I’d rather have fun with the Fomentera Lady.

Exchanging ideas is appealing as long as both parties see it as purely academic or a philosophical journey and are not too intent on “winning the debate”.

For some people, it’s about “groups”, “cliques”, debates… proving the other person wrong…winning. From these milieu come “political adversaries”, not because they are initially considered as such but because they themselves determine that they’re “political adversaries” of people who do not hold THEIR views. Being a “political adversary” is their stamp, their badge of honor. Their stand is defined by becoming a “political adversary” to someone.

Such a position – that with the sole goal of winning – is based on representational arguments meant to convince (not logical arguments meant to enlighten). Standpoints change as the gameplan changes.

Like watching an idea thrown in the waves of power – floating, undependable, ungrounded – the premise goes where the current flows and the current goes back and forth.

I consider these contentions as but techniques of persuasion.

Techniques change, principles rarely do. A portal to power as important as politics should be grounded on principles, not techniques.

Luckily, I’ve come to know a rare few who base their political stand on principles. Exchanging barbs with them is fun, amusing, intellectually stimulating, and yes at times, frustrating.

They argue with people they used to agree with…

agree with people they used to argue with.

…and at times argue with themselves when they realize there are some points they need to consider or reconsider.

Notably, these people, albeit being politically-inclined and outspoken, are quite liberal in their acknowledgement of other people’s ideas .

They hold the same stand ABOUT politics. That of not allowing themselves to be defined by it.

They are not defined by any political party. If they happen to be in one, they do not make it their trademark. They are nonsensical enough to identify that to exercise their principles, they have to be in a social, professional, spiritual or intellectual milieu of their own choosing, but wise and responsible enough to know that they shouldn’t rest on the affiliations alone.

They are known for “being principled” not for having the principles of Party A or B.

With them, I rarely “talk about politics”.

If we discuss points which happen to be political matters, we do not consider the discussion political issues – just topics we happen to be passionate about.

If ever we argue, it’s not because we come from two opposite fronts intent on decimating the territory of the other.

We argue, albeit sometimes animatedly and almost all of the times strongly, because we know that although our ideas and opinions aren’t the end-all and be-all of the issue at hand, an intellectual conversation may help us see the nooks, crannies and crevices each of us may have overlooked.

Technically, I can consider them political adversaries, but I choose not to.

I prefer to see them as “principled people” not “political adversaries”.

The way they see opposing political views and entreat the people holding those do not make them political adversaries

rather…

kindred spirits.

Kindred spirit… what I sought in a partner… what i thought he was.

Through time we get to see which ideas float and which ideas are grounded, which are debates and which are arguments.

I do not want to spend life on debates.

I do not want to spend life without arguments.

Differences do not set people apart, take on differences do.

In my experience politics boils down to business. Which boils down to money or advantage. A solid relationship is built on mutual respect…something that’s hard to find in party politics.

A broken violin cannot be played. I’d rather have music.

By political adversary, do you mean

… Someone I see on the other side of the fence in lieu of his stand on issues ?

Does politics loosely translate to :

” stand on life’s core issues” ?

Have i ever dated one?

Yes.

… and that date turned to an on-and-off, off-and on relationship for several years.

The never-ending conversations, the interesting insights that didn’t necessarily jive with my set ideas but were delivered in a manner that fomented intellectual discussions without leading to heated arguments – this was the actual thing that made me wanna be with him.

… Someone I see on the other side of the fence in lieu of his principles?

Does politics loosely translate to :

” principles as evidenced by his OWN stand on life’s core issues ?”

If the question was:

WOULD YOU date a political adversary? and political adversary would be the definition abovementioned…

I would have answered “No”.

I have high regard for principled people. Principles are reflective of a person’s value system.

I respect somebody who strongly stands for what he thinks is right…

…but our rights… and wrongs… differ.

Being friends with someone with a different moral framework is ok. As long as we agree that we can disagree, we’re cool.

But entertaining the thought of a romantic relationship leading to a long-term partnership with someone who doesn’t share the basic ethical framework – it’s a different situation altogether.

If the date blossoms into a relationship and I ultimately have kids with the guy, which value system will my kids imbibe? ( Going out with somebody I do not have romantic interest in isn’t a date for me. it’s simply that, going out.)

It would rather be confusing for the kids if one parent teaches them some basic tenets and they see the other parent clearly opposing those guidelines.

So, no – ideally, I wouldn’t date a political adversary (someone who doesn’t share my politics, my principles).

Ideally.

Because my answer to the question: HAVE YOU ever dated a political adversary?..

is

Yes.

I did.

It blossomed into a relationship.

… and failed.

***
If so, were the arguments fascinating or frustrating?

Frustrating.

Does politics strictly translate to :

“The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party” , ” The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government” and “Political attitudes and positions? (http://www.answers.com/topic/politics)“

By political adversary, do you mean…

Someone who “belongs” to a different political party by (1.)affinity or (2.)affiliation?

1. If someone belongs to a political party by affinity, i do not really consider him a political adversary. Can’t immediately jump into conclusions about a person’s political stand in lieu of his bloodline or familial ties.

Have i ever dated one?

A politician? Someone who has close ties with a politician or a political party? Someone who supports a political party? Someone who’s a political loyalist?

Nope.

2. If someone belongs to a political party by affiliation and i knew about such political ties at the onset, then that would make me interested in figuring out why he decided to be affiliated with that party in the first place.

I’d be interested to know more about his “political attitudes and positions” for that would help me determine whether i wanna date him or not.

What are his motivations in joining that party? Are his positions and decisions shaped by the party’s stand or does he help shape and improve the party’s direction even if it means he has to oppose and shake the political ground on which it is standing?

Have i ever dated one?

A politician? Someone who has close ties with a politician or a political party? Someone who is an adherent supporter of a political party? Someone who’s a political loyalist?

Date? My definition of it?

Nope.

The people I know who have ties with political parties are my friends so the time I spend with them are considered time with friends, discussions with friends, phone conversations with friends, going out with friends…

Not dates.

Not so keen on dating friends.

I’ve got peoples that I don’t agree with politically, but consider intellectual equals deserving of respect. I can couch my critiques with the objective knowledge that we are socialized within a sick culture, rendering even the most ethical of us a part of a larger system of inequity and oppression (myself included, I’m sure).

I gotta challenge your assertion that I am apparently illogical and unreasonable by dint of taking issue with coercive manifestations of human agency, including government, capital, misogyny, racism, etc. Like, seriously, I’m already in a pisspoor mood today, and that’s still rubbing me the wrong way. Such assumptions cannot be based on an accurate understanding of the history and nuance of anarchist thought.