Conversations vs Disagreements

Post Reply New Topic

It’s especially ridiculous when they provide no evidence to support their position. While claiming to be rational, they are essentially promoting an opinion that’s based entirely on emotion and an appeal to authority - a very questionable one at that.

They can have their opinion but they shouldn’t imply that other people are stupid for not sharing it.

50,000 posts! Whoot ! !

I agree with this comment. I'll get back to responses later on.

We really (in general) have to learn to respect each other more.

I couldn't agree more. I love the exchange of ideas. It's the basis of all learning.




Ouch. Yes, it's hard to come to terms with the fact they may be right sometimes, especially if they're presenting it in a dismissive way or being pushy. I tend to feel defensive and react to tone first, content later. Quite often I don't even hear the content at all if it's supposed to be a conversation and they make it sound like a put-down or they won't consider my POV. My brain shuts off until I can process and reflect. If they're really pushy when it was supposed to be a civil conversation, that's usually another problem unto itself.




Very well put.




We learn critical thinking here, even in the public system. I studied Literary Criticism, Philosophy, and Art, all of which are dependent on analysis and evaluation through the use of persuasive language, with supporting evidence. We use the revised Bloom's Taxonomy to encourage creative, independent thought through artistic expression like music, art, writing, and collaboration.



I can't say that everyone excelled in these skills , or that everyone even learned them.

It's sad to me that you aren't teaching debate in UK. I agree it's increasingly difficult for people to be respectful and participate in a measured exchange of ideas without competition, greed, and ego getting in the way.

I am able to have quite enjoyable discussions with one of my children that may involve differing opinions but we both come away in a pleasant frame of mind. It’s lovely.
It seems apparent to me that this is not a common occurrence in this world or we wouldn’t have endless wars, violence, and bitter fights.
Very few people agree to disagree unless the topic is very unimportant.
When you find someone that disagrees with you on a topic that you consider critical or essential to your existence isn’t it unlikely you will be satisfied with any other opinion?

Yes. I've heard of it and I think I've seen it.

It's hard to believe that US Presidential debates are supposed to follow this format.

We all defend ourselves mentally, because we understand or justify the things we do as having a valid reason. If I speed through a stop sign when no one's around, it's because I know I'm in a hurry because of an emergency, because I know I'm being safe and it won't hurt anyone, or because I really have to get home and pee. (Just an example lol - I don't do that.)

We don't know other people's rationale for what they're doing or thinking, why they justify it, or why they may feel immense shame for their choice. If they tell us their reasoning, it might not be true. Perhaps it is true, but we won't believe it.

It's interesting how psychology and communication intersect.

You must have a lot of restraint if you don't ever get upset when people disagree with you.
That's commendable.
Kind of makes me want to try disagreeing with you.

What would you actually say if you thought you were right, and they were wrong?
Do you tell them they're wrong, or just kind of ignore it and let the conversation continue?

What do you do in those instances where they're upset with you?

Thanks for being honest.
My first thought was to laugh because I feel like a doofus all the time.
It's funny how we can be perceived so differently than what we really feel.

Some people think I'm too casual and I joke around too much.
Other people think I take things too seriously because I can write well when I want to.

It's odd that you think it's hard to get to know me, when I write so much and so openly.

I've been called histrionic, alt-RIght, a pacifist hippy chick, SJW, a Victorian damsel, a Karen, a doormat, an outrageous flirt (both with and without irony ) and an outlier.

Some people think I write with too much detail. Others think I'm purposely obtuse or vague.

I always wonder if gender has much to do with it.
There are men on this site, for example, who are far more intellectual and their writing is far superior.

I've never heard anyone say that those men are "intellectual" and strong writers, yet suggest they get "misinterpreted" because people can't judge their meaning in written form. I think of ToughDiamond, for example. He's a legend in my opinion, but people don't second guess him as an intellectual or feel "paranoid" when interacting with him, to the best of my knowledge.

Why is it that smart women intimidate people?
Do you feel intimidated or confused by smart men who present balanced arguments?

Falling asleep. More tomorrow, but thanks again.

Welcome to the club.



Not just "The US Congress".
The concept that others are entitled to an opinion is not popular in general, based on my experience.

Bugger that.
I'd settle for simple civility and respecting ppl's "right" to have freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Is it a club or a clique?
Either way, I'm the Grand Poobah.

All other interested applicants please misinterpret here: _________________ .

For some ppl, having a differing opinion is like disrespecting their deity.
Some ppl have trouble grasping the concept of:
"Let us agree to disagree."

We should make a quick agree / disagree survey sometime, on basic topics.
I love that kind of thing.

Written form, not the forum poll thing because I don't know how to do that.

I wouldn't say I'm intimidated. Your posts are quite varied in tone and content so I think that's why it may take a while to 'get' you and why you've been accused of all those things
You might have been those things to a certain degree for one post and then something else the next. (I'm not suggesting you WERE those things like 'karen' or maiden but maybe like edging in those directions one inch , like we all do)

But anyway, I did find that if I debated my beliefs against opponents it made me look up facts more. So then I had evidence instead of just feelings for certain viewpoints.

I wonder if this is more true of online debate? Consider this:

In an online debate we do not exist until we post our opinion. No one knows we're there, until we post. So in the online context, what are we, beyond an opinion?

In that sense, a rejection of our opinion is no different to a rejection of ourselves, because there is nothing else.

It might also be harder to agree to disagree online because when we do that, the interaction ends and we again cease to exist.

This is not true when we debate, or even disagree, face to face. We are physically present, we have a body and a face, we're contributing or at least represented even when we're not saying anything. In that context, it's easier to see an opinion as separate from the person.

My concern, and this is what I was getting at in my earlier post, is that because debate increasingly takes place online (we don't build physical spaces for it anymore) that we are only learning the online way of debating, and bringing it back into our offline lives where it causes more trouble.