Rules for conversation in the dining room!

[Doug R.]

Services to be conducted by Gordy.

 

Thats Pope Gordy to you:p

[Cruisin' Chick]

But what if they went to visit a Temple/church/shrine/synagague/mosque?

(fill in depending on itinerary)

Should they not mention it because they would be bringing up the subject of religion?

 

Lois

 

I think there's so many aspects of historical buildings as stated above, and that you can talk about them without even talking about the funcion in great detail. We checked out some jodos on our last cruise, but because of the inherent beauty of them without considering the religious angle. I think if we were asked what we saw in Lahaina and mentioned that, we wouldn't been able to discuss the religion it serves, just the physical description of the bell, the Buddha, etc.

[electro]

Well, you are the one who brought the question of whether discussing these architectural buildings is appropriate because of their religious purpose, which was worded in a way that could have been construed as a challenge. If that's not what you meant, it unfortunately was easy for people to misunderstood your intention.

 

Hopefully, no offence will be taken if people had an honest misunderstanding.

 

 

No offence taken. I was just trying to say that you can discuss the buildings and the religions they represent. You don't have to be a part of any religion to have a coversation about it.

I think it is interesting to learn about different cultural and religious customs and I don't see anything wrong with discussing them at dinner, especially if you have just visited one such place.

 

I also don't understand the assumtion that if religion or politics come up then it must me about someone trying to push their views on you.

 

I've learned something about the electoral college just by reading this thread. I never knew what the term meant. I didn't take it as someone trying to tell me that it is the best or worst way to do things.

 

Lois

[IndyDenise]

[

Certainly the discussion would be lively and entertaining, if not peaceful or amicable.

For some that would make it highly enjoyable, while it would drive others away.

 

Perhaps on the form where they ask your dining preference, there should also be an option for debate table or traditional table. ;)

 

------------------------

If I discuss the " taboo" subjects I am not looking for a debate.

That's where I think it gets confusing to some. I feel that it is possible to discuss anything ..without having to change someone else's opinion ...if the other person is like minded.

Of course, not everyone is...and I would not bring up or carry on certain subjects with those that I think are trying to change my views. If a taboo subject came up in conversation, heck yes, I would willingly discuss, not debate.

[electro]

[

SIZE=3]If I discuss the " taboo" subjects I am not looking for a debate. [/size]

That's where I think it gets confusing to some. I feel that it is possible to discuss anything ..without having to change someone else's opinion ...if the other person is like minded.

Of course, not everyone is...and I would not bring up or carry on certain subjects with those that I think are trying to change my views. If a taboo subject came up in conversation, heck yes, I would willingly discuss, not debate.

 

Well said. I totally agree.

 

But even if I didn't, we could discuss it.:D

 

Lois

[fleckle]

Now If I could have tablemates with widely divergent points of view like Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly, for example, that should make for entertaining dinner conversation regardless of one's beliefs. :D

 

Unfortunately when dining with strangers, what starts out as a civil and reasonable discussion can quickly turn ugly and contentious when people with the best of intentions fail to realize that they only get to control their own contributions to the conversation, not the contributions of others.

 

I may be looking for a discussion, not a debate, but my new tablemates may have other ideas, preferring to lecture or proselytize.

 

At such times Sloopsailor is not always around when needed. ;)

So we find it best to stick to safe subjects when meeting new people, at least until we get to know them better.

[Gathina]

I think when we go on our cruise in July I'm going to say I'm a devout Muslim and won't eat pork and see what people want to talk about then.

 

I'm sitting here reading and laughing at all the squabbling and dissention expressed on this thread, and we are not even in the dining room on a cruise ship.

 

This thread provides a good demonstration of why many people try to avoid discussing controversial issues at social functions, such as dinners with strangers.

 

Just picture the most contentious members of this group (not naming any names -- draw your own conclusions) at dinner with innocent, unsuspecting cruise passengers who arrive at the table expecting to have a peaceful, amicable, enjoyable meal.

