Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of bravado online " good debate there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?" I think people have lost the ability to debate, because everything is personal now. Holding a different opinion makes you one of them instead of one of us. People are too quick to be offended. These days, vaguely controversial uni lectures come with trigger warnings in case the students hear a viewpoint they don't agree with. The whole idea of being challenged, having your preconceptions overturned, finding yourself persuaded by alternative argument just doesn't happen. I used to enjoy losing debates, because it meant I was learning something. If I found my position changing, then i was opening myself up to new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Those days appear to be gone for the time being. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think people have lost the ability to debate, because everything is personal now. Holding a different opinion makes you one of them instead of one of us. People are too quick to be offended. These days, vaguely controversial uni lectures come with trigger warnings in case the students hear a viewpoint they don't agree with. The whole idea of being challenged, having your preconceptions overturned, finding yourself persuaded by alternative argument just doesn't happen. I used to enjoy losing debates, because it meant I was learning something. If I found my position changing, then i was opening myself up to new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Those days appear to be gone for the time being. " I learnt a new word the other day diaphobia, which is the fear of dialogue, of being affected, or being directly influenced by the "other". Personally I love a good discussion/debate more so when someone else's point of view changes my mind as I think that's growth as a person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect the large majority have lost the skill, myself included. I have opinions, they’re unlikely to be changed or swayed. So I stay away from debate. Stuff like that tends to turn toxic when it goes online. " That's fair enough things do get toxic really quickly online | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Debate is what de fisherman use to catch de fish? " My poor dyslexic brain had to read that several times before I got that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
LvM | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still a fan of mass debation
LvM"I'm quite sure I don't know what you are implying  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think people have lost the ability to debate, because everything is personal now. Holding a different opinion makes you one of them instead of one of us. People are too quick to be offended. These days, vaguely controversial uni lectures come with trigger warnings in case the students hear a viewpoint they don't agree with. The whole idea of being challenged, having your preconceptions overturned, finding yourself persuaded by alternative argument just doesn't happen. I used to enjoy losing debates, because it meant I was learning something. If I found my position changing, then i was opening myself up to new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Those days appear to be gone for the time being. I learnt a new word the other day diaphobia, which is the fear of dialogue, of being affected, or being directly influenced by the "other". Personally I love a good discussion/debate more so when someone else's point of view changes my mind as I think that's growth as a person. " Diaphobia! What a good word, and how topical for these turbulent times. I agree. Growth only comes from challenge. Somehow, challenge has become synonymous with offence, and that causes people to turn inwards, instead of opening outwards. How can we learn to accept challenge without offence? I don't know, but I hope someone has some ideas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 sorry I couldn’t help myself!
Unfortunately we are currently living in a social circle where people get offended by a debate because they believe that it’s an argument if it doesn’t fit their belief! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?" I think social media, and to an extent, mainstream media, has us set up and programmed to be forever in our own echo chambers. Places like Twitter used to be a great place to actually debate with people. Now, however, if you show even a waivering of opinion you’re pounced upon, shut down, silenced and in extreme cases actually cancelled. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People become keyboard warriors when on line debating. People also get abusive alot. Our motto is if you say 2+2 is 5.......we just walk away and say sure it is. Life is precious and short....enjoy each day to the best of your capability and live and let live." Yeah I get you, you can't debate with some like that so what's the point kind of thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?" I agree, less people debate looking for truth, they argue there point even when they realise its wrong. or shut down the discussion altogether. with ,im offended, i have had enoigh of this, etc. So many adults are just fully grown spoiled children | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine a lot of men avoid sharing their real opinions in fear of cock blocking themselves." See I find not being able to discuss and debate a cock block in itself. But then I am a bit weird I must admit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think people have lost the ability to debate, because everything is personal now. Holding a different opinion makes you one of them instead of one of us. People are too quick to be offended. These days, vaguely controversial uni lectures come with trigger warnings in case the students hear a viewpoint they don't agree with. The whole idea of being challenged, having your preconceptions overturned, finding yourself persuaded by alternative argument just doesn't happen. I used to enjoy losing debates, because it meant I was learning something. If I found my position changing, then i was opening myself up to new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Those days appear to be gone for the time being. I learnt a new word the other day diaphobia, which is the fear of dialogue, of being affected, or being directly influenced by the "other". Personally I love a good discussion/debate more so when someone else's point of view changes my mind as I think that's growth as a person. Diaphobia! What a good word, and how topical for these turbulent times. I agree. Growth only comes from challenge. Somehow, challenge has become synonymous with offence, and that causes people to turn inwards, instead of opening outwards. How can we learn to accept challenge without offence? I don't know, but I hope someone has some ideas." To be honest I don't know. I often try and ask questions even if I agree with the person, generally because I'm curious. Questioning I think has become an insult to some, which I totally don't think it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of bravado online
good debate there "I love a good debate, whether just generally or at work as it usually shapes your own opinions including sonetimes your original point of view. It develops more your own communication and critical thinking skills, promotes further learning and leads you to some decision or other on the subject even if that means agreeing to disagree. However online, including on here, people are or become too dogmatic very sharply and all ends in 'tears' and arguments. I come on here to relax and leave the debate for when I am with 'real' people who can appreciate it and are open to it as I am.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m happy to debate this but I’ll always be right! sorry I couldn’t help myself!
