Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 4:28:25 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

My entire point is that demonizing and antagonizing isn't helpful.  On either side.



...inarguably true Firm.......however, as you and i both know personally, it is all too easy to fall into such an antagonistic relationship. (strange but true, Firm and i have had our own version of a hissy fit some months back...didn't reflect well on either of us)........so, in honour of that episode, how does one hold back from unthinking partisanship? How does one honour ones opponent, even if what they believe is, by all your own belief-standards, wrong to the point of evil?

In the past i have seen even posing such a question to be defined as a 'liberal' viewpoint. Is it really? Or is it just trying to take a step back for perspectives sake? And doesn't defining it as 'liberal' simply demonise 'conservatism'?


The thread that philosophy ended this post in is called "Why, in the Holy living Mother of God FUCK is this a continuing dilemma??????"

Questions to consider:

1. how does one hold back from unthinking partisanship?

2. How does one honour ones opponent, even if what they believe is, by all your own belief-standards, wrong to the point of evil?

3. i have seen even posing such a question to be defined as a 'liberal' viewpoint. Is it really?

4. doesn't defining it as 'liberal' simply demonise 'conservatism'?

I've got some thoughts, but what I don't wish to have happen is for this thread to disintegrate into partisan bickering.  I want to talk about talking.

I also wish to thank philosophy for bringing this subject to the forefront, and having the calm and thoughtful demeanor to broach this subject.

More, later.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 4:53:58 PM   
MusicalBoredom


Posts: 620
Joined: 5/8/2007
From: Louisiana/New York
Status: offline 		I think I appreciate conversations (online or off) where it actually a conversation.  To me a conversation is some of amount of listening, thinking and responding between two or more individuals. 

The listening part means I shut my mouth and actually hear what is being said, in it's entirety, not where I hear one sentence and start on my rebuttal in my head. 

The thinking part happens after I have heard and understood what was said.  It's the part where I then try to form some opinion about what was said.  That opinion could be based on seeing some new perspective or might be that I agree in whole or in part to what was said or that I disagree with what was said.  My thoughts might also require me to ask questions or research something in order for me to have an opinion. 

The responding part is where I voice my opinion.  If I respond to someone else from the stand point of it being my opinion then I rarely end up in some confrontational conversation.  I don't mind confrontation but it is rarely effective in explaining my position or understanding someone else's.  So if my goal is communication then confrontation is probably not the way to go.  That being said I do have a temper at times and it tends to surface if I'm told I'm wrong rather that disagreed with or if I feel I'm not being heard.  When I see that my temper was raised for something other than protecting my loved ones or something similar I try to tone it down or just walk away.

There are people online and in real life that just seem to enjoy heated debates where people just yell their opinion over and over without ever wanting to stop and think about what's being said.  I try to avoid those like the plague.  I just don't want to participate in mine or much less someone else's ego inflation ritual.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 5:07:29 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline 		I'm highly liberal, years ago we were entertaining a very religious and conservative couple. For some unknown reason the subject of divorce came up. They simply stated that they felt the way they did because of their religious views. My response was to acknowledge their viewpoint, state that I did not share their religious thinking, and add that I saw it as a question of who had power over a woman's body, herself or someone else.

Having stated where we stood and why, we then let the subject drop because to continue would only have been an excuse to harangue the other, which is never good manners.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to MusicalBoredom)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 5:18:02 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


Having stated where we stood and why, we then let the subject drop because to continue would only have been an excuse to harangue the other, which is never good manners.


(my italics)...... i think good manners are a large part of a rational response to opposing viewpoints.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 5:28:26 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

4. doesn't defining it as 'liberal' simply demonise 'conservatism'?

Firm

I work in a very conservative work environment, and the word "liberal" there tends to be used as an epithet.    Regarding the thread under discussion, I've never heard the majority of conservatives campaign for the rights of gays/lesbians to marry, so how could it demonise conservatives to label this a "liberal" viewpoint?

Ohio's Republican party has a long history of opposing gay marriage; simply review the 2004 election out here; I suspect it's the same in other states with "Defense of Marriage" laws.

thornhappy

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 5:35:15 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Questions to consider:

1. how does one hold back from unthinking partisanship?


One has to WANT to, to begin with, and some don't.

quote:

2. How does one honour ones opponent, even if what they believe is, by all your own belief-standards, wrong to the point of evil?


