But to me, this isn't two-party, us-vs.-them politics, it's philosophy. That's why I've tried to use reason. That said, your point about emotion is well-taken. And I think ego adds another layer to it. This showed in his emails to me. He simply refused to discuss my main point of contention (his linking my voting preferences to a repulsive politician, when he knows that I don't vote), because he would have had to admit being wrong, or at the very least, forgetful. I know I'm dissing my own generation here, but frankly if I'm going to spend time trying to get someone to understand my ideology, I'd rather it be a younger adult. I've found them to be a lot less jaded and, therefore, more open to different viewpoints.

So after a few emails back and forth in which I tried (and failed) to get him to understand my viewpoint, we agreed to disagree and part ways. I'm sure I will run into him in the near future and I will be civil, but the friendship is gone. I've lost a couple other friendships in similar fashion over the past few years. I can't really tell why. I had thought that I was having trouble articulating my beliefs to people, but I am an editor by trade and hardly ever have a problem getting my thoughts across on other topics. The only thing I can surmise at this point is that people in their 40s and 50s are so set in their beliefs over the years that they simply can't or won't open their minds up to other possibilities. I can accept people telling me that they understand my philosophy but disagree with it. But I can't deal with the condescending lectures about the immoral consequences of voluntary (as opposed to coercive) behavior.

All good. It's not an easy things to sort out. I appreciate everyone's feedback.

All good points. In the last couple years that I've worked with him on his charitable project, a number of people who know him longer or better told me that he is all about self-promotion. From my experiences with him, that was not evident at all. But this afternoon I got another email apology from him. He doesn't admit to any wrongdoing; he's just sorry that we had this difference of opinion. He stated that he uses FB discussions to educate people about their own inconsistencies. So apparently, the importance of his educational crusade justified smearing me by inferring that I vote for guys like the one who condoned rape (mind you, my friend is well aware that I last voted in 2012 and that before that, I voted Dem 95% of the time). He and I are both married to women and have young daughters. I would never make such an inference (re rape) about him, especially in a public setting. So beyond everything else, I have to question how legit his friendship really is.

When he brought up the "babies dying" without universal healthcare line of reasoning, I pointed out to him that he supports Obama's drone program, which has led to the same result. He had no problem compartmentalizing that as having to take the bad with the good when supporting the Democrats, because they're better than the Republicans. I think he is compassionate and caring, but only about the groups he identifies with.

Well, he threw out a general comment on FB, and asked for feedback. He welcomes the online engagement. I certainly didn't (and wouldn't) start such a conversation there myself; I just responded. I did empathize with him, but he is rigid in his belief that people with money are greedy and don't care at all about the poor. And there's certainly a component of ego involved; with people like that, changing your mind is an admission that you're wrong, and that is just unfathomable. On a certain level, I can relate. It took me 7 years of listening to FDR before I finally gave up voting. But my transformation was a willing one, in that I was open to new beliefs. He is certain he is right no matter how much logic I throw his way. dsayers - I'm having trouble quoting/copying text here, but your last paragraph is superb. After reading it, I finally do see a productive angle to my disconnecting from him.

Sure. I said that having someone else pay for a product or service that you receive is a recipe for bloated pricing. I think buying your own insurance, which you can carry your entire life, would bring prices down and give people options to better reflect their own specific needs (e.g., I don't need pregnancy coverage, my wife doesn't need testicular cancer coverage, etc.). And the more people can keep their own money, the more they'd be willing to give to charity, in this case covering the uninsured poor. In our private conversations, he said he understood and respected my position, but that he didn't think charity would be sufficient. It was only in our public, online conversation that he linked my position to Michelle Bachmann, Fox News, et al. And that's the part that really gets me - you can't see me both ways. I engaged him very civilly online and was actually looking to expand our previous discourse for others to observe and perhaps learn from, as opposed to the typical Dem/GOP hatefests we usually see. Instead, he forgot - or chose to forget - our previous discussions and went all Martin Bashir on me.

Yeah, there are all different parts of me feeling different things. My gut tells me this is not a relationship worth maintaining. My heart is a tad broken because I really enjoyed interacting with him on other activities. And quite honestly, there's a bit of a pre-enlightened high-schooler in me that feels like belting him in the eye for badmouthing me in front of the entire cafeteria. I can totally see how they are like children. But I have a boatload of such children in my life right now, and I need to use some kind of filtration method to sort through them.

Those are very valid points. I only converted to this philosophy in my early-mid-40s (I'm now 50), so I am aware that people can always change their viewpoints. The problem I have is with his public aggression toward me. I'm a husband and the father of a young daughter (he knows them both). When he tells an online audience that people with my ideology believe that abortion rationalizes rape, I think I have every right to feel offended to the point that I can no longer justify engaging him.

I don't want to cut him off, but I don't have any desire to maintain a "friendship" with someone who publicly misrepresents me. I'm not going to change his view. I had thought, based on our prior private conversations, that he understood my philosophy and we could agree to disagree. Clearly that's not the case. I'm disengaging from the opportunity to use that time on more productive opportunities.

Thanks for understanding the "public" part of my issue here. I can have heated private discussions with friends that can slip into testy waters, and then when emotions simmer down we can apologize/explain and move on. When it's done in front of an audience, whether in 3D or online, it leaves a lasting impression on others. I got apologies (a voice message and an email), but they didn't help rationalize any of this. He said that he wasn't trying to insult me, but he really gets upset when people criticize Obamacare before it's even had a chance to "work." He either can't or won't understand that whether or not the program "works," I still find the coercion behind it to be immoral. I'm feeling down this morning, and I can't sort out if it's because I regret ending a friendship or because I'm so disappointed in someone whom I considered a friend.

I have a friend who's very hippy-liberal. We work together (and well) on a charitable organization that he runs. We've had many private conversations about our beliefs, which differ greatly, as we've agreed to disagree. Until yesterday. He posted a definition of what "liberal" is on Facebook, which basically inferred that liberals had a monopoly on goodness. This led to a discussion between us about universal healthcare, in which he said that anyone who opposes it wants to allow uninsured babies to die. He also made repeated efforts to link me to Neanderthal Republicans who compare abortion rights to justification of rape, etc. When I called him out on those comments on the thread, pointing out that he knows from our private conversations that I do not feel that way, he acknowledged that those aren't my beliefs, but of people who think like me (also untrue). I was particularly bothered by the tone of this discussion in pseudo-public (Facebook), where between us there are about 1000 people who could have read it. He never cast such judgments on people with my beliefs in any of our private conversations, whether in person or on the phone. At some point in this conversation I just hit a wall and decided that I don't want to maintain a friendship with someone who either thinks I'm that way or feels a need to paint me that way in front of others. I'm a big believer in freedom of association, and I have no desire to associate with people like this. So my question... Am I taking this too personally by not wanting to be his friend (in both the real world and cyberspace) any more? Part of me says I should have avoided engaging him on this in the first place, but a bigger part of me feels that I've now learned what he's really like.