Unfortunately we are currently living in a social circle where people get offended by a debate because they believe that it’s an argument if it doesn’t fit their belief! "But why do they think that? I find it strange, we discuss things with the kids around the dining table often. So that they learn to think beyond their own experiences, I think it's a really good skill to have | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine a lot of men avoid sharing their real opinions in fear of cock blocking themselves. See I find not being able to discuss and debate a cock block in itself. But then I am a bit weird I must admit. " Totally agree. Wait...this isn't how debating works | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think people have lost the ability to debate, because everything is personal now. Holding a different opinion makes you one of them instead of one of us. People are too quick to be offended. These days, vaguely controversial uni lectures come with trigger warnings in case the students hear a viewpoint they don't agree with. The whole idea of being challenged, having your preconceptions overturned, finding yourself persuaded by alternative argument just doesn't happen. I used to enjoy losing debates, because it meant I was learning something. If I found my position changing, then i was opening myself up to new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Those days appear to be gone for the time being. " For the most part, this! However when it comes to "being offended" some are, but some others set out to offend, intentionally. A large part of the problem is that for some a lot of things that are too personal and there is far too much emotion invested in their side. Those that are passionate about something with love and kindness and those that are passionate through hate - both sides while experiences to these subjects are critical in providing context and insight also blind to other views and details. They have often shut off any intent of having a debate and the emotion takes over. Zero intention of debate and more about pushing their view on to another - some even then mock and belittle the other side. I say this with zero allegiance. Left or right, race, sex, gender, sexuality, age, religion, nationality, tribe, hobbies etc it doesn't matter both sides are often guilty of being the "lesser" and taking the easy way out of a debate instead of simply conceding or just walking away. Also, what Meli said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A debate should be a platform to discuss anything with respect and understanding. Many cannot do this without being judgemental, argumentative in the wrong way. I find many cannot take on others views without becoming triggered. Of course it can depend on how someone articulates something but still. I quite like a debate but many cannot seem to do it without getting personal or on their high horse. " So do you think people want to always be right so see offence in everything or is it something else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think social media, and to an extent, mainstream media, has us set up and programmed to be forever in our own echo chambers. Places like Twitter used to be a great place to actually debate with people. Now, however, if you show even a waivering of opinion you’re pounced upon, shut down, silenced and in extreme cases actually cancelled. " But can everyone have a strong opinion on everything though? I know I don't, don't the people with a strong opinion on something want to persuade others to their side of the fence not alienate them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Debate is what de fisherman use to catch de fish? My poor dyslexic brain had to read that several times before I got that "Consider this fish caught 
When considering a proposition many take a position of: is this right or wrong? In many cases it would be better to consider the truth-value of the statement: as this encourages the mind to subject ones opinion to multiple perspectives.
When one takes this approach then one's disposition becomes more suited to debate. Moreover, explorative discussion: leading to intersubjective verification or even abandonment of the concept of an objective truth and a pluralist enrichment of one's knowledge and appreciation of a subject. Rather than being locked into thought patterns of binary oppositions - which is often framing a subject in a manner, which dismisses other possibilities and inhibits nuance.
I believe many people put great effort into being understood. However, they do not put the same level of effort into understanding.