I don't know about honor, but showing respect, by listening to, and considering, what they say. Now, if it's evil we're talking about, respect isn't required. Where trouble arises here, is when one side considers something or someone as "evil", and the other side doesn't.

quote:

3. i have seen even posing such a question to be defined as a 'liberal' viewpoint. Is it really?


No, it isn't, especially not if they mean "politically left".

quote:

4. doesn't defining it as 'liberal' simply demonise 'conservatism'?


Depends on the intent.

quote:

I also wish to thank philosophy for bringing this subject to the forefront, and having the calm and thoughtful demeanor to broach this subject.


One of CM's most reasonable posters, he is. 

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 5:47:54 PM   
pinksugarsub


Posts: 1224
Status: offline 		There's a sub-genre of literature devoted to logic, debate, and resolving disputes. 
 
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html
 
Debate Rules and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others

  • Avoid the use of Never.
  • Avoid the use of Always.
  • Refrain from saying you are wrong.
  • You can say your idea is mistaken.
  • Don't disagree with obvious truths.
  • Attack the idea not the person.
  • Use many rather than most.
  • Avoid exaggeration.
  • Use some rather than many.
  • The use of often allows for exceptions.
  • The use of generally allows for exceptions. Quote sources and numbers.
  • If it is just an opinion, admit it.
  • Do not present opinion as facts.
  • Smile when disagreeing.
  • Stress the positive.
  • You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
  • Concede minor or trivial points.
  • Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
  • Watch your tone of voice.
  • Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
  • Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
      You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
      With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.

      pinksugarsub











      < Message edited by pinksugarsub -- 6/11/2008 5:54:32 PM >

      _____________________________





      (in reply to DesFIP)
      1. Profile   Post #: 7
      RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 6:01:26 PM   
      wanderingstray


      Posts: 26
      Joined: 6/11/2008
      Status: offline
      quote:

      Questions to consider:

      1. how does one hold back from unthinking partisanship?

      2. How does one honour ones opponent, even if what they believe is, by all your own belief-standards, wrong to the point of evil?

      3. i have seen even posing such a question to be defined as a 'liberal' viewpoint. Is it really?

      4. doesn't defining it as 'liberal' simply demonise 'conservatism'?


      1. Just don't go there in the first place. Is your purpose to discuss ideas or to wage a war of words?

      2. By not viewing them as an opponent. View them as your partner in finding the better solution that serves all needs, not a win-lose deal that favors one of you.
      3 & 4. The basic mechanism of democracy is voting. Voting is a binary proposition, that is, each issue gets resolved into two options, and then a choice is made. This means everything becomes yes or no, us or them. Another approach to decision making is something called consensus. A consensus is an agreement made by all sides agreeing. It takes longer so it is no good for situations needing quick decisions. But it creates accord not conflict so for some things it works better.

      If a person can only argue and take sides, they miss out on most of the interesting ideas and all of the world's wisdom. If you find yourself held hostage to the partisan emotions of reactionary bickering, excuse yourself to the library, read some more books, and come back when you can invite any idea at all into your mind for a visit without losing your cool.

      (in reply to FirmhandKY)
      Profile   Post #: 8
      RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 6:29:01 PM   
      TheHeretic


      Posts: 19100
      Joined: 3/25/2007
      From: California, USA
      Status: offline       		       Oh yes!  And what a wonderful world it would be be!  And while we are at it, let's just have the NFL use those cute little flags instead of tackling...


             Civil discourse is well and good, Firm.  If the gentlest of words are total lies though, I reserve the right to cry "Bullshit!" upon them.  If the great, self-righteous proclamations of virtue and morality are ridiculous hypocrisy, I have to laugh.

           

      _____________________________

      If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
      That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


      (in reply to FirmhandKY)
      Profile   Post #: 9
      RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 6:29:38 PM   
      Real_Trouble


      Posts: 471
      Joined: 2/25/2008
      Status: offline       		Some quick answers:

      1 - Critically challenge your own beliefs and, rather than holding them dear, actively attempt to find contrary evidence.  This is cognitively difficult and requires expending significant mental energy, but worth doing with something that matters.

      2 - I don't think you necessarily need to honor someone you truly believe to be evil; that is different, however, than having a fair debate.  There, the debt of honor is not to your oppoent (you're trying to kick their bitch ass), but rather to the audience, who you should regard as rational and worthy of respect.  Otherwise, why debate?  You rarely change the mind of the person you are speaking directly with (and if you want to, I would suggest you start with evidence and experience, rather than a verbal debate).

      3 - Define "Liberal".

      4 - Define "Conservative".

