You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 06:46:27 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Changing Opinions  (Read 1818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Changing Opinions
« on: August 06, 2015, 03:39:07 PM »
What am I meant to do? I am so sure I am not wrong, but then, evidently so is the other person. How do I know they are the ones who are right, and what exactly am I meant to do with that information, other than live in perpetual uncertainty because I believe these things for a reason and the opposing views of others won't automatically change this?

Adjust to a world with less right and wrong, black or white, yes or no.  Understand that we each have our own experience, are our own person, have our own feelings. We can believe differently, know differently, and not be in error.  Truth is a point of view, not a disprovable fact. 

Understand this is a wonderful thing.   

Paradigms should be constantly challenged, but for the purpose of growth, learning and evolving, not to destroy or tear down. 

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2015, 03:41:14 PM »
As for the rest of that, those are oppinions. That's why there are so many different viewpoints, cause nothing outside of science and math is ever 100% in this world.

  Oh I know, its just we're a democracy, so our opinions matter, and it can be disheartening to be reminded how much they can differ when presented with the same evidence, when the opinions of voters is what decides our future. Nothing to do with you, just something that I struggle with.

The civil thing to do when someone wishes to bow out of a conversation - whatever their reasoning - is to allow them to do so.  Continuing to push the issue on that person is not going to win you any points, and may end up further entrenching them.

  I don't think I  can agree with this. I feel that when someone bows out of a conversation, they allow the other to have the last word. I don't see making the last word as pushing the issue on them, they don't have to respond. But maybe my choice of last words was inappropriate, I don't feel they were, but I am too close to properly make that call of judgement.

Adjust to a world with less right and wrong, black or white, yes or no.  Understand that we each have our own experience, are our own person, have our own feelings. We can believe differently, know differently, and not be in error.  Truth is a point of view, not a disprovable fact. 

Understand this is a wonderful thing.   

Paradigms should be constantly challenged, but for the purpose of growth, learning and evolving, not to destroy or tear down.

  Which is great, until it comes to voting, where it actually matters, because it is pretty much black and white. Do we federally subsidize female birth control? I say yes, certain I am choosing right, other people say no, certain they are right.

  Yes, yes, that was low hanging fruit, no one is going to defend the people who disagree with me there. But how do I know when only idiots disagree with me (like above), and when smart people do as well (like on Scottish independence)? And since there are no doubt there are people with a higher IQ than me who would vote no in the original example, what does idiot even mean here other than someone who disagrees with me on an issue that should be obvious? How is the obvious-ness of an issue determined?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 03:48:22 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2015, 04:45:08 PM »
But how do I know when only idiots disagree with me (like above), and when smart people do as well (like on Scottish independence)?

Who are you referring to?


Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2015, 04:46:30 PM »
Who are you referring to?

  People who think female birth control pills shouldn't be federally subsidized, and people who in general think that women shouldn't be in control of their own bodies.

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2015, 06:07:45 PM »
Yes, yes, that was low hanging fruit, no one is going to defend the people who disagree with me there. But how do I know when only idiots disagree with me (like above), and when smart people do as well (like on Scottish independence)? And since there are no doubt there are people with a higher IQ than me who would vote no in the original example, what does idiot even mean here other than someone who disagrees with me on an issue that should be obvious? How is the obvious-ness of an issue determined?

No one?  Truly?  I politely forward that when a major issue, decades long and still undecided, seems 'obvious' and the opposition can only be dismissed as 'idiots' then it's time to examine the counterpoints in more serious depth rather than oversimplifying the issue.  I support subsidized birth control, but I respect some of the opposing arguments (addressing the social and disease issues of promiscuity, the validity of religious belief that doesn't infringe upon others, the right to one's own income rather than taxation to subsidize). 

Voting isn't black and white; votes have been passed banning same sex marriage, regulating slavery, barring minority rights, and reducing women's equality.  None of these were the last word and it's naive to think all our current laws are, either.  Nor are many votes reduced to a single issue; they are a compromise of several factors.  A vote doesn't indicate that I agree - or disagree - with every aspect, just what I feel is the best choice.  I voted twice for Obama; I'm firmly opposed to his views on gun control, but I considered the human rights and foreign diplomacy issues much more important.  Subsidizing birth control - how young?  How old?  What type, and how expensive?  How permanent?  For health issues?  Even your example is far from binary. 