Perhaps for some being 'wrong' is a failure rather than an indication that you have learnt something new? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I agree, less people debate looking for truth, they argue there point even when they realise its wrong. or shut down the discussion altogether. with ,im offended, i have had enoigh of this, etc. So many adults are just fully grown spoiled children" But what is the point if you're not looking for some of form of truth? There are truths on both sides of a debate even if you don't agree on them. Surely understanding of the other side is critical, especially if you want to change things? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of bravado online
good debate there
I love a good debate, whether just generally or at work as it usually shapes your own opinions including sonetimes your original point of view. It develops more your own communication and critical thinking skills, promotes further learning and leads you to some decision or other on the subject even if that means agreeing to disagree. However online, including on here, people are or become too dogmatic very sharply and all ends in 'tears' and arguments. I come on here to relax and leave the debate for when I am with 'real' people who can appreciate it and are open to it as I am. "So do you think it's a deficiency in the ability to communicate effectively with others is the issue? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine a lot of men avoid sharing their real opinions in fear of cock blocking themselves. See I find not being able to discuss and debate a cock block in itself. But then I am a bit weird I must admit. Totally agree. Wait...this isn't how debating works" Damn it erm I wholeheartedly disagree with you, oh no myself arghhh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've not lost the ability, more the desire to do so. A few years ago I'd happily get stuck in to a good debate with someone who could debate. Now? I can't be fucked. More often than not they're fallacy laden. People shouting as loud as possible, not remaining open, nor wanting to learn, explore ideas other than their own. Discussions are shut down on the whims of those who say they're triggered (which can be a real thing but I've seen it used far too oft on here as an "I don't want to hear your viewpoint") or end in people arguing and taking real offence at Bob's cock over a toilet seat debating whether pineapple should belong on a pizza. I think we forget that a person can disagree with our viewpoint without hating us. Without debating who we are as a person, just our view. There's this tendency to lean into the idea that fora debates are personal, when often they're the furthest thing from that. " I get the burnout from it. Sometimes I feel what's the point they're so entrenched in their beliefs, they can't see the difference between questioning and disagreement. And it's not like disagreement is that bad a thing anyway! I disagree with the majority of my friends from time to time, still love them to bits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?" Exactly this people have lost the ability to debate a point without insulting the other, humour is a dying art nobody especially women in forums sees the funny side  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still a fan of mass debation
LvM
I'm quite sure I don't know what you are implying "I'd debate all over dem tiddies  
I mostly can't be bothered getting into thinly veiled arguments with internet strangers, it's not worth the time or effort. I will, however, drop a sarcastic comment in to the mix just for fun
LvM | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?Exactly this people have lost the ability to debate a point without insulting the other, humour is a dying art nobody especially women in forums sees the funny side "I have to disagree, this is one funny post. Oh, you’re being serious? Now that’s REALLY funny  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the issues I have especially around social media is that we are subjected to living within an echo chamber with targeted news and information which reflect our own biases back towards us. " There are plenty of people in real life that either can't or are unwilling to debate honestly. What puts me off social media is that you hear the same sloppy arguments getting repeated, it doesn't matter how carefully you think through the issue, someone else will come along with the fallacies you just debunked. If I can see that the way someone is debating me is done in an honest way then it's much more likely that they have valuable ideas worth listening to, even if they are challenging. Also, if there are fewer people, you might have a better chance of seeing what assumptions and values everyone is operating from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am always right so debate is pointless " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think people have lost the ability to debate, because everything is personal now. Holding a different opinion makes you one of them instead of one of us. People are too quick to be offended. These days, vaguely controversial uni lectures come with trigger warnings in case the students hear a viewpoint they don't agree with. The whole idea of being challenged, having your preconceptions overturned, finding yourself persuaded by alternative argument just doesn't happen. I used to enjoy losing debates, because it meant I was learning something. If I found my position changing, then i was opening myself up to new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Those days appear to be gone for the time being. For the most part, this! However when it comes to "being offended" some are, but some others set out to offend, intentionally. A large part of the problem is that for some a lot of things that are too personal and there is far too much emotion invested in their side. Those that are passionate about something with love and kindness and those that are passionate through hate - both sides while experiences to these subjects are critical in providing context and insight also blind to other views and details. They have often shut off any intent of having a debate and the emotion takes over. Zero intention of debate and more about pushing their view on to another - some even then mock and belittle the other side. I say this with zero allegiance. Left or right, race, sex, gender, sexuality, age, religion, nationality, tribe, hobbies etc it doesn't matter both sides are often guilty of being the "lesser" and taking the easy way out of a debate instead of simply conceding or just walking away. Also, what Meli said." No agreeing with others on this thread, it's not allowed  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of bravado online
good debate there
I love a good debate, whether just generally or at work as it usually shapes your own opinions including sonetimes your original point of view. It develops more your own communication and critical thinking skills, promotes further learning and leads you to some decision or other on the subject even if that means agreeing to disagree. However online, including on here, people are or become too dogmatic very sharply and all ends in 'tears' and arguments. I come on here to relax and leave the debate for when I am with 'real' people who can appreciate it and are open to it as I am.
