Forums > Social Discussion > I respect your point, but I don't agree with you.
Login/Join to ParticipateDealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
I respect your point, but don't agree with you. How hard is this for anyone to say? Most of us here have said it (or something close to it) in this forum. I end most of my debates with my friends with it. So why can't the majority of people, esspecially our "leaders", say it?
Think about most of the discussions/debtes you have had in you life. Some may have ended with one side changing views. but for the most part, they end in dead-lock. There's only so much anyone can say, about any one topic, untill you're just repeating yourself, and going around in circles. i for one hate repeating myself, and hate it when people do it to "stress a point." You're not stressing a point, you're adding stress to a situation.
So why not just say "I respect your point, but I don't agree with you" and end it? why do people feel the need to hammer their point of view into your head? What do you guys think, am I right for thinking this way, or am I just a dork for thinking people could be respectful in debates?
Reason I'm asking. I was having coffee with a friend of mine of over the weekend, and we got to talking about local issues. With out boreing you with the spacifics, let's just say that she could, or would, not let the topic end. We got to the point were I said I respect your point etc. But she kept pushing her point for the next hour......I love this girl to death, but if I would have had duct tape, I would have used it
I respect your point, but don't agree with you. How hard is this for anyone to say? Most of us here have said it (or something close to it) in this forum. I end most of my debates with my friends with it. So why can't the majority of people, esspecially our "leaders", say it?
Think about most of the discussions/debtes you have had in you life. Some may have ended with one side changing views. but for the most part, they end in dead-lock. There's only so much anyone can say, about any one topic, untill you're just repeating yourself, and going around in circles. i for one hate repeating myself, and hate it when people do it to "stress a point." You're not stressing a point, you're adding stress to a situation.
So why not just say "I respect your point, but I don't agree with you" and end it? why do people feel the need to hammer their point of view into your head? What do you guys think, am I right for thinking this way, or am I just a dork for thinking people could be respectful in debates?
Reason I'm asking. I was having coffee with a friend of mine of over the weekend, and we got to talking about local issues. With out boreing you with the spacifics, let's just say that she could, or would, not let the topic end. We got to the point were I said I respect your point etc. But she kept pushing her point for the next hour......I love this girl to death, but if I would have had duct tape, I would have used it
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
I think the reason that I might not use "I respect your point, but I don't agree with you." is that I don't respect thier point and don't agree with them. If I believe somebody is wrong I think that's different to holding a different viewpoint and I'll say so. And I don't like losing a confrontation - I want to keep going until somebody says I'm right, because I know I am.
However I do often conceed to valid points made against my arguments and points of view, and I believe that's a skill that's not common and I find quite difficult sometimes!
I think the reason that I might not use "I respect your point, but I don't agree with you." is that I don't respect thier point and don't agree with them. If I believe somebody is wrong I think that's different to holding a different viewpoint and I'll say so. And I don't like losing a confrontation - I want to keep going until somebody says I'm right, because I know I am.
However I do often conceed to valid points made against my arguments and points of view, and I believe that's a skill that's not common and I find quite difficult sometimes!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Respect for another point of view is alright, provided the point is (for want of a better word) valid and logical. I'm aware that someone's opinion of what is valid is different to other people's, which is why it's so difficult to argue effectively. I hear what you're saying about people not being able to say "Fine, ok. I disagree with you, let's move on".
I think the reason why our leaders don't ever say this is because they are under the impression that they will be percieved as "Weak" or vacillating by their electorates. People such as Blair or Bush or Sharon or whatever can't say either "I was wrong" or "Maybe your viewpoint, although different, is still ok" because they think that the only way people will respect them as leaders is if they try to bludgeon their way through every decision based on popular mythology.
Examples include such rhetoric as "Our way of life" and "The safety of our country" and generally precede some outrageous policy that should never get approved.
Terrorism apparantly "Threatens our way of life"... If anyone can tell me the "British way of life" and why I don't appear to know what the hell it is, then I'd appreciate it. You need to polarise things in politics because you can't be seen to have any sympathy for the "Enemy" be it the opposing party or another government, and you can't back down.
Respect for another point of view is alright, provided the point is (for want of a better word) valid and logical. I'm aware that someone's opinion of what is valid is different to other people's, which is why it's so difficult to argue effectively. I hear what you're saying about people not being able to say "Fine, ok. I disagree with you, let's move on".
I think the reason why our leaders don't ever say this is because they are under the impression that they will be percieved as "Weak" or vacillating by their electorates. People such as Blair or Bush or Sharon or whatever can't say either "I was wrong" or "Maybe your viewpoint, although different, is still ok" because they think that the only way people will respect them as leaders is if they try to bludgeon their way through every decision based on popular mythology.
Examples include such rhetoric as "Our way of life" and "The safety of our country" and generally precede some outrageous policy that should never get approved.
Terrorism apparantly "Threatens our way of life"... If anyone can tell me the "British way of life" and why I don't appear to know what the hell it is, then I'd appreciate it. You need to polarise things in politics because you can't be seen to have any sympathy for the "Enemy" be it the opposing party or another government, and you can't back down.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree with Dom, if it's an issue that I feel is important, and which I firmly believe that I am right in, then I'm not so much as going to say 'I respect your view....' as much as 'You're wrong, and here's why...'.
To give two contrasting examples showing both ways-
1. the 'Ultimate theory of reality' thread in which I defended my theory against multiple people on this board who opposed it.