      People play fast and loose with political labels.  If you are going to use them, tell us exactly what you mean.  I think you might find many people use the same word for some very, very different things.

      Last, sometimes sarcasm is the only appropriate response to stupidity, so I always keep that in my back pocket.


      _____________________________

      Send lawyers, guns, and money.

      (in reply to wanderingstray)
      Profile   Post #: 10
      RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 7:41:29 PM   
      Irishknight


      Posts: 2016
      Joined: 9/30/2007
      Status: offline       		Sometimes the only way to stop someone from arguing in a purely partisan manner is to say, "STFU!  I am tired of hearing it."

      My wife has an aunt that will constantly peck away at the same points until you tell her to shut up.  Many people forget that conversation is more than repeating the same thing over and over.

      As an earlier poster said, there has to be an equal exchange of ideas which involves listening when it becomes your turn.

      There is also a time when you just have to say, "We disagree.  We are never going to agree about this subject so lets move on to something else."

      (in reply to Real_Trouble)
      Profile   Post #: 11
      RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 7:52:15 PM   
      kdsub


      Posts: 12180
      Joined: 8/16/2007
      Status: offline
      quote:

      ORIGINAL: pinksugarsub

      There's a sub-genre of literature devoted to logic, debate, and resolving disputes. 
       
      http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html
       
      Debate Rules and Suggestions
      Advice on Debating with Others
    1. Avoid the use of Never.
    2. Avoid the use of Always.
    3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
    4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
    5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
    6. Attack the idea not the person.
    7. Use many rather than most.
    8. Avoid exaggeration.
    9. Use some rather than many.
    10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
    11. The use of generally allows for exceptions. Quote sources and numbers.
    12. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
    13. Do not present opinion as facts.
    14. Smile when disagreeing.
    15. Stress the positive.
    16. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
    17. Concede minor or trivial points.
    18. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
    19. Watch your tone of voice.
    20. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
    21. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
        You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
        With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.

        pinksugarsub



        1. An excellent list pinksugarsub...I mostly follow them...but once in awhile I let the temper get away from me...BUT I never hold grudges...and am usually over the anger by the next time I log in.

        Butch

        (in reply to pinksugarsub)
        Profile   Post #: 12
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 11:04:05 PM   
        Termyn8or


        Posts: 18681
        Joined: 11/12/2005
        Status: offline         		This is indeed a valuable skill.  Took me about 44 years to master it.

        To master the point you need to master the counterpoint.

        Let's take a very simple argument. Say I am on a bus and some welfare Mother and I decide to talk about the President.

        "Which President do you think would give us more welfare for our kids ?"

        "Which President do you think would get us out of all these wars and we wouldn't need so much welfare, look at these prices"

        You see, that counterpoint is based directly on what is known of the oppositon's viewpoint. At the time. Was it offensive ? You be the judge.

        To go into detail would take days, but let me put it this way, I was taught by the best. There comes a day when you hear "Yes, but YOU think that......." enough times it comes clear. How do they know what I think ?

        That is the secret, figure out how they know that and realize, the only thing they had to go on was your words and actions. So find out their words and actions. Might not be simple but I never promised you a rose garden.

        T

        (in reply to kdsub)
        Profile   Post #: 13
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/11/2008 11:37:50 PM   
        popeye1250


        Posts: 18104
        Joined: 1/27/2006
        From: New Hampshire
        Status: offline         		Pinksugar, good list.
        I remember "most" of them from debate class decades ago.
        That's the thing, you argue your point and try to be polite to the other side.
        If you attack the other person or call them names or insult them you lose.
        There are people in here with multiple degrees that don't understand that concept. They must have skipped out on debate class.
        "Most" people in here know how I feel about illegal "immigration" no matter which country they come from.
        It's not a "conservative" issue, an "independant" issue, or a "liberal" issue.
        It's a "law enforcement" issue plain and simple.
        I'm more angry at our govt than I am the illegal aliens in this country.
        Them I don't care about one way or the other.
        They just need to leave.
        There's really not a lot to "debate" there.
        I listen to others opinions on the subject and that's fine.
        I state my opinions and I'm labeled as "predjudiced", "racist", and other epithets.
        For whatever reason they try to inject emotion into the debate.
        Half of the people who call themselves "liberal", aren't.
        Oh, pardon me, "many" of the people who call themselves "liberal", aren't.