So do you think it's a deficiency in the ability to communicate effectively with others is the issue? "Partly but lots of other reasons too. Indoctrination, partisan politics, religious dogma and even a machismo or marianismo attitudes often derail a good debate. On that note I hope the subject of this thread does gwt a good debate and I am off for coffee and cake. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?" ************* "Exactly this people have lost the ability to debate a point without insulting the other, humour is a dying art nobody especially women in forums sees the funny side "************ "I have to disagree, this is one funny post. Oh, you’re being serious? Now that’s REALLY funny "You were disagreeing with the second poster, and I'm guessing specifically, the "especially women" part? - This is checking you understand the other person's point of view before responding for those that don't know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Debate is what de fisherman use to catch de fish? My poor dyslexic brain had to read that several times before I got that
Consider this fish caught
When considering a proposition many take a position of: is this right or wrong? In many cases it would be better to consider the truth-value of the statement: as this encourages the mind to subject ones opinion to multiple perspectives.
When one takes this approach then one's disposition becomes more suited to debate. Moreover, explorative discussion: leading to intersubjective verification or even abandonment of the concept of an objective truth and a pluralist enrichment of one's knowledge and appreciation of a subject. Rather than being locked into thought patterns of binary oppositions - which is often framing a subject in a manner, which dismisses other possibilities and inhibits nuance.
I believe many people put great effort into being understood. However, they do not put the same level of effort into understanding.
Perhaps for some being 'wrong' is a failure rather than an indication that you have learnt something new?"I like this kind of thought process. I was chatting to one of mates from school. And she said that I had to battle to not be like my parents, and not repeat their mistakes. And is that why some people don't like to view other people's points of view, maybe it's difficult? Or does it shine an unfavorable light on their actions maybe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?Exactly this people have lost the ability to debate a point without insulting the other, humour is a dying art nobody especially women in forums sees the funny side I have to disagree, this is one funny post. Oh, you’re being serious? Now that’s REALLY funny "see | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People become keyboard warriors when on line debating. People also get abusive alot. Our motto is if you say 2+2 is 5.......we just walk away and say sure it is. Life is precious and short....enjoy each day to the best of your capability and live and let live." So then you would say, “but rudimentary maths knowledge indicates that the answer is four. What evidence do you have to support that 2+2 =5?” “I dun my own research. There’s a YouTube professor who says that it’s only 4 ‘cos the government want all the sheeples to fink if’s 4.” This is what passes for debate these days - so yeah I agree with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?Exactly this people have lost the ability to debate a point without insulting the other, humour is a dying art nobody especially women in forums sees the funny side I have to disagree, this is one funny post. Oh, you’re being serious? Now that’s REALLY funny see "Hansoffate's comment about de-bait makes much more sense now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. I do and it depends what site the debate is on, as you know that you cant really say what you really want, so it gets rather one sided, for example with hamas against israel, it is almost like you have to think twice what you want to say rather than the full version of it "…I hear you shags, I hear you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 30/10/23 11:50:17]" see what - your humour? Nah mate, not even with a magnifying implement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. I do and it depends what site the debate is on, as you know that you cant really say what you really want, so it gets rather one sided, for example with hamas against israel, it is almost like you have to think twice what you want to say rather than the full version of it …I hear you shags, I hear you"Hi bettie, yes, like with israel, it felt like I couldnt say exact what israels ambassador said, so had to choose other words | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 30/10/23 11:50:17] see what - your humour? Nah mate, not even with a magnifying implement "Yes bettie. I saw what you did there too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Debate is what de fisherman use to catch de fish? I like this kind of thought process. I was chatting to one of mates from school. And she said that I had to battle to not be like my parents, and not repeat their mistakes. And is that why some people don't like to view other people's points of view, maybe it's difficult? Or does it shine an unfavorable light on their actions maybe? " It is intriguing to me that you have considered the topic to such depth as formation of our core beliefs and values. I would say your friend is onto something; however the principle they express can lead to a rigidity of over-compensation and cause psychological distress. There are many lenses to evaluate the subject. One that resonates for me would be the concept of: Conditions of worth. A child seeks validation and acceptance from care-givers. If that acceptance is conditional the child develops beliefs of the form. I am only acceptable if I X The 'mistakes' in my opinion is to have such conditioning that creates an unrealistic self-concept, or one that is too far removed from the child's organismic self. This leads to a person being at odds with themselves, trying to meet standards that go against their nature and are often unattainable. I believe it is the mechanisms by which we nurture and educate children that are deficient. The pressure to conform rather than encourage exploration and discovery. Children are learning machines. Their neural density and plasticity is off the charts. They are little scientists, fascinated with learning. Rather than take away their agency it is better to encourage this