Yet I had no particular investment in the theory being true- I would actually have been pleased if some one had disproved it; I defended it logically, and, as far as I could see, the defences were sound; yet, ultimately, I'm not convinced that it actually is the case, and I'm happy for anyone to disagree with it.
2. Smoking- I've posted loads on smoking, particularly the issue of whether all moderate/heavy smokers are addicts, on whether there are any benefits to smoking etc, etc.
If someone disagrees with me on that, and says moderate/heavy smokers aren't addicts, then I'm not going to say 'I respect your view....' and leave it; because, IMO, they are not only wrong, but they're guilty of supporting/spreading a misconception which will lead to other people dying.
I do believe however, that it's only a relativley small number of issues where one can say with total confidence, 'I am right', because it requires such extensive research/knowledge/experience, to have that confidence.
And I agree it is a shame when some individuals are just plain convinced they are 100% right, all the time, on any issue they care to bring up.
But, I find it equally annoying when people say 'well... it's all just opinion isn't it, no-ones ever right, no-one can say anything is true, it's all just opinion'; for two reasons-
a. that view is manifestly wrong (or at least unsustainable, if only because, if every viewpoint is opinion, then it itself is an opinion, and therefore, by it's own criteria, cannot be said to be true
b. those individuals who propagate it, tend to be, in my experience, despite their protestations that they are open-minded, far from it
I agree with Dom, if it's an issue that I feel is important, and which I firmly believe that I am right in, then I'm not so much as going to say 'I respect your view....' as much as 'You're wrong, and here's why...'.
To give two contrasting examples showing both ways-
1. the 'Ultimate theory of reality' thread in which I defended my theory against multiple people on this board who opposed it.
Yet I had no particular investment in the theory being true- I would actually have been pleased if some one had disproved it; I defended it logically, and, as far as I could see, the defences were sound; yet, ultimately, I'm not convinced that it actually is the case, and I'm happy for anyone to disagree with it.
2. Smoking- I've posted loads on smoking, particularly the issue of whether all moderate/heavy smokers are addicts, on whether there are any benefits to smoking etc, etc.
If someone disagrees with me on that, and says moderate/heavy smokers aren't addicts, then I'm not going to say 'I respect your view....' and leave it; because, IMO, they are not only wrong, but they're guilty of supporting/spreading a misconception which will lead to other people dying.
I do believe however, that it's only a relativley small number of issues where one can say with total confidence, 'I am right', because it requires such extensive research/knowledge/experience, to have that confidence.
And I agree it is a shame when some individuals are just plain convinced they are 100% right, all the time, on any issue they care to bring up.
But, I find it equally annoying when people say 'well... it's all just opinion isn't it, no-ones ever right, no-one can say anything is true, it's all just opinion'; for two reasons-
a. that view is manifestly wrong (or at least unsustainable, if only because, if every viewpoint is opinion, then it itself is an opinion, and therefore, by it's own criteria, cannot be said to be true
b. those individuals who propagate it, tend to be, in my experience, despite their protestations that they are open-minded, far from it
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
Dom: You don't respect people's points? I'm sure I'm missing something here so help me out. If it's a valid point, you still don't respect it? I can see if it's some B.S. invalid point, and you can tell they just pulled it out of the air. But if it's 100% valid, do you respect it then?
Sethis: You are right on polarity in politics. It's sad but true. There's a saying I like, not sure who said it first though. "Black and white are not the color of our skin, but the color of our politics." To this day it's still a true statment..
Dom: You don't respect people's points? I'm sure I'm missing something here so help me out. If it's a valid point, you still don't respect it? I can see if it's some B.S. invalid point, and you can tell they just pulled it out of the air. But if it's 100% valid, do you respect it then?
Sethis: You are right on polarity in politics. It's sad but true. There's a saying I like, not sure who said it first though. "Black and white are not the color of our skin, but the color of our politics." To this day it's still a true statment..
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
I would also like to add that there are times when things are verifiable, and therefore a fact which means that someone *is* right.
I had this happen with a friend a few years ago.
He insisted that a word mean one thing when I knew it did not. He stood there and debated me on it.
I walked to the bookshelf pulled off both the Random House and the Webster dictionaries. Looked up the word and pointed out that, by both dictionaries, I was right and he was not.
Instead of then saying "Okay" he kept arguing that it could be used as...when it couldn't.
I have no respect for that and I left.
I only use "I respect..." when I do, not to end the arguement. If it is an opinion, I will call it that. More often than not when I have used it I will say "I respect your belief/conviction in this matter. I just do not agree with it." That way I don't have to respect the point they are making at all but can respect the conviction they hold it with.
If I hear that statement I will comply with it and not push the issue no matter how correct I am because that, to me, is the point where the other persons mind has completely closed to options and I recognise I will just be wasting breath.
I would also like to add that there are times when things are verifiable, and therefore a fact which means that someone *is* right.
I had this happen with a friend a few years ago.
He insisted that a word mean one thing when I knew it did not. He stood there and debated me on it.
I walked to the bookshelf pulled off both the Random House and the Webster dictionaries. Looked up the word and pointed out that, by both dictionaries, I was right and he was not.
Instead of then saying "Okay" he kept arguing that it could be used as...when it couldn't.
I have no respect for that and I left.
I only use "I respect..." when I do, not to end the arguement. If it is an opinion, I will call it that. More often than not when I have used it I will say "I respect your belief/conviction in this matter. I just do not agree with it." That way I don't have to respect the point they are making at all but can respect the conviction they hold it with.