 

Certainly the discussion would be lively and entertaining, if not peaceful or amicable.

For some that would make it highly enjoyable, while it would drive others away.

 

Perhaps on the form where they ask your dining preference, there should also be an option for debate table or traditional table. ;)

[IndyDenise]

I think when we go on our cruise in July I'm going to say I'm a devout Muslim and won't eat pork and see what people want to talk about then.

 

-----------

I think on my next cruise ( in 10 days ) I am going to ask my table mates to discuss what is proper to discuss with your tablemates. :D

Denise

[bus man]

BTW, could YOU explain to ME the electoral college? I tried once in college college.. yeah.. completely lost.

 

My my excuse me. but as a matter of fact I have a problem with some states holding more sway than others just because they are more populous.

 

One man, one vote. not one state gets more votes than another

 

The tension between "one man one vote" and the fact that the U.S. is a federal republic made up of several sovereign states, as opposed to a direct democracy, is the reason the Founders came up with the Electoral College. Each state receives a number of Electors based on the total number of Congressmen in that state plus the number of Senators. Thus, my state of Maryland has 8 Congressmen (House of Representatives) plus our two Senators, so we have 10 Electoral votes. Whichever candidate wins the majority of votes in each state receives the total number of Electoral votes in that state.

 

Because every state has two Senators, this gives a little bit more "weight" to the less populous states, relative to their bigger cousins. Recall that Congressmen (the House) represent people, while Senators represent states. (Well, that's the way it was set up, anyway.) That's why the House is proportioned according to population, but the Senate has the same number of members (two) from each state.

 

In regards to the "winner take all" issue, I don't care for it; I've always thought that the respective functions of each chamber of Congress ought to be reflected in how the vote is tallied. What I mean is, in each state, the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district should receive the Electoral vote from that district; and whoever wins the statewide vote tally, regardless of the margin of victory, should receive both senatorial Electoral votes.

 

So, hypethetically, say that Bob Smith receives a majority of votes in each of 5 districts in my state, while Jane Doe wins a majority in each of the other 3. Mr. Smith also wins a majority of overall statewide votes. Under the system that I would like to see, Mr. Smith would receive 7 Electoral votes (5 for the districts he won, plus the two statewide votes), and Ms. Doe would win 3.

 

.

[dread_pirate]

I think there's so many aspects of historical buildings as stated above' date=' and that you can talk about them without even talking about the funcion in great detail. [/quote']

It's actually quite difficult to discuss architecture in more depth than "Oh, wasn't it beautiful?" without discussing function. Architecture at its best puts function over form, but beautifies it with the form.

[euro cruiser]

The tension between "one man one vote" and the fact that the U.S. is a federal republic made up of several sovereign states, as opposed to a direct democracy, is the reason the Founders came up with the Electoral College. Each state receives a number of Electors based on the total number of Congressmen in that state plus the number of Senators. Thus, my state of Maryland has 8 Congressmen (House of Representatives) plus our two Senators, so we have 10 Electoral votes. Whichever candidate wins the majority of votes in each state receives the total number of Electoral votes in that state.

 

Because every state has two Senators, this gives a little bit more "weight" to the less populous states, relative to their bigger cousins. Recall that Congressmen (the House) represent people, while Senators represent states. (Well, that's the way it was set up, anyway.) That's why the House is proportioned according to population, but the Senate has the same number of members (two) from each state.

 

In regards to the "winner take all" issue, I don't care for it; I've always thought that the respective functions of each chamber of Congress ought to be reflected in how the vote is tallied. What I mean is, in each state, the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district should receive the Electoral vote from that district; and whoever wins the statewide vote tally, regardless of the margin of victory, should receive both senatorial Electoral votes.