process. E.g. Vygotsky's Zones of Proximal development and scaffolding, Montessori even Dewey. When we overly instruct a child as to what is right or wrong, rather than allow them to discover for themselves. We create a belief that it is a norm to instruct people as to what is right or wrong and an inherent rigidity of belief. The means becomes the ends we hope to achieve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've written three responses to this thread and deleted . This happens frequently for fear of upsetting people or the mods walking the tightrope between acceptable and not is difficult. I believe Debate is healthy and we should embrace it. Debate gives us the opportunity to bring forth our opinion if it's correct or not and others to reply if they are correct or not, occasionally someone's view can be changed by reason and education, some are harangued into backing down or forced away. A mob mentality,you can't say this you can't say that. It's not a debate or discussion it just turns into an interrogation. " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Never is this truer in today's society ." Very true. I often feel the forums lean towards mob mentality too much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I think social media, and to an extent, mainstream media, has us set up and programmed to be forever in our own echo chambers. Places like Twitter used to be a great place to actually debate with people. Now, however, if you show even a waivering of opinion you’re pounced upon, shut down, silenced and in extreme cases actually cancelled. But can everyone have a strong opinion on everything though? I know I don't, don't the people with a strong opinion on something want to persuade others to their side of the fence not alienate them? " You would think that, yes. Sadly I don’t see much of it. Very much their way or the highway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When we overly instruct a child as to what is right or wrong, rather than allow them to discover for themselves. We create a belief that it is a norm to instruct people as to what is right or wrong and an inherent rigidity of belief. The means becomes the ends we hope to achieve." O, you old romantic. Let the children play free in the wild flowers. As with so many topics of debate, there are competing principles. You don't want your children to grow up to lack flexibility and to mindlessly be obedient to those that claim authority. On the other hand, you don't want them to repeat lots of mistakes that would make life difficult, or make equal and opposite mistakes which is often perceived as learning, but doesn't help you evolve. Ideally, you want them to understand how an idea or behaviour is good for them, that the discipline is for a reason that benefits them and not some arbitrary desire of the authority figure. You need age appropriate scaffolding while they develop their own cognitive abilities, reasoning skills, and emotional self-regulation. In this sense, I explore the limits of your idea of right and wrong, and then try to build on it such that we construct together an idea that is more developed than what each of us would have achieved alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. I do and it depends what site the debate is on, as you know that you cant really say what you really want, so it gets rather one sided, for example with hamas against israel, it is almost like you have to think twice what you want to say rather than the full version of it …I hear you shags, I hear youHi bettie, yes, like with israel, it felt like I couldnt say exact what israels ambassador said, so had to choose other words " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I agree, less people debate looking for truth, they argue there point even when they realise its wrong. or shut down the discussion altogether. with ,im offended, i have had enoigh of this, etc. So many adults are just fully grown spoiled children But what is the point if you're not looking for some of form of truth? There are truths on both sides of a debate even if you don't agree on them. Surely understanding of the other side is critical, especially if you want to change things? " With the greatest respect I disagree. There are not necessarily truths on both sides of the debate. It is impossible to have a balanced debate with those who believe something that simply isn't true. To pick an easy target those who believe the earth is flat. More importantly those who hold views of hate such as White Supremacists. Debate is not possible when beliefs are held which resist any challenge whether logical or based on empirical evidence. These views need to be challenged yet debate is unlikely to achieve much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When we overly instruct a child as to what is right or wrong, rather than allow them to discover for themselves. We create a belief that it is a norm to instruct people as to what is right or wrong and an inherent rigidity of belief. The means becomes the ends we hope to achieve. O, you old romantic. Let the children play free in the wild flowers. As with so many topics of debate, there are competing principles. You don't want your children to grow up to lack flexibility and to mindlessly be obedient to those that claim authority. On the other hand, you don't want them to repeat lots of mistakes that would make life difficult, or make equal and opposite mistakes which is often perceived as learning, but doesn't help you evolve. Ideally, you want them to understand how an idea or behaviour is good for them, that the discipline is for a reason that benefits them and not some arbitrary desire of the authority figure. You need age appropriate scaffolding while they develop their own cognitive abilities, reasoning skills, and emotional self-regulation. In this sense, I explore the limits of your idea of right and wrong, and then try to build on it such that we construct together an idea that is more developed than what each of us would have achieved alone." I take your point. I did say 'overly' instruct to be fair? I agree in balance. And yes scaffolding which reflects their ability I agree with. That is inherent to the concept of ZPD? I don't disagree with you. In fact I would say I am substantially in agreement. However, I would say that ultimately you want a person to be able to determine for themselves - what is good for them. That also has to be an evolving process as they develop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Debate is what de fisherman use to