If I hear that statement I will comply with it and not push the issue no matter how correct I am because that, to me, is the point where the other persons mind has completely closed to options and I recognise I will just be wasting breath.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I partly like your post, dave
I respect your point but I disagree on the smoking-topic...
If someone hammers that nail on the head a thousand times (to me) it doesn't make any difference. They might think I'm numb or stupid, but I just happen to have a different opinion...
Who dares to say: you're wrong [fullstop]... ? - say: right now, I can't follow up on what you're telling me... if interested invite to further discussions, if not leave it...
Also I oppose your statement
that's almost fascistic...
and just makes you one of
... them
*turns back to HAL's computervoice: Dave? Dave....? dave......? whot are yoooou dooooooing theeeeer................ daoeov?...... fades away*
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138644680)
I partly like your post, daveI respect your point but I disagree on the smoking-topic...
If someone hammers that nail on the head a thousand times (to me) it doesn't make any difference. They might think I'm numb or stupid, but I just happen to have a different opinion...
Who dares to say: you're wrong [fullstop]... ? - say: right now, I can't follow up on what you're telling me... if interested invite to further discussions, if not leave it...
Also I oppose your statement
Written by:
when people say 'well... it's all just opinion isn't it, no-ones ever right, no-one can say anything is true, it's all just opinion'; for two reasons-
a. that view is manifestly wrong (or at least unsustainable, if only because, if every viewpoint is opinion, then it itself is an opinion, and therefore, by it's own criteria, cannot be said to be true
b. those individuals who propagate it, tend to be, in my experience, despite their protestations that they are open-minded, far from it
that's almost fascistic...
and just makes you one of Written by:
And I agree it is a shame when some individuals are just plain convinced they are 100% right, all the time, on any issue they care to bring up.
... them
*turns back to HAL's computervoice: Dave? Dave....? dave......? whot are yoooou dooooooing theeeeer................ daoeov?...... fades away*
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138644680)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
FireTom, concerning the passage you quote-
perhaps there's been some misunderstanding- I'm simply saying that the viewpoint that- all viewpoints are simply opinions, and that none are true- is incorrect.
If you disagree with that, then you're basically saying that my viewpoint is wrong, and, by your own belief, you cannot do that surely?
Does that clarify it somewhat?
If you still feel it to be in any way fascistic, I would appreciate it if you could explain why. Because, I am not a fascist, I do not support fascist views, and, if anything I say can be reasonably interpreted as fascistic, then I need to know why, so I can ensure that it doesn't happen again.
FireTom, concerning the passage you quote-
Written by: OWD
when people say 'well... it's all just opinion isn't it, no-ones ever right, no-one can say anything is true, it's all just opinion'; for two reasons-
a. that view is manifestly wrong (or at least unsustainable, if only because, if every viewpoint is opinion, then it itself is an opinion, and therefore, by it's own criteria, cannot be said to be true
b. those individuals who propagate it, tend to be, in my experience, despite their protestations that they are open-minded, far from it
perhaps there's been some misunderstanding- I'm simply saying that the viewpoint that- all viewpoints are simply opinions, and that none are true- is incorrect.
If you disagree with that, then you're basically saying that my viewpoint is wrong, and, by your own belief, you cannot do that surely?
Does that clarify it somewhat?
If you still feel it to be in any way fascistic, I would appreciate it if you could explain why. Because, I am not a fascist, I do not support fascist views, and, if anything I say can be reasonably interpreted as fascistic, then I need to know why, so I can ensure that it doesn't happen again.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
Dave: Were is the 'Ultimate theory of reality' thread? I'll gladly do everything in my power to disprove your point
And as for the smoking remark, I think it's HOW you come off saying that, not WHAT you're saying. I am a smoker. (Please don't give me any 'you should stop' speaches) I agree that even "moderate" smokers are addicts. I don't care if you smoke all the time, or 'just when I drink" you're still addicted.
Damn I got off topic on my own thread......
Dave: Were is the 'Ultimate theory of reality' thread? I'll gladly do everything in my power to disprove your point
And as for the smoking remark, I think it's HOW you come off saying that, not WHAT you're saying. I am a smoker. (Please don't give me any 'you should stop' speaches) I agree that even "moderate" smokers are addicts. I don't care if you smoke all the time, or 'just when I drink" you're still addicted.
Damn I got off topic on my own thread......
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
SILVER Member
enthusiast
360 posts
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
enthusiast
360 posts
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posted:
If someone's arguing about something factual & they're definitely wrong, you gotta keep going until it's proved either way, purely for the purposes of education
In an argument involving two differing opinions you could concede the validity of an opposing point, but some arguments involve statements/ generalisations that are mutually exclusive and can't be compromised. If it's something important (ie an actual event) then you often have to resolve it on the spot and 'agreeing to disagree' would obviously be pointless.
So, it's complicated, but yeh I agree there are alot of very stubborn people out there & they are quite irritating at times
If someone's arguing about something factual & they're definitely wrong, you gotta keep going until it's proved either way, purely for the purposes of education
In an argument involving two differing opinions you could concede the validity of an opposing point, but some arguments involve statements/ generalisations that are mutually exclusive and can't be compromised. If it's something important (ie an actual event) then you often have to resolve it on the spot and 'agreeing to disagree' would obviously be pointless.
