RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: 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 >> RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 10:37:50 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

the format of todays tv does not allow the time or span of non commercials to feed constructive debate.

as serious as this is- you would think more people would try to learn answers. to go deeper then the soundbite. really now. we have legislation that isnt read before a congressman votes for it. we have all legislation filled with unrelated far flung amendments. sorta like if I agreed to rent a room at Terms, and I then decided we would go to the mall and carnival, he would smile, we then would stop by aunt sallies, and while there term would paint her living room. Meanwhile firm is to buy the paint. merc is to wait in line. we all then will meet for cookies and milk if it snows in perth today.

so- a bill doesnt resemble it title or purpose.

y'all missed my ron paul bed. it was hauled away an hour ago. ill post a pic of it.

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 10:43:39 AM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

IMHO if one can concede that someone might hold views contrary to one's own and not be a)stupid or b)evil.one can go a long way towards the goal of civil discourse.The problem's arise when the mere fact that you disagree with me is proof that your an idiot...IMHO

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 10:52:52 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

Of course...

And that could be a rational concession if someone differs from me on matters of say, musical preference, or other individual tastes or opinions.

But on the other hand, it is reality that are those who seem to make it their life's work to do things I find to be idiotic.

And if they or their supporters find disagreement with dragging people behind pickup trucks, or denying them the vote, or a marriage license, to be offensive, then (unless we go the route of moral relativism) whose viewpoint produces the least real harm?

Those intolerant of difference or those intolerant of intolerance?

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 6/12/2008 10:56:01 AM >

(in reply to slvemike4u)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 10:56:10 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

http://9roger9.googlepages.com/rp

my ans to tv "debate"

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 11:33:34 AM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Of course...

And that could be a rational concession if someone differs from me on matters of say, musical preference, or other individual tastes or opinions.

But on the other hand, it is reality that are those who seem to make it their life's work to do things I find to be idiotic.

And if they or their supporters find disagreement with dragging people behind pickup trucks, or denying them the vote, or a marriage license, to be offensive, then (unless we go the route of moral relativism) whose viewpoint produces the least real harm?

Those intolerant of difference or those intolerant of intolerance?

And my point was that more civil discourse might lead to less people doing the very acts you find to be idiotic...Telling people that there views or beliefs are idiotic has rarely won converts...IMO

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 12:27:29 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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." .

"all books make good kindling, even the good ones."
-anon-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 2:33:33 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Of course...

And that could be a rational concession if someone differs from me on matters of say, musical preference, or other individual tastes or opinions.

But on the other hand, it is reality that are those who seem to make it their life's work to do things I find to be idiotic.

And if they or their supporters find disagreement with dragging people behind pickup trucks, or denying them the vote, or a marriage license, to be offensive, then (unless we go the route of moral relativism) whose viewpoint produces the least real harm?

Those intolerant of difference or those intolerant of intolerance?

And my point was that more civil discourse might lead to less people doing the very acts you find to be idiotic...Telling people that there views or beliefs are idiotic has rarely won converts...IMO

Understood.

I just do not agree that good mannered debate tactics work all that well to 'convert' violent, bigoted, or other power/hate based behavior.

If one does think that civil discourse can convert those fueled by such things (whether they dress it up as reason, or religion, or revenge, or they blame the victim, or whatever), go for it.

I just can't find too many success stories in the history books.

(in reply to slvemike4u)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 2:42:32 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

editting

< Message edited by slvemike4u -- 6/12/2008 2:44:37 PM >

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 2:43:42 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Alumbrado i can certainly see your point,there are times when wors no matter how politely just do not suffice.But I thought the OP original intention and focus was on the level of discourse seen onthis site in which case I feel to see the need or the benefit when arguing merely ideas of losing one's cool...I would rather withdraw from such discussion as I don't see where anything I might say will do any good...I will say this though the taste of blood in my mouth as a consequence of biting my tongue sucks...

(in reply to slvemike4u)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 3:02:01 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

whose viewpoint produces the least real harm?

Those intolerant of difference or those intolerant of intolerance?

My gut feeling is that intolerance is intolerable when it puts others' safety and liberty at risk.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Disagreeing without being disagreeable - ty philosophy - 6/12/2008 7:36:51 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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

..........................................................................................................................

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?

         "Game" is not the word I would choose, Phil. It is one means of communication, a single form among many. There is nothing special, or fair, or even nice about it. Any vile, vulgar, hate filled rant of nonsense can be wrapped up in the politest of terms. I think googling the phrase "I'm not a rascist, but," would provide ample examples of what that looks like.   (Hmmmm... There may be an idea for a new game downstairs there)

        It is important to recognize whether one is talking about matters of fact vs. opinion, and even more critical to know when you've entered the artistic mix of both, known as spin. That is a game, and one of the grand ones at that. People all looking at essentially the same facts, and disagreeing over how they are interpteted. Did John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam make him a heroic figure, ready to be CIC, or a too fucking dumb to duck, John Wayne wannabe?

          Just in general, about that list of rules. Hearing people comment on how useless and school-ish they are is comparable to an engineer hearing car salesmen talk about what nonsense fractions were. Particularly surprising coming from smart people. When real time humans try to actually resolve things with words, that is how you do it. Right down to never admitting you were wrong until the deal is done, and you are shaking hands on your way out the door, or hanging up the phone. When 30 people sit down at a table to exchange facts and talk about solving problems, it's parliamentary procedure or chaos.



_____________________________

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 philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 31