catch de fish? I like this kind of thought process. I was chatting to one of mates from school. And she said that I had to battle to not be like my parents, and not repeat their mistakes. And is that why some people don't like to view other people's points of view, maybe it's difficult? Or does it shine an unfavorable light on their actions maybe? It is intriguing to me that you have considered the topic to such depth as formation of our core beliefs and values. I would say your friend is onto something; however the principle they express can lead to a rigidity of over-compensation and cause psychological distress. There are many lenses to evaluate the subject. One that resonates for me would be the concept of: Conditions of worth. A child seeks validation and acceptance from care-givers. If that acceptance is conditional the child develops beliefs of the form. I am only acceptable if I X The 'mistakes' in my opinion is to have such conditioning that creates an unrealistic self-concept, or one that is too far removed from the child's organismic self. This leads to a person being at odds with themselves, trying to meet standards that go against their nature and are often unattainable. I believe it is the mechanisms by which we nurture and educate children that are deficient. The pressure to conform rather than encourage exploration and discovery. Children are learning machines. Their neural density and plasticity is off the charts. They are little scientists, fascinated with learning. Rather than take away their agency it is better to encourage this process. E.g. Vygotsky's Zones of Proximal development and scaffolding, Montessori even Dewey. When we overly instruct a child as to what is right or wrong, rather than allow them to discover for themselves. We create a belief that it is a norm to instruct people as to what is right or wrong and an inherent rigidity of belief. The means becomes the ends we hope to achieve." Oh I totally agree, it was a broad ranging conversation. Was mainly to do with child abuse. But it was to do with unlearning the lessons of your childhood. And it was an interesting one, do you act and think like your parents or do you learn to be different, think outside the constraints of your own box. And I guess the ability to do that makes you more open to debate and others points of views. I do however, agree with you that you can swing too far the other way if you're not careful. I think we learn a lot in our childhoods. Which is why I try as much as humanly possible to let my kids learn on their own accord and not be mini me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I agree, less people debate looking for truth, they argue there point even when they realise its wrong. or shut down the discussion altogether. with ,im offended, i have had enoigh of this, etc. So many adults are just fully grown spoiled children But what is the point if you're not looking for some of form of truth? There are truths on both sides of a debate even if you don't agree on them. Surely understanding of the other side is critical, especially if you want to change things? With the greatest respect I disagree. There are not necessarily truths on both sides of the debate. It is impossible to have a balanced debate with those who believe something that simply isn't true. To pick an easy target those who believe the earth is flat. More importantly those who hold views of hate such as White Supremacists. Debate is not possible when beliefs are held which resist any challenge whether logical or based on empirical evidence. These views need to be challenged yet debate is unlikely to achieve much" That's fine you're allowed to disagree with me. But I think even with flat earthers I respect that that is what they believe to be true. That makes me able to discuss with them with respect why that would not be the case. Telling them that their core belief is wrong full stop is not a debate and then they're unlikely to listen to my truth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you?" Have they lost it, or is an ability that was never taught? Philosophy and logic are not a part of the standard curriculum, so I doubt most people are familiar with logical fallacies, burden of proof or the importance of premises. Online debates don't really work because unless both participants are operating in good faith and making a deliberate effort to avoid the aforementioned traps, it's a useless endeavour. In person debates are filled with the same dangers, in fact you could argue they are worse - if people you're close to take 'losing' a debate personally, it can cause a lot of hurt. Don't want to start a debate here but when you say 'not taking the middle ground' - taking the middle ground is not always a good thing - it reads too much like enlightened centrism. If it's a factual thing, then there very much is a right or wrong. Similarly, if something clashes with your morality, it wouldn't make sense to change it just to appear neutral. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? Have they lost it, or is an ability that was never taught? Philosophy and logic are not a part of the standard curriculum, so I doubt most people are familiar with logical fallacies, burden of proof or the importance of premises. Online debates don't really work because unless both participants are operating in good faith and making a deliberate effort to avoid the aforementioned traps, it's a useless endeavour. In person debates are filled with the same dangers, in fact you could argue they are worse - if people you're close to take 'losing' a debate personally, it can cause a lot of hurt. Don't want to start a debate here but when you say 'not taking the middle ground' - taking the middle ground is not always a good thing - it reads too much like enlightened centrism. If it's a factual thing, then there very much is a right or wrong. Similarly, if something clashes with your morality, it wouldn't make sense to change it just to appear neutral."What I mean by the middle ground, is that I find that little in life is black or white. There are always shades of grey in most debates. I don't think you have to change your morality to be open to others opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However, I would say that ultimately you want a person to be able to determine for themselves - what is good for them. That also has to be an evolving process as they develop." Yes, I agree, if your kids get to adulthood and go out into the world without that ability, they're in trouble. It is an ongoing