So, it's complicated, but yeh I agree there are alot of very stubborn people out there & they are quite irritating at times
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
Back to it. Now you all understaand that I am talking about VALID points and such. Not B.S. stuff that my daughter could see past right? Dom? Dave? I'm not talking about debates like Pele had with her friend. I'm talking about debates were you know the other sides point is valid. Maybe not "right" but valid. And keep in mind who's right and who's wrong, are points of views......
Back to it. Now you all understaand that I am talking about VALID points and such. Not B.S. stuff that my daughter could see past right? Dom? Dave? I'm not talking about debates like Pele had with her friend. I'm talking about debates were you know the other sides point is valid. Maybe not "right" but valid. And keep in mind who's right and who's wrong, are points of views......
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
That's the type of "argument I am talking about. Thanks Geoff
Written by: GeoffonTour04
In an argument involving two differing opinions you could concede the validity of an opposing point,
That's the type of "argument I am talking about. Thanks Geoff
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I was certainly using "almost" and I would certainly NOT call you to be a f***-ist... just to clarify...
But the said statement needed some adding... a viewpoint to me is not a fact in itself - it's an angle from which I look at something. In this I have to simply respect that other people have a different way of looking at it.
If people say: Nuclear power plants are safe! I certainly cannot back up this viewpoint, even though some call it a FACT... So if you say: Smoking kills - I'd add: ...Maybe you! and if you believe so, you should better quit.
Where is that: What actually IS addictive? - thread? (guess in chat...)
But personally I do develop an aversion against people who try to cram their problems down my throat and in these occasions I say: I respect your point, but I don't agree with you. and I'm happy for people who make me aware when I do so myself...
Dave, in this said post you were giving the impression that you know what is right (and recently I tended to get this impression too) but your right ends where the others right starts... meaning that with the above statement you try to brickwall the "backdoor", those using the "all are just opinions" statement... makes you (in this case) one of the people who think they are right 100%...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138647816)
I was certainly using "almost" and I would certainly NOT call you to be a f***-ist... just to clarify...
But the said statement needed some adding... a viewpoint to me is not a fact in itself - it's an angle from which I look at something. In this I have to simply respect that other people have a different way of looking at it.
If people say: Nuclear power plants are safe! I certainly cannot back up this viewpoint, even though some call it a FACT... So if you say: Smoking kills - I'd add: ...Maybe you! and if you believe so, you should better quit.
Where is that: What actually IS addictive? - thread? (guess in chat...)
But personally I do develop an aversion against people who try to cram their problems down my throat and in these occasions I say: I respect your point, but I don't agree with you. and I'm happy for people who make me aware when I do so myself...
Dave, in this said post you were giving the impression that you know what is right (and recently I tended to get this impression too) but your right ends where the others right starts... meaning that with the above statement you try to brickwall the "backdoor", those using the "all are just opinions" statement... makes you (in this case) one of the people who think they are right 100%...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138647816)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
No Dave, its 4 (Am I the only person who uses 50ppp?)
I have difficulty in finding counter agruments agaist their counter arguements. I'll tend to give up and agree with them.
Also, im rubbish at thinking up good examples to back up my ideas.
*wishes he was like OneWheel Dave in some respects*
No Dave, its 4
(Am I the only person who uses 50ppp?)Written by: Dom
However I do often conceed to valid points made against my arguments and points of view, and I believe that's a skill that's not common and I find quite difficult sometimes!
I have difficulty in finding counter agruments agaist their counter arguements. I'll tend to give up and agree with them.
Also, im rubbish at thinking up good examples to back up my ideas.
*wishes he was like OneWheel Dave in some respects*
SILVER Member
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
Posted:
i agree with ucof. i will stop debating after the first round and say, ok, sure.
i just cant be bothered with people that think they are so right they are unwilling to even attempt to see things from another point of view (also people that want to argue just for arguments sake - "look at my superior knowledge AND debating skills!"). some people, its just obvious that they are not even going to listen to what you say, they just want to be heard, to express themselves ("this is my truth! pay attention to me!" they holler... talk about insecurity and egotism)... maybe this is why i dont feel the burning desire to "correct" people into seeing things my way...
i dont mind people thinking they're right and im wrong. thats their buzz. how they judge me and my opinion/belief/views is up to them, and if i were to let that influence me and how i feel, how shallow would that make me? i am comfortable with who i am.
yay.
i agree with ucof. i will stop debating after the first round and say, ok, sure.
i just cant be bothered with people that think they are so right they are unwilling to even attempt to see things from another point of view (also people that want to argue just for arguments sake - "look at my superior knowledge AND debating skills!"). some people, its just obvious that they are not even going to listen to what you say, they just want to be heard, to express themselves ("this is my truth! pay attention to me!" they holler... talk about insecurity and egotism)... maybe this is why i dont feel the burning desire to "correct" people into seeing things my way...
i dont mind people thinking they're right and im wrong. thats their buzz. how they judge me and my opinion/belief/views is up to them, and if i were to let that influence me and how i feel, how shallow would that make me? i am comfortable with who i am.
yay.
those that know, dont say. those that say, dont know.
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
and let me guess dave, you have a post on all 10 right ? guess it's a good thing i have time to kill today.....
and let me guess dave, you have a post on all 10 right
? guess it's a good thing i have time to kill today..... Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
all depends on what the opinions are...
You're existence could just be my vivid hallucination. As could everything else in life. And it's pretty much impossible to incontravertibly prove otherwise.