 

So, hypethetically, say that Bob Smith receives a majority of votes in each of 5 districts in my state, while Jane Doe wins a majority in each of the other 3. Mr. Smith also wins a majority of overall statewide votes. Under the system that I would like to see, Mr. Smith would receive 7 Electoral votes (5 for the districts he won, plus the two statewide votes), and Ms. Doe would win 3..

And right here we have the start of an interesting conversation. In a couple of minutes the background can be explained, as above, and the issues laid out. Let the inquiry and advocacy begin!

[Suzieanna]

This is all very interesting, I think I might have learned something but am not sure? But, how is it decided how many congressmen each state has?

 

I am honestly not trying to be stupid, and if it comes across that I am being I apologise - but its good to ask if you dont know, isnt it!

 

Quite liking the Diana Worship BTW. Do you get to wear a long gold dress on special services? If so, I am in!

 

On a more serious note, I believe faith (or lack of) is a personal choice and no-one should be made to feel like they have picked the wrong side or made the wrong decision. I dont mind people believing in the power of a special book or that avoiding cracks in pavements (!) will make their life complete. If they are happy, then so am I.

[bus man]

This is all very interesting, I think I might have learned something but am not sure? But, how is it decided how many congressmen each state has?

 

The total number of congressmen is set by law at 435. (I don't know why it's that number.) Therefore, in theory, the population per district would be the total U.S. population divided by 435. However, districts cannot cross state lines; and each state must have at least 1 district. Because of these factors, the districts are not necessarily equal in population from one state to another. However, within each state, each district must be as close to equal in population as possible (plus or minus some small percentage, which I don't know what it is.)

 

It is up to each state to determine the boundaries of its districts within their own states. Because whatever party in power in each state wants to preserve its power, the district lines are redrawn ("redistricting") in such a way as to pack as many people in the opposing party into as few districts as possible, in order to (theoretically) elect more representatives from the party in power from all the other districts.

[Gathina]

What's wrong with what I said? Are you teasing me?:eek:

 

I think when we go on our cruise in July I'm going to say I'm a devout Muslim and won't eat pork and see what people want to talk about then.

 

-----------

I think on my next cruise ( in 10 days ) I am going to ask my table mates to discuss what is proper to discuss with your tablemates. :D

 

Denise

[IndyDenise]

What's wrong with what I said? Are you teasing me?:eek:

 

___________________________

 

Nope, not at all!

I am sorry if I made you feel that way.

Denise

[wassup4565]

Still on topic...

 

The one thing people like to talk about most is themselves. The most polite and interesting thing for you to do at your table in the MDR is to encourage people to talk about their favourite topic - that is, themselves. Believe me, they will all think you are a brilliant conversationalist if you do this. Here are some great phrases to help you keep people talking about themselves.

 

Tell me more about that...

That's so interesting...

Wow. You've seen and done so much...

And what happened then...?

So how did you feel about that...?

I've never (been there) (done that). What was it like?

 

Try it. It's a fine way to get a conversation going.

[dread_pirate]

Still on topic...

 

The one thing people like to talk about most is themselves. The most polite and interesting thing for you to do at your table in the MDR is to encourage people to talk about their favourite topic - that is, themselves. Believe me, they will all think you are a brilliant conversationalist if you do this. Here are some great phrases to help you keep people talking about themselves.

 

Tell me more about that...

That's so interesting...

Wow. You've seen and done so much...

And what happened then...?

So how did you feel about that...?

I've never (been there) (done that). What was it like?

 

Try it. It's a fine way to get a conversation going.

Yes, until they begin speaking of their religion/faith, their kids, what they do for a living, and all the other "personal taboo" subjects that have been discussed here!

[Gathina]

We are considering a cruise for our honeymoon in August and after viewing this thread I think I'm going to ask for a table for two! LOL

 

I can talk about religion, politics, current events, music, culture, art, etc. but one thing I do not want to talk about is my personal life with a stranger..if I tell them what I do for a living, then they end up telling me about their crazy Aunt Edna or how they studied psychology one time in college. If I can't get out of the subject matter then I either talk very vaugely about it or talk over their head (who wants to really know about neurofibromytosis or failed executive functioning or a damaged motor cortex?) so they will quit bugging me.