        < Message edited by popeye1250 -- 6/11/2008 11:41:32 PM >

        _____________________________

        "But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

        (in reply to pinksugarsub)
        Profile   Post #: 14
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 6:13:00 AM   
        pahunkboy


        Posts: 33061
        Joined: 2/26/2006
        From: Central Pennsylvania
        Status: offline         		well- it is a bunch of nonsense.  see ron paul.

        lawyers, talking heads, can talk for hours and not  answere the question.  tv -today is all about ratings -ie cash.  it feels seats like jerry springer.  i too am titred of the partisanship mentioned as bi or whatever.

        one phaze i hate is "absolutely not",  "having said that"  "real problems" "problematic" "literally", "sources tell us" [who!!] "thank you".  we do not have fricken time to thank the guests [who happen to be PAID]  it takes maybe 6 seconds to thank a guest. suppose there are 3 guests in 22 minutes, that is 18 seconds.  enough for an extra commercial.

        i have concluded everyone is full of it.

        my bro called me last night. he said he did not confirmly promise mom to come out. he told me he is so busy and his employees wont answere the phone 6 times., the kid acts like a speed freak!!!  i want to say to him, if you have 10 mintutes to live - you dont work 9 1/2 of them!!  i am tempted to say- fine come out on thurday.  gram is sceduled to pass away wednesday. but YOU "have" to work. dont blame me if i cant hurry to the phone and answere it before the 3rd ring. i dont call you cause you are always busy- even when you are not-and you call me, you are just pulling into the widget place and will "call me back"  which means maybe you will, maybe you wont. then if i drive 12 hours to see you and we go to diunner- the cell is so important that you talk mor then 3 minutes ....  [i am schedulded to die in 2 minutes]

        your grandmother is  born in 1921.  how long will she live?  you wont know cause you are working 17 hour days, [your words not mine] and mom waited since december for you to hook up her kitchen sink. god thing she lived till june when you did get to  it.  i am going to send mom a congratulations card. [sink]

        the dude you work for the one alwaays jetting off to exotic places is not going to "all this could be yours one day". BULL! he just want you to be 2 people to do his summer AND winter homes, and the homes of all your friends. you are a wage whore.  mom picked up and moved across country- so yous can help her with repairs, and she is not to call the 3 of you  during weekends.! excuse her for living.  she had no sink for over 6 months! at least she HAD a sink when i was near her!

        (in reply to popeye1250)
        Profile   Post #: 15
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 9:00:51 AM   
        philosophy


        Posts: 5284
        Joined: 2/15/2004
        Status: offline
        quote:

        ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

              Oh yes!  And what a wonderful world it would be be!  And while we are at it, let's just have the NFL use those cute little flags instead of tackling...


        ........but that would ruin the game.


            
        quote:

          Civil discourse is well and good, Firm. 


        ......is civil discourse a game?

        quote:

        If the gentlest of words are total lies though, I reserve the right to cry "Bullshit!" upon them.  If the great, self-righteous proclamations of virtue and morality are ridiculous hypocrisy, I have to laugh.


        ....totally understandable responses to lies and hypocrisy. Thing is, a viewpoint can be wrong and not a lie. It can be false and not hypocrisy. People can honestly believe things that you know to be untrue and they can hold those positions with the same honour and faith that you hold your positions. Isn't it important to recognise when someone is lying and when someone is telling the truth as they see it? Doesn't it make a difference?

            

        (in reply to TheHeretic)
        Profile   Post #: 16
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 9:35:14 AM   
        Mercnbeth


        Posts: 11766
        Status: offline         		Wow - I didn't realize that we should consider that most of our politicians and apparently many arguing positions here are using academia competitive debating rules. Two things you learn after leaving academia; those that can't-teach, in life being 'almost right' doesn't earn you a 'c' and pass the course; is simply called - wrong and you fail. 

        However the practice of following this rule in particular;
        quote:

        Refrain from saying you are wrong."
        should have made that clear. Drawing from my 'debat team' experience I'll stipulate that it is true. Back in the day, I think all these rules were printed on the back of the old index cards that we used. You lost points with the judges; life is just a tad different, or at least it should be. I've never lost a friend due to disagreement or being on the other side of a debate. My experience is quite the contrary, I've gained many who's intelligent points in opposition caused me to learn more on the subject.

        The aversion to the simple sentence; "I was wrong" is an incredible thing to witness. Most recently there was an opinion given on ALL munches based upon 2 experiences in an isolated location. When challenged instead of a simple "yeah"; perspective and rationalization needed to come into play. This makes much more sense now considering that some are keeping score in line with those 'rules'. 'One-true-way' discussion rules - based upon competition. Damn! I didn't know I was even playing. 