But when arguments of that nature are brought into discussions about genocide I can't say I'm particularly tolerant of them.
Written by:
i just cant be bothered with people that think they are so right they are unwilling to even attempt to see things from another point of view
all depends on what the opinions are...
You're existence could just be my vivid hallucination. As could everything else in life. And it's pretty much impossible to incontravertibly prove otherwise.
But when arguments of that nature are brought into discussions about genocide I can't say I'm particularly tolerant of them.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
Troupe Leader and founder, Fire and Steel
241 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Troupe Leader and founder, Fire and Steel
241 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
sounds like the way too many of my threads have gone. if people used the idea of saying they simply disagree, though, it would leave me wondering what exactly they disagreed with. the whole "respecting the point but disagreeing" thing is also still too enigmatic and ambiguous for my liking... a bit of an explanation would still be a nice thing. that's why it's called DISCUSSION...
...right?
sounds like the way too many of my threads have gone. if people used the idea of saying they simply disagree, though, it would leave me wondering what exactly they disagreed with. the whole "respecting the point but disagreeing" thing is also still too enigmatic and ambiguous for my liking... a bit of an explanation would still be a nice thing. that's why it's called DISCUSSION...
...right? Frederick the Reckless,
Troupe Leader,
Fire and Steel
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
well i generalized. if i was debating with you on whatever; and it came to a point we were going round and round in circles, i would tell you i respect you opinion on ______ etc.
well i generalized. if i was debating with you on whatever; and it came to a point we were going round and round in circles, i would tell you i respect you opinion on ______ etc.
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
When will I learn to accept, that certain views of the truth is just absolutely opposite mine?
If people speak about the process of re-incarnation when it comes to war/ genocide, their name better be Krishna and they lived in ancient Inda, rather than with dream...
Really guys - there are 1.000.000 theories one can find to prove something wrong and then there comes the one with "faith"and it all crumbles (see "Newborn Christians")... why having to prove someone wrong instead of friendly offereing an opinion and maybe even an advice? Just because one is better using words, phrases and put arguments together? Well to get the own point across - YAY - but further?
Even disapproving someone in my own head only is a judgement... why can't I just let someone be?
When will I learn to accept, that certain views of the truth is just absolutely opposite mine?
If people speak about the process of re-incarnation when it comes to war/ genocide, their name better be Krishna and they lived in ancient Inda, rather than with dream...
Really guys - there are 1.000.000 theories one can find to prove something wrong and then there comes the one with "faith"and it all crumbles (see "Newborn Christians")... why having to prove someone wrong instead of friendly offereing an opinion and maybe even an advice? Just because one is better using words, phrases and put arguments together? Well to get the own point across - YAY - but further?
Even disapproving someone in my own head only is a judgement... why can't I just let someone be?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
becasue it's human nature to not let things "be". including each other and our opinions. acceptance and tolerance are two of the most powerful things in this world. the problem is they are the least exersized.
Written by: FireTom
why can't I just let someone be?
becasue it's human nature to not let things "be". including each other and our opinions. acceptance and tolerance are two of the most powerful things in this world. the problem is they are the least exersized.
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm not right 100% of the time-
Concerning nuclear power plants- I don't know if they're safe- from what I've seen there are good arguments on both sides and it's not an issue I'm sufficently interested in to do the reseach necessary for me to start claiming that reactors are safe or unsafe.
i.e. it's one of the many issues I have no opinion on.
With smoking however, I have put in the time to research and to analyse my own experiences.
IMO, it's not even almost facistic- as far as I can tell it's got no connection with fascism whatsoever.
You seem to think that all opinions are equally valid; I'm saying the opposite i.e. all opinions are not equally valid, some are right and some are wrong, with others maybe in a grey area.
On this specific question however, there are no grey areas, either you're right, or I am.
It just so happens that, on this issue, I don't need to seek out the opinions of others, or do research or statistical analysis, because, on this issue, logic alone is sufficient to show that your view is untenable.
This is because you are making two claims-
1. That all opinions are equally valid, therefore none are wrong
and
2. My opinion to the contrary, is wrong
Put like that, I think the flaw in your viewpoint is starkly obvious.
Now I apologise if you take offense at having your viewpoint subjected to such clear analysis, but, this is a discussion board, we're in a debate, and this is how they're settled- by logic and clear reason.
I've not had a go at you for your previous rather derogatory comparisons of me to a science-fiction computer, neither have I made a big deal of the fact that, to this point, you have not actually backed up your opinion (on the issue above) with any reasoning or substantiation whatsoever.
i.e. I may post in a consise and efficient manner, but I do go to lengths to do so in a non-inflammatory and non-insulting manner.
But, if a minority here feel insulted simply by being proven wrong, there's not much I can do about that; certainly, for example, if someone finds my reasoning concerning cigarette addiction insulting, I'm not going to try to make them feel better by lying, and saying 'yes you're right, cigarettes are actually quite cool, and people should try them out as there's really no such thing as nicotine addiction, and, in actuality, all smokers smoke purely because they choose to do so.'
Cetainly, for every one of the minority here who find some of my reasoning overly blunt, there are others who appreciate the clarity they exhibit and even a few who appreciate the fairness of my posts and the fact that I will stand up for people even if I don't agree with them.