So yes, even in voting (especially in voting!  It was designed this way!) compromise, a middle ground, respecting and understanding different views and changing your own are critical.  If everyone agrees with you it either doesn't need to be a law (breathing should be done every day!) or you need to lift your jackboot off their throat. 

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2015, 06:31:57 PM »
No one?  Truly?  I politely forward that when a major issue, decades long and still undecided, seems 'obvious' and the opposition can only be dismissed as 'idiots' then it's time to examine the counterpoints in more serious depth rather than oversimplifying the issue.

  You do realize that's exactly what I said? I bet that no one was going to raise their hand and say "I'm against a women controlling her own reproductive freedom", and as such it was easy to dismiss such people as idiots, but then immediately went on to explain why this lacked any substance, because idiot simply meant someone who disagreed with me. But how far does this go?

I support subsidized birth control, but I respect some of the opposing arguments (addressing the social and disease issues of promiscuity, the validity of religious belief that doesn't infringe upon others, the right to one's own income rather than taxation to subsidize).

  I'm also puzzled by your attempts to honour objections. "disease issues of promiscuity" is a pretty pure excuse to deny someone's freedom on, and similarly, what religious beliefs could lead you to oppose subsidized birth control without infringing on others? If its against your religion, don't take them, subsidy doesn't make them mandatory. As for taxation, there's always going to be something the government funds through tax you disagree with (the police, bonuses to public sector management, legal settlements, war, certain medicle treatment), so that isn't an argument in of itself.

Subsidizing birth control - how young?  How old?  What type, and how expensive?  How permanent?  For health issues?  Even your example is far from binary.

  That's not shades of grey. The black and white is yes vs. no. If no, the above questions are meaningless, so how is that shades of grey? In order to get to the shades of grey (which I do not think are that hard to decide: you subsidize it from age of consent for as long as they need it, yes permanently, yes for health issues, the only real issue there is what brand, and I am unqualified to discuss that), you first have to pass the black and white test and choose white, white being yes.

  Similarly, gay or interracial marriage. Yes or no, black and white. Hell, until a independent candidate runs in the US, most elections are binary candidate-wise. Rascism is another one. Good or bad? I say bad, some people say good. Most conspiracy theories (some turn out to be valid, like Iran-gate). On some issues, people who disagree with me are plain wrong. But how do I know when they are plain wrong, and when they may have a point?

So yes, even in voting (especially in voting!  It was designed this way!) compromise, a middle ground, respecting and understanding different views and changing your own are critical.  If everyone agrees with you it either doesn't need to be a law (breathing should be done every day!) or you need to lift your jackboot off their throat.

  The issue isn't when everyone agrees with me, the issue is when people disagree with me. I believe people shouldn't be persecuted for the colour of their skin. Unfortunately, some people disagree with me. They are plain wrong. So again, when do people stop being plain wrong for disagreeing with me? Subsidized birth control? Gun control? Immigration? Who decides where the cut off point is?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 06:36:50 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2015, 06:58:11 PM »
  People who think female birth control pills shouldn't be federally subsidized, and people who in general think that women shouldn't be in control of their own bodies.

Thank you for the clarification.  I am having some difficulty following this discussion.

Unfortunately, some people disagree with me. They are plain wrong. So again, when do people stop being plain wrong for disagreeing with me? Subsidized birth control? Gun control? Immigration? Who decides where the cut off point is?

Are you saying that whenever someone disagrees with you, they are plain wrong?  That this is the case all the time, for every issue?  You are right and anyone who disagrees with you is always plain wrong?


Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2015, 07:04:43 PM »
Are you saying that whenever someone disagrees with you, they are plain wrong?  That this is the case all the time, for every issue?  You are right and anyone who disagrees with you is always plain wrong?

  No, I'm saying that people who disagree with SOME of my opinions are plain wrong. For example, people should not be judged by the colour of their skin, neo-nazis are stupid and need to change their political affiliation, the moon probably isn't an alien space ship. Each one of those is an opinion of mine. Now unfortunately, some people disagree with me on these issues, is anyone going to claim they may have a point? Probably not. The problem is, when does this stop being the case? Which of my opinions can people disagree with without being plain wrong? How can I tell the difference?

