Morpho Designs

Bear Right: Alcohol, Abortion and Arms

Photo by takomabibelot

Getting Our Bearings

One of the biggest problems that plagues rational beings is debating on dual planes. The use of emotionally charged words invokes irrelevant images, which cloud the judgment and usually obscure any attempt to make ourselves understood.
…
Once a discussion has reached enough thinkers, chaos perforce, ensues. In its simplest form, the chaos manifests itself as two people shouting across the chasm between the two planes.

– Mitchell Allen, from Fruitless Debates

I’ve always been fascinated by the polarizing power of personal beliefs. Truth and Fallacy are poor step-sisters to Perception. The reason is simple: we can not know all things, but we can believe whatever we wish.

Indeed, some ideas do not come down on the side of truth or fallacy. Instead, they represent conversations about different ideals – the way things ought to be. Naturally, some conversations are louder than others.

Bear Right – Conservatively Speaking

One way to confuse matters is to attach an ideal to an ideology and then, in the heat of discussion, paint the speaker with a stereotypical broad brush. Ideologies, at best, are a framework within which a consistent set of ideas create sense of the world. In other words, ideology is systematized perception!

Part of the systemization is the inclusion of ideals within the framework. What we tend to forget is that one or more ideals in a specific ideology might also be found in other, possibly conflicting, ideologies.

Obviously, we don’t all see things the same way, so it is pointless to base arguments of ideals on ideology.

The Right To Bear Arms

In 2006, a few months before I wrote Fruitless Debates, I indulged in one of my own.
I naively sought to interpret the Second Amendment:

Security, on the other hand, is based implicitly on the idea that a sovereign nation would wish to remain autonomous and would take steps to ensure their sovereignty. The Constitution of the United States makes this clear in various places:

• Preamble – We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
• Article I, Section 8 – The Congress shall have power to … declare war
• Article II – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
• Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Because security was not a major factor in the formulation of the United States of America, it cannot, therefore, be linked arm-in-arm with the notion of freedom.

-Mitchell Allen, Essential Liberty Vs Temporary Safety

The long-standing argument, by proponents of gun rights, that the Second Amendment applied to individuals, has finally been affirmed by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller).
I take solace from the fact that a dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, resonates with my interpretation:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.
The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

-Justice John Paul Stevens, from Supreme Court Opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller

My Body, My Rules

To what extent does self-governance permit peaceful coexistence? If you and I decided to debate a social topic from the perspective of whether individuals are capable of self-control, how long do you think an objective discussion would last?

Here’s the problem: any assertions which strike at the core of an ideal tend to be taken as personal attacks (remember, we’re going to try leaving ideologies out of it).

Abortion is one such polarizing topic. Any statements we might make will strike at one or more ideals – the sanctity of life, a woman’s right to choose, etc.

As it relates to the theme of this post, I quote an interesting website that appears to put forth an unbiased debate on the topic:

It is important to realize that both the pro-life, anti-abortion and pro-choice positions cover a range of beliefs and advocacy. Most of the media are wrong: there is no single pro-life/anti-abortion position and no single pro-choice position.

-ReligiousTolerance.org

Prohibitively Expensive

Alcohol is another hot-button topic. Whether we drink alcoholic beverages or not, each of us has a view about our capacity, the capacity of others and the right of governments to dictate acceptable capacities. We possibly also hold moral beliefs about consumption. Can we talk about these things? I’m not sure.

In Virginia, where I live, the distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is governed by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Recently, I read an interesting article about Happy Hour Advertising Laws. This article, and the accompanying comments, further point out the futility of reaching common ground in the debate between government control and personal freedom.

Quantifying the Fruitless Debate

Just to be controversial, I decided to include these provocative “graphs”, which depict my own perceptions. If they make no sense to you, rest assured that I couldn’t get them to clarify anything for me, either.

I deliberately refrained from assigning meaning to the chosen colors and the relative placement of the icons.
What do these graphs evoke in your mind? Are they judgmental? Self-serving? Stupid?
Leave your feedback!