Lastly, here is another clear example of an opinion being manifestly wrong-
Pi has a specific value (in Euclidain space, just to pre-empt the almost inevitable, and irrelevant, attempts to bring in the fact that Pi has different values in non-Euclidean geometries), and anyone who claims it has a different value is wrong. Their opinion on the matter is irrelevant, they are just plain wrong.
And, anyone who claims that all opinins are equally valid, is similarly wrong (IMO).
Written by: FireTom
I was certainly using "almost" and I would certainly NOT call you to be a f***-ist... just to clarify...
But the said statement needed some adding... a viewpoint to me is not a fact in itself - it's an angle from which I look at something. In this I have to simply respect that other people have a different way of looking at it.
If people say: Nuclear power plants are safe! I certainly cannot back up this viewpoint, even though some call it a FACT... So if you say: Smoking kills - I'd add: ...Maybe you! and if you believe so, you should better quit....
......................Dave, in this said post you were giving the impression that you know what is right (and recently I tended to get this impression too) but your right ends where the others right starts... meaning that with the above statement you try to brickwall the "backdoor", those using the "all are just opinions" statement... makes you (in this case) one of the people who think they are right 100%...
I'm not right 100% of the time-
Written by: onewheeldave
I do believe however, that it's only a relativley small number of issues where one can say with total confidence, 'I am right', because it requires such extensive research/knowledge/experience, to have that confidence.
Concerning nuclear power plants- I don't know if they're safe- from what I've seen there are good arguments on both sides and it's not an issue I'm sufficently interested in to do the reseach necessary for me to start claiming that reactors are safe or unsafe.
i.e. it's one of the many issues I have no opinion on.
With smoking however, I have put in the time to research and to analyse my own experiences.
Written by: onewheeldave
But, I find it equally annoying when people say 'well... it's all just opinion isn't it, no-ones ever right, no-one can say anything is true, it's all just opinion'; for two reasons-
a. that view is manifestly wrong (or at least unsustainable, if only because, if every viewpoint is opinion, then it itself is an opinion, and therefore, by it's own criteria, cannot be said to be true
b. those individuals who propagate it, tend to be, in my experience, despite their protestations that they are open-minded, far from it
IMO, it's not even almost facistic- as far as I can tell it's got no connection with fascism whatsoever.
You seem to think that all opinions are equally valid; I'm saying the opposite i.e. all opinions are not equally valid, some are right and some are wrong, with others maybe in a grey area.
On this specific question however, there are no grey areas, either you're right, or I am.
It just so happens that, on this issue, I don't need to seek out the opinions of others, or do research or statistical analysis, because, on this issue, logic alone is sufficient to show that your view is untenable.
This is because you are making two claims-
1. That all opinions are equally valid, therefore none are wrong
and
2. My opinion to the contrary, is wrong
Put like that, I think the flaw in your viewpoint is starkly obvious.
Now I apologise if you take offense at having your viewpoint subjected to such clear analysis, but, this is a discussion board, we're in a debate, and this is how they're settled- by logic and clear reason.
I've not had a go at you for your previous rather derogatory comparisons of me to a science-fiction computer, neither have I made a big deal of the fact that, to this point, you have not actually backed up your opinion (on the issue above) with any reasoning or substantiation whatsoever.
i.e. I may post in a consise and efficient manner, but I do go to lengths to do so in a non-inflammatory and non-insulting manner.
But, if a minority here feel insulted simply by being proven wrong, there's not much I can do about that; certainly, for example, if someone finds my reasoning concerning cigarette addiction insulting, I'm not going to try to make them feel better by lying, and saying 'yes you're right, cigarettes are actually quite cool, and people should try them out as there's really no such thing as nicotine addiction, and, in actuality, all smokers smoke purely because they choose to do so.'
Cetainly, for every one of the minority here who find some of my reasoning overly blunt, there are others who appreciate the clarity they exhibit and even a few who appreciate the fairness of my posts and the fact that I will stand up for people even if I don't agree with them.
Lastly, here is another clear example of an opinion being manifestly wrong-
Written by:
In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi.
Not to a value of 3, as is sometimes claimed, but they wanted to redefine it to a non-irrational number so it would be easier to do calcualtions with.
Luckily, this became known to a mathematician in the area who was well aware that the value of Pi is not subject to opinion or determined by its ease of use in calculations.
Pi has a specific value (in Euclidain space, just to pre-empt the almost inevitable, and irrelevant, attempts to bring in the fact that Pi has different values in non-Euclidean geometries), and anyone who claims it has a different value is wrong. Their opinion on the matter is irrelevant, they are just plain wrong.
And, anyone who claims that all opinins are equally valid, is similarly wrong (IMO).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Sorry... but what the hell did that quote mean? It seems like an attempt at an insult, but the spelling and grammar are so woeful that it just doesn't make sense.
If you mean reincarnation as in the process of decomposition which affects your body when you die and those molecules going on to form parts of other living things I'd say that's irrelevant to genocide.
If you mean it doesn't matter what happens... if they were good people they will have asecded to nirvana/heaven/any other fantasy realm then
twat
Written by:
If people speak about the process of re-incarnation when it comes to war/ genocide, their name better be Krishna and they lived in ancient Inda, rather than with dream...
Sorry... but what the hell did that quote mean? It seems like an attempt at an insult, but the spelling and grammar are so woeful that it just doesn't make sense.
If you mean reincarnation as in the process of decomposition which affects your body when you die and those molecules going on to form parts of other living things I'd say that's irrelevant to genocide.