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2015, 01:03:11 AM »
  You do realize that's exactly what I said? I bet that no one was going to raise their hand and say "I'm against a women controlling her own reproductive freedom", and as such it was easy to dismiss such people as idiots, but then immediately went on to explain why this lacked any substance, because idiot simply meant someone who disagreed with me. But how far does this go?

So you're stating a thesis just to contradict it?  What is your thesis? 

I'm also puzzled by your attempts to honour objections. "disease issues of promiscuity" is a pretty pure excuse to deny someone's freedom on, and similarly, what religious beliefs could lead you to oppose subsidized birth control without infringing on others? If its against your religion, don't take them, subsidy doesn't make them mandatory. As for taxation, there's always going to be something the government funds through tax you disagree with (the police, bonuses to public sector management, legal settlements, war, certain medicle treatment), so that isn't an argument in of itself.

We're wandering astray, but in brief: birth control - in particular the pill - limits some repercussions of sexual activity, but not all; the logic of sociology indicates fewer negatives will increase a behavior, thereby increasing incurable and terminal STDs, which are more strictly negative than the pregnancies that were prevented.  Birth control is against orthodox Catholic belief, at least, but is too large a topic to cover here - do some research; and not providing subsidies isn't necessarily infringing on rights, certainly not in the same way as not allowing access.  Subsidies don't make taking birth control mandatory, but they do make paying for it mandatory, and thereby do infringe upon the rights of everyone (specifically, to keep their property).  I'm completely confused why the use of one's property for something one disagrees with/simply doesn't value isn't a valid argument; as an example, I don't agree with mandatory taxes to buy Trump a new mansion, not because I'm ethically against his living in one but because I see no personal or social benefit to it that outweighs my right to use my money as I wish. 

That's not shades of grey. The black and white is yes vs. no. If no, the above questions are meaningless, so how is that shades of grey? In order to get to the shades of grey (which I do not think are that hard to decide: you subsidize it from age of consent for as long as they need it, yes permanently, yes for health issues, the only real issue there is what brand, and I am unqualified to discuss that), you first have to pass the black and white test and choose white, white being yes.

So you would pay for Paris Hilton's birth control, but wouldn't for a 13 year old being raped by her stepfather?  Interesting.  Honestly, if you don't see any complexity in any of those questions then I feel you're very ignorant regarding the issue and I suggest reading something written by the moderate opposition. 

On some issues, people who disagree with me are plain wrong. But how do I know when they are plain wrong, and when they may have a point?

I'd say that, barring insanity, they're never plain wrong.  They may be uninformed, misinformed, more informed, have different values, or simply reach different conclusions, but dismissing anyone as "stupid", "idiot", or "just plain wrong" only because their view differs from yours reveals your own shortcomings, not theirs. 

As for what they can disagree with, I rather like Thomas Inman: First, do no harm.  It may seem ridiculous to believe the moon is a spaceship, but as long as no one is harmed by it, why can't they disagree?  Let's not imprison Galileo.  Issues like racism are more difficult, but again - as long as they don't act upon them to inflict harm, others do have a right to their beliefs.  I also dislike allowing someone to disagree based on ignorance of a fact (in the literal sense: something which can be disproved).  Beyond that, people can disagree all they like, and it's up to you to determine if your own beliefs are justified or not - generally by becoming informed, which is conveniently done by listening to what the other person is saying. 

The points I saw there:

1. White men are, in fact, vastly overrepresented in spree killings and hate-motivated violence.
2. These killings happen all the damn time (seriously, those examples were from just over one month.) This is the 'context' you felt was lacking.
3. Despite (1) and (2), we continue to treat white male killers as 'isolated incidents', and pretend there's nothing in our culture that contributes to it. This includes concerted efforts to ignore, gloss over, or erase hate-based motivations in many cases.
4. We do (3) and simultaneously give special consideration to white spree killers that we wouldn't give to their victims - including pretending that they're isolated and unconnected to anything that might fuel their hatred and violence.