        Finding out you are wrong and stating it unequivocally is an accomplishment. The direct accomplishment was that you learned something. Just as important, you gained a bit of confidence that allows you to not fear learning something else that may prove you were wrong. It is a very powerful learning tool.

        < Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 6/12/2008 10:29:07 AM >

        (in reply to philosophy)
        Profile   Post #: 17
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 9:41:02 AM   
        Termyn8or


        Posts: 18681
        Joined: 11/12/2005
        Status: offline         		Hunky, you must've been on longdistance again. Your Mom still has no sink ? Geez, You should go put one in, she might say fuck that [Hunky's brother] and leave everything to you. On her death bed she may squeeze your hand and say "Thanks to you I could do dishes again".

        Kidding aside.

        philosophy, that is a good point, they might be as firm in their beliefs. It's one thing when it's half assed, some some do have considerable background and basis for their beliefs. The wrong have simply made the wrong conclusions. Or they may be missing a few key facts. I love it when I rock someone's world. It's not just that I won an argument, although it does feel pretty good, it is that someone is enlightened. I remember someone telling me that the national debt was just money the government owes itself. I didn't need an elephant gun for this one, something akin to a hillbilly switchblade worked just fine.

        A hillbilly switchblade is a kid's toy made of a clothespin and a rubber band.

        In reality you can always fight facts with facts. Some people know different facts. As you present your's, when the rebuttal comes you might actually learn something.

        And in any argument, if it is resolved, there is a winner and a loser. But the winner only wins if the loser is indeed convinced he was wrong. The loser stands corrected then and should actually appreciate it.

        For some people however, there are some rock solid issues. When your rock solid issues and theirs do not jibe, don't go there. Don't ask a Baptist to become a Moslem. Which brings up the next point, which is that religious dogma is just about the hardest thing to fight.

        This is because they believe that they need no facts. When they thump that Bible, run.

        T


        (in reply to philosophy)
        Profile   Post #: 18
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 9:46:01 AM   
        philosophy


        Posts: 5284
        Joined: 2/15/2004
        Status: offline
        quote:

        ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

        When they thump that Bible, run.




        ...doesn't have to be the bible. Can be the Koran, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, Hello Magazine or something by Ayn Rand. The subtext is, "this book convinced me. it guides my decisions and forms the basis for my ethical/moral sense. if it doesn't convince you you're clearly mad, for you are not like me and i'm sane." .

        (in reply to Termyn8or)
        Profile   Post #: 19
        RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 10:24:40 AM   
        Alumbrado


        Posts: 5560
        Status: offline
        quote:

        ORIGINAL: philosophy

        quote:

        ORIGINAL: DesFIP


        Having stated where we stood and why, we then let the subject drop because to continue would only have been an excuse to harangue the other, which is never good manners.


        (my italics)...... i think good manners are a large part of a rational response to opposing viewpoints.


        As stated in the other thread, it depends on the goals.

        If the goal is to score points in a high school debate contest, then some judges may be favorable to good manners and polite rebutttals.

        If the goal is to negotiate with, or persuade someone to change their ideological point of view, or share ideas ( the so called 'civil discourse') then the classic 'I/You' rules seem to work pretty well.

        If the goal is to expose deceit, superstition, chicanery, bigotry, or agit-prop, then sarcasm, debunking, and aggressive confrontation will edify some people who might otherwise be persuaded by the sophistry that supports or hides the bogus ideas.
        And those who are 'offended' by such tactics may either have a vested interest in the BS, or they are just not going to think critically on that issue at that time. 

        If the goal is to change or stand in firm opposition to behavior that is rooted in racism, sexism, elitism, or other forms of intolerance, then a careful reading of history will reveal that while pleasant speeches and fine words have some effect...so does direct and unvarnished offensive confrontation.

        What history rarely shows is that polite and obsequious silence and tacit inoffensivness does anything but encourage the status quo... particularly intolerance.



        The maxim says that respect has to be earned. 
        Nowhere does it say that there is only one way to earn it, and that is the logical fallacy being plied in the other thread, and in the OP.

        (in reply to philosophy)
        Profile   Post #: 20
        Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
        All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
        Jump to:





        New Messages No New Messages
        Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
        Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
         Post New Thread
         Reply to Message
         Post New Poll
         Submit Vote
         Delete My Own Post
         Delete My Own Thread
         Rate Posts




        Collarchat.com © 2025
        Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

        0.094