If you mean it doesn't matter what happens... if they were good people they will have asecded to nirvana/heaven/any other fantasy realm then
twat He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Calm down dream, I think he was saying that anyone who argued that way about genocide had better be a demi-god (Krishna) because there would be no justification for arguing like that otherwise.
I think.
But then, I'm having trouble making it out too.
Remember for them to clarify before we start swearing, ok? Maybe he didn't mean anything like that.
Calm down dream, I think he was saying that anyone who argued that way about genocide had better be a demi-god (Krishna) because there would be no justification for arguing like that otherwise.
I think.
But then, I'm having trouble making it out too.
Remember for them to clarify before we start swearing, ok? Maybe he didn't mean anything like that.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
easy people......let's take a step back, a DEEP BREATH, and chill. I'm 90% sure tom ment what sethis got out of it dream. i doubt he was attacking you in any way. much less one that would require that kind of retort. but then again there is that other 10% i'm not sure of......
you know the funny thing about this thread is it proves what i said to begin with. it's hard to say i repsect you opinion etc. people have to argue their point till the other side says "i agree"
easy people......let's take a step back, a DEEP BREATH, and chill. I'm 90% sure tom ment what sethis got out of it dream. i doubt he was attacking you in any way. much less one that would require that kind of retort. but then again there is that other 10% i'm not sure of......
you know the funny thing about this thread is it proves what i said to begin with. it's hard to say i repsect you opinion etc. people have to argue their point till the other side says "i agree"
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
SILVER Member
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
Posted:
hehe.
good point, mr jakit.
(dont know whether to or 
)
hehe.
good point, mr jakit.
(dont know whether to
or ) those that know, dont say. those that say, dont know.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
...any at his given time, Jackit...
to solve the easier equasion first:
Krishna was advising his leader to continue the war against his relatives and to kill them all - because they would be re-incarnated (carne - flesh - embodied), so there would be no "damage" or "problem" anyways... To put forth such arguments in discussions about genocide and war is what to say? Some of the hindu deities have a rather bloody backgound - without todays worshipper being aware of it... No insult, Dream - it just came to me that here in India admiration and worship origins from a different platform than in the West... sorry if that was coming across other than intended... 
Personally I cannot really agree with all that people say or do, still I respect their culture without having to proove anyone that this or that is right or wrong...
Talk to a "newborn christian" once and you will certainly know what I mean...
Now the more complicated matter:
Dave, please chill out - HAL was the computer in Kubric's 2001 space odysse... I said that because so far I really have enjoyed your posts and the very clear structure in which you are arcticulating your thoughts and opinions.... being a loving "Dave"... your above post was not fitting the profile I had of you... pardon me for having fetched one in the first place.
Now: you are rethorical very good and you walk ahead and have certain opinions and views, some of them very substancial and you backed them up with evidence and facts when you argue with someone. You know all the pro's and con's and you've heard it all before, so the possible backalleys have been taken from whoever already. Now - having learned and re-thought all your arguments, you shaped your argumentation to nearly perfect - impossible for someone getting out of the discussion with EITHER agreeing with you on the topic, OR knowing that one is wrong...
I do not want to dig out evidence the big tobacco corporations have put forth (that'd be against my core) and I do not have to pull these old indian chiefs smokin' back on screen, as well as I do not have to put forth my personally rendered experience and insights to tell you that your view on (tobacco) addiction is not suiting mine... I'm not trying to be in opposition here... I just happen to be...
Only because there have been not many studies about the practice of too much 5ex might lead to cancer of 5exual organs, it doesn't mean that using the reproductive organs over their biologically predespositioned extend may NOT cause complications in health and to some it actually does. Therefore one who is practicing reproduction without having to do so, is following a possibly lethal addiction... which (if the practice would actually be successful) also contributes to overpopulation and therefore the dawn of mankind. So STOP practicing! You know how it works already and STOP reproduction - we have an overhang already
I mean there are millions of possible addictions - you picked smoking to be your topic (for whatever reason in the first place) and you argue.
Maybe you have been addicted to tobacco yourself and it's still an issue you are working upon, maybe maybe... I'm not an online counsellor...
By not accepting that other people have different opinions on (this) subject(s) you are not respecting them, you're completely all over the argument and - as much as I understand - you say something like: you either eat it or you die... and this (to me) is almost fascist...
In a Universe where my neighbour can't even refer to the range of colours in a sunset (turquoise to orange) because he is "colour blind" - what are we arguing about anyways? Let's talk about how everyone looks at the same object and miraculously sees something completely different...
To me an argument is more the: Hey! Look what I found - this looks like a ______ to me... and the other goes: Nope! To me it looks very different, much more like a ______!
And then we get together and see the others point of view (MAYBE)... If not - shrug... but - hug...
By showing disrespect to others (opinions) we simply show disrespect to ourself - as it's our mind that creates this world blablabla and everyone is a mirror of ourself blablabla...
So why not just take the chillpill, like Jakit puts it and come to a civilised and mutual understanding, communication and respect??
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convince you that this is THE far more productive way of communication - I just point at history to proove it...
And even if you don't agree with me I still you 
...any at his given time, Jackit...
to solve the easier equasion first:
Krishna was advising his leader to continue the war against his relatives and to kill them all - because they would be re-incarnated (carne - flesh - embodied), so there would be no "damage" or "problem" anyways... To put forth such arguments in discussions about genocide and war is
what to say? Some of the hindu deities have a rather bloody backgound - without todays worshipper being aware of it... No insult, Dream - it just came to me that here in India admiration and worship origins from a different platform than in the West... sorry if that was coming across other than intended... Personally I cannot really agree with all that people say or do, still I respect their culture without having to proove anyone that this or that is right or wrong...