process, you're right about that too, there is always some way to improve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I mean by the middle ground, is that I find that little in life is black or white. There are always shades of grey in most debates. I don't think you have to change your morality to be open to others opinions. " What's in the middle can depend on how extreme the opposing views are. If you start by considering the principles, you don't know where you'll end up. I think sometimes you can tell that someone has started with the conclusion. You might totally disagree with the idea that the Earth is flat, but it's likely that you don't disagree with every step of their reasoning. Finding out exactly what it is you don't agree with is half the battle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? I agree, less people debate looking for truth, they argue there point even when they realise its wrong. or shut down the discussion altogether. with ,im offended, i have had enoigh of this, etc. So many adults are just fully grown spoiled children But what is the point if you're not looking for some of form of truth? There are truths on both sides of a debate even if you don't agree on them. Surely understanding of the other side is critical, especially if you want to change things? With the greatest respect I disagree. There are not necessarily truths on both sides of the debate. It is impossible to have a balanced debate with those who believe something that simply isn't true. To pick an easy target those who believe the earth is flat. More importantly those who hold views of hate such as White Supremacists. Debate is not possible when beliefs are held which resist any challenge whether logical or based on empirical evidence. These views need to be challenged yet debate is unlikely to achieve much That's fine you're allowed to disagree with me. But I think even with flat earthers I respect that that is what they believe to be true. That makes me able to discuss with them with respect why that would not be the case. Telling them that their core belief is wrong full stop is not a debate and then they're unlikely to listen to my truth. " I agree with you. In the long run the belief of flat earthers is of little consequence. However when people hold beliefs that are harmful to others and based on hatred it is more difficult to tolerate. Does one accept the view of a convicted paedophile who thinks that the law is wrong and that he is a political prisoner? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? Have they lost it, or is an ability that was never taught? Philosophy and logic are not a part of the standard curriculum, so I doubt most people are familiar with logical fallacies, burden of proof or the importance of premises. Online debates don't really work because unless both participants are operating in good faith and making a deliberate effort to avoid the aforementioned traps, it's a useless endeavour. In person debates are filled with the same dangers, in fact you could argue they are worse - if people you're close to take 'losing' a debate personally, it can cause a lot of hurt. Don't want to start a debate here but when you say 'not taking the middle ground' - taking the middle ground is not always a good thing - it reads too much like enlightened centrism. If it's a factual thing, then there very much is a right or wrong. Similarly, if something clashes with your morality, it wouldn't make sense to change it just to appear neutral.
What I mean by the middle ground, is that I find that little in life is black or white. There are always shades of grey in most debates. I don't think you have to change your morality to be open to others opinions. "Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Debate is what de fisherman use to catch de fish? The means becomes the ends we hope to achieve. Oh I totally agree, it was a broad ranging conversation. Was mainly to do with child abuse. But it was to do with unlearning the lessons of your childhood. And it was an interesting one, do you act and think like your parents or do you learn to be different, think outside the constraints of your own box. And I guess the ability to do that makes you more open to debate and others points of views. I do however, agree with you that you can swing too far the other way if you're not careful. I think we learn a lot in our childhoods. Which is why I try as much as humanly possible to let my kids learn on their own accord and not be mini me. " It is applicable to CA I think: an aspect of therapy can be seen as shedding the conditions of worth that work against us or are maladaptive. Which can be very profound in child abuse. You won't find me disagreeing with you. On not turning children into mini-me's. I couldn't agree more. There's some brilliant principles, which are legally ratified in the UK within the UN convention on the rights of a child. Article 12 stands out for me. It declares that a Child has a human right to be heard and for their views to be taken seriously, in decisions which affect them. In accordance with their evolving capacities. It is their right to speak against those who have power over them in decisions which affect them. And to be informed of that right. Self-empowerment is often an essential aspect of healing from child abuse, any abuse really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? Have they lost it, or is an ability that was never taught? Philosophy and logic are not a part of the standard curriculum, so I doubt most people are familiar with logical fallacies, burden of proof or the importance of premises. Online debates don't really work because unless both participants are operating in good faith and making a deliberate effort to avoid the aforementioned traps, it's a useless endeavour. In person debates are filled with the same dangers, in fact you could argue they are worse - if people you're close to take 'losing' a debate personally, it can cause a lot of hurt. Don't want to start a debate here but when you say 'not taking the middle ground' - taking the middle ground is not always a good thing - it reads too much like enlightened centrism. If it's a factual thing, then there very much is a right or wrong. Similarly, if something clashes with your morality, it wouldn't make sense to change it just to appear neutral.
What I mean by the middle ground, is that I find that little in life is black or white. There are always shades of grey in most debates. I don't think you have to change your morality to be open to others opinions.
Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality."Totally agree you don't have to endorse anyone's opinions. And I don't think that if you're in the yay camp you have you repeat something form the nay. I think even if you're opposing sides of a debate you can listen and learn from each other be it something positive or negative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality." Many times yay or nay is reflective of a false dichotomy anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find people have lost the ability to actually debate? Online especially I find that there is limited debate, just those airing their viewpoints without attempting to think beyond their own opinions. With there being the yay and nay camps with very view taking the middle ground. Or has it always been this way, but people just used to walk away where it's easier to argue online? What does debate mean to you? Have they lost it, or is an ability that was never taught? Philosophy and logic are not a part of the standard curriculum, so I doubt most people are familiar with logical fallacies, burden of proof or the importance of premises. Online debates don't really work because unless both participants are operating in good faith and making a deliberate effort to avoid the aforementioned traps, it's a useless endeavour. In person debates are filled with the same dangers, in fact you could argue they are worse - if people you're close to take 'losing' a debate personally, it can cause a lot of hurt. Don't want to start a debate here but when you say 'not taking the middle ground' - taking the middle ground is not always a good thing - it reads too much like enlightened centrism. If it's a factual thing, then there very much is a right or wrong. Similarly, if something clashes with your morality, it wouldn't make sense to change it just to appear neutral.
What I mean by the middle ground, is that I find that little in life is black or white. There are always shades of grey in most debates. I don't think you have to change your morality to be open to others opinions.
Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality.
Totally agree you don't have to endorse anyone's opinions. And I don't think that if you're in the yay camp you have you repeat something form the nay. I think even if you're opposing sides of a debate you can listen and learn from each other be it something positive or negative. "As a general statement, I'll accept that the last statement is true - especially if it's something intangible. If it works in practice is a different issue altogether - and why I guess most people refrain from debating in the open - it can be tiring and imo, not a productive use of time, to listen to opposing sides because it usually involves going in circles. Only when both sides are open to that statement (which almost never happens) is when it works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality. Many times yay or nay is reflective of a false dichotomy anyway?" Yes but in some situations I think society as a whole needs to adopt a hard Nay. There is no acceptable argument for the sexual abuse of children or for those who cloak their racist hatred in perpetrating Holocaust denial. It is a sad fact that those who hold such views are very keen on the freedom to express them when they can cause great harm to others. I think in general terms we are in agreement it is just that it is under certain circumstances our views are tested | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality. Many times yay or nay is reflective of a false dichotomy anyway?" When it comes to matters of implementation or consensus, yay or nay has to be the method used. For example, in politics, yay or nay is how laws and amendments are passed and that's the conclusion of a debate. Otherwise, it'd just be an abstract discussion with no concrete progress. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality. Many times yay or nay is reflective of a false dichotomy anyway? When it comes to matters of implementation or consensus, yay or nay has to be the method used. For example, in politics, yay or nay is how laws and amendments are passed and that's the conclusion of a debate. Otherwise, it'd just be an abstract discussion with no concrete progress." It's a fair point, sometimes decisions have to be made in that context. But the integrity of that process relies upon a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors. I don't think that happens often outside of formal political debate. In fairness I am skeptical that it occurs within that context - bit that's another conversation - for the lads down at the docks. Also, though sometimes I think people forget that decisions don't always have to be made. Choosing X over y is not always progressive. We can just agree to disagree, leaving X and Y to co-exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Also, though sometimes I think people forget that decisions don't always have to be made. Choosing X over y is not always progressive. We can just agree to disagree, leaving X and Y to co-exist. " I agree with the co-existing part for philosophical debates for example. However, going back to the OP, I don't think most online debates are about those - they're usually about factual or political matters. In those cases, co-existing just means accepting the status quo (which usually is one of X or Y or at least skewed towards one). So, even agree to disagree means there's an acceptance, just that it's implicit instead of explicit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sure, but being open to their opinions doesn't mean endorsing them. So, if I'm the 'yay camp' let's say, I don't have to repeat something from the 'nay camp' just to appear like I'm in the middle. That'd actually be not being true to myself because I'd be saying something I don't believe - I can listen to them, analyse the point but still reject it. Sometimes there is no common ground to be found unfortunately if there's a fundamental conflict of ethics or worse, reality. Many times yay or nay is reflective of a false dichotomy anyway? Yes but in some situations I think society as a whole needs to adopt a hard Nay. There is no acceptable argument for the sexual abuse of children or for those who cloak their racist hatred in perpetrating Holocaust denial. It is a sad fact that those who hold such views are very keen on the freedom to express them when they can cause great harm to others. I think in general terms we are in agreement it is just that it is under certain circumstances our views are tested" There's no singular principle that fits all, I agree. Tolerance can be repressive. Marcuse wrote quite extensively on that. Also the majority can be tyrannical Rand was quite passionate on that subject. Isiah Berlin I believe suggested that liberty is an optimal balance between the freedom to do as we wish and the freedom from harm. Freedom for the Pike is death to the minnows. May have been Erich Fromm my memory is a little muddled these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