 

I think it's best to stick to generic topics. The way I see it, none of these people are probably not going to be my friends or I'll see them ever again..altough on one cruise I did become friends with a great gal and our friendship remained.

 

Yes, until they begin speaking of their religion/faith, their kids, what they do for a living, and all the other "personal taboo" subjects that have been discussed here!

[ducklite]

Generally speaking I don't care to discuss politics, religion, or other hot topic issues over dinner whether I know the people I'm dining with or not.

 

That said, I think there's a big difference between discussing religion on the broadest and most neutral of terms and having a debate over which religion is the true one. For example discussing something like what to wear when visiting the Vatican or an anecdotal story about growing up Catholic in a Jewish neighborhood and not understanding why your grandmother was confused when you checked to see if the package of hot dogs she put in the shopping cart were Kosher. (Happened to a friend, she's got a number of similar stories that are just hilarious and she's a great story-teller.)

 

Same thing with politics--I believe there are certain things that are OK to talk about--the current political situation in Greece and how it might affect tourism for example. Or the latest tidbit about that organization getting on Obama about the foods he's been eating during photo ops. To me those are more human interest than politics and open for discussion.

 

Sex doesn't generally belong in conversation with people you know, let alone strangers.

 

Bottom line, dinner conversation should be light and free of hot-button topics in most cases.

[circuitrider]

if I tell them what I do for a living, then they end up telling me about their crazy Aunt Edna or how they studied psychology one time in college.

 

Wife mentions she's a nurse, and you can guess where the conversation heads to. Of course, she has no problem discussing what she does...but those of us with a weaker stomach (i.e., ME!), have to politely ask that the conversation go in another direction.

 

And if I mention I'm into computers, then I get asked about all kinds of stuff. So I try to avoid that (when asked what I do, I just say I'm a stay at home dad, which is definitely true).

[CenTexFam]

Big Keith - who started all this - I think I would enjoy cruising with you. I enjoy conversation with meaning and generally find "small talk" to be tedious and mind numbing. That said, I probably would never be the first to raise one of these "controversial" topics, but I kind of hope I get a table mate who will!

[ducklite]

Big Keith - who started all this - I think I would enjoy cruising with you. I enjoy conversation with meaning and generally find "small talk" to be tedious and mind numbing. That said, I probably would never be the first to raise one of these "controversial" topics, but I kind of hope I get a table mate who will!

 

You can have meaningful conversations without talking about religion, sex, politics, etc.

[Gathina]

When's your next cruise so we can sit at your table.I'm going to make my announcment about being a devout Muslim who doesn't eat pork and see if I can clear out the dining room so we can have the place to ourselves...LOLOLOL

 

Big Keith - who started all this - I think I would enjoy cruising with you. I enjoy conversation with meaning and generally find "small talk" to be tedious and mind numbing. That said, I probably would never be the first to raise one of these "controversial" topics, but I kind of hope I get a table mate who will!

[navybankerteacher]

You can have meaningful conversations without talking about religion, sex, politics, etc.

 

Yes, but you still have to be objective and courteous in your discussions - I have had to put up with arrogant blowhards who insisted upon imposing their views concerning art, music, architecture, literature, etc. on their table-mates; while on other occasions have had enjoyable conversations with people with different political views or belief systems.

 

It is not so much the topic which needs to be avoided -- it is the attitude with which the topic is addressed.

[sail7seas]

Most professionals really dislike tellilng their work as it usually turns into conversations they want to avoid.... they are on vacation to get away from their work and concerns. They really don't want to be discussing your medical, legal, accounting, and dental problems. Give 'em a break and find something more entertaining and fun to talk about. ;)

 

IMO