Talk to a "newborn christian" once and you will certainly know what I mean...
Now the more complicated matter:
Dave, please chill out - HAL was the computer in Kubric's 2001 space odysse... I said that because so far I really have enjoyed your posts and the very clear structure in which you are arcticulating your thoughts and opinions.... being a loving "Dave"... your above post was not fitting the profile I had of you...
pardon me for having fetched one in the first place.Now: you are rethorical very good and you walk ahead and have certain opinions and views, some of them very substancial and you backed them up with evidence and facts when you argue with someone. You know all the pro's and con's and you've heard it all before, so the possible backalleys have been taken from whoever already. Now - having learned and re-thought all your arguments, you shaped your argumentation to nearly perfect - impossible for someone getting out of the discussion with EITHER agreeing with you on the topic, OR knowing that one is wrong...
I do not want to dig out evidence the big tobacco corporations have put forth (that'd be against my core) and I do not have to pull these old indian chiefs smokin' back on screen, as well as I do not have to put forth my personally rendered experience and insights to tell you that your view on (tobacco) addiction is not suiting mine... I'm not trying to be in opposition here... I just happen to be...
Only because there have been not many studies about the practice of too much 5ex might lead to cancer of 5exual organs, it doesn't mean that using the reproductive organs over their biologically predespositioned extend may NOT cause complications in health and to some it actually does. Therefore one who is practicing reproduction without having to do so, is following a possibly lethal addiction... which (if the practice would actually be successful) also contributes to overpopulation and therefore the dawn of mankind. So STOP practicing! You know how it works already and STOP reproduction - we have an overhang already I mean there are millions of possible addictions - you picked smoking to be your topic (for whatever reason in the first place) and you argue.
Maybe you have been addicted to tobacco yourself and it's still an issue you are working upon, maybe maybe... I'm not an online counsellor... By not accepting that other people have different opinions on (this) subject(s) you are not respecting them, you're completely all over the argument and - as much as I understand - you say something like: you either eat it or you die... and this (to me) is almost fascist...
In a Universe where my neighbour can't even refer to the range of colours in a sunset (turquoise to orange) because he is "colour blind" - what are we arguing about anyways? Let's talk about how everyone looks at the same object and miraculously sees something completely different...
To me an argument is more the: Hey! Look what I found - this looks like a ______ to me... and the other goes: Nope! To me it looks very different, much more like a ______!
And then we get together and see the others point of view (MAYBE)... If not - shrug... but - hug...
By showing disrespect to others (opinions) we simply show disrespect to ourself - as it's our mind that creates this world blablabla and everyone is a mirror of ourself blablabla...
So why not just take the chillpill, like Jakit puts it and come to a civilised and mutual understanding, communication and respect??
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convince you that this is THE far more productive way of communication - I just point at history to proove it...
And even if you don't agree with me I still you the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm sorry but...what?
I'm sorry but...what?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
i wondered what was taking you so long to post.....
tom has brought forth my final, and strongest point. to chill. while it is apparent that saying the title of this thread in a debate, is hard for anyone us. the reason seems to be tempers and egos. so when you find yoursefl flaring up over a debate. weather you are "right" or "wrong", remember to take a step back, a deep breath, chill, and perhapse you will see another point of view.
it's all perception & probability. while dream took tom's post a little on the harsh side, seth and myself PRECEIVED it the other way. and i knew the PROBABILITY of this thread proving how hard it is to say "i respect you opinion, but i don't agree with you."
i wondered what was taking you so long to post.....
tom has brought forth my final, and strongest point. to chill. while it is apparent that saying the title of this thread in a debate, is hard for anyone us. the reason seems to be tempers and egos. so when you find yoursefl flaring up over a debate. weather you are "right" or "wrong", remember to take a step back, a deep breath, chill, and perhapse you will see another point of view.
it's all perception & probability. while dream took tom's post a little on the harsh side, seth and myself PRECEIVED it the other way. and i knew the PROBABILITY of this thread proving how hard it is to say "i respect you opinion, but i don't agree with you."
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
GOLD Member
Member
89 posts
Location: Caves Beach, NSW, Australia
Member
89 posts
Location: Caves Beach, NSW, Australia
Posted:
In a discussion the respect I have is for the other person, not for his "point" or opinion.
So I could never say "I respect your point but I do not agree with you"
In a discussion the respect I have is for the other person, not for his "point" or opinion.
So I could never say "I respect your point but I do not agree with you"
Dealing in Perception & Probability
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
135 posts
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sunset
Posted:
ok jeffhigh: if you don't have respect for the opinion or point, then i assume you mean you respect the person corret? if not let me know. so i pose this question to you: how can respect the person, but not their opinion? by not respecting their opinion, you are in turn, not respecting them....
i could see not AGREEING with their point/opinion, but to not respect a persons thought is to not respect them.
ok jeffhigh: if you don't have respect for the opinion or point, then i assume you mean you respect the person corret? if not let me know. so i pose this question to you: how can respect the person, but not their opinion? by not respecting their opinion, you are in turn, not respecting them....
i could see not AGREEING with their point/opinion, but to not respect a persons thought is to not respect them.
Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.
If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [respect point don t agree] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com