I disagree.  Per the FBI, in 2013 in the US there were 189 blacks killed by whites, 2245 blacks killed by blacks, 409 whites killed by blacks and 2509 whites killed by whites, all of which are well established patterns, indicating that most violence is actually confined within racial groups and violent white on black hate murders are in fact limited, contrary to what the talking heads try to imply during skewed news coverage of dramatic events.  In fact, considering the comparison of population (13.2% black and 77.7% white) blacks are much more likely to kill and also much more likely to kill a white than a white is to kill a black.  In my opinion there are a ton of socioeconomic reasons for this, rather than innate racial characteristics, but if simply making blanket statements based on skin pigment then the numbers are not what the article is trying to imply. 

There are 11 examples provided.  Per the 2010 census there are 223,553,265 white Americans, 49.2% of which are male, so .00001% (1 in 10,000,000) of white American males was involved in those shootings. Running the 2013 numbers (and not even correcting for multiple murders by the same individuals) a typical white American male has a .0025% chance of committing murder.  That is 1 in 400,000, or about 1.5 in a population equivalent to the state of Wyoming, which is, I submit, a pretty isolated incident.  I agree, however, that culture is certainly an issue, although I'm more concerned with the result of beliefs based on anecdotal evidence and dramatic media influencing the behavior of isolated psychotics. 

« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 01:11:25 AM by eBadger »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2015, 02:36:34 AM »
So you would pay for Paris Hilton's birth control, but wouldn't for a 13 year old being raped by her stepfather?  Interesting.  Honestly, if you don't see any complexity in any of those questions then I feel you're very ignorant regarding the issue and I suggest reading something written by the moderate opposition.

  You're trying to shoe horn shades of grey in where they don't exist. By birth control here we are talking specifically about the pill to be taken monthly, which yes, I would subsidize for Paris Hilton, because that's how socialized healthcare works. We don't ban rich people from county hospitals, we just assume they will prefer the private options. As for the raped 13 year old, I would support morning after pill and abortion if she got pregnant from her violation (and criminal charges against the step father and possibly mother if she was involved). Anyone who disagrees with me here (believing instead that a pregnant 13 year old rape victim should be forced to go through with the pregnancy) is plain wrong, and a monster to boot.

I the pill is also extended to the morning after pill, then I would want that subsidized for any pregnant female who wants a it, but the pill to be taken monthly is still only to be subsadized (and given to) girls over the age of consent, as you cannot have a government program promoting underage sex. That was easy. Any more "problems"?

  The only possibly shade of grey I can think of is what if an underage girl who got pregnant wants to keep the baby but her parents want her to terminate the pregnancy. I don't know is that issue has been resolved legally. Its a tough one. But as before, you still first need to pass the yes/no test to even get to these issues.

I'd say that, barring insanity, they're never plain wrong.  They may be uninformed, misinformed, more informed, have different values, or simply reach different conclusions, but dismissing anyone as "stupid", "idiot", or "just plain wrong" only because their view differs from yours reveals your own shortcomings, not theirs.

  Okay fine: when does someone disagree with me because they are uninformed/misinformed, and when do they disagree with me because because they simply reach different conclusion/are better informed? And how do I tell the difference?

As for what they can disagree with, I rather like Thomas Inman: First, do no harm.  It may seem ridiculous to believe the moon is a spaceship, but as long as no one is harmed by it, why can't they disagree?  Let's not imprison Galileo.  Issues like racism are more difficult, but again - as long as they don't act upon them to inflict harm, others do have a right to their beliefs.  I also dislike allowing someone to disagree based on ignorance of a fact (in the literal sense: something which can be disproved).  Beyond that, people can disagree all they like, and it's up to you to determine if your own beliefs are justified or not - generally by becoming informed, which is conveniently done by listening to what the other person is saying.
 

  This is incredibly naive. The idea that racism is fine as long ass its not acted upon? You really think that passive, "harmless" racism won't promote more incidents of active racism? Plus what causes harm isn't always clear. Is scientific illiteracy harmful? Because that makes a whole lot of opinions wrong.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 02:53:29 AM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2015, 09:55:23 AM »
Which of my opinions can people disagree with without being plain wrong? How can I tell the difference?

when does someone disagree with me because they are uninformed/misinformed, and when do they disagree with me because because they simply reach different conclusion/are better informed? And how do I tell the difference?

By listening to what other people say, considering the facts and arguments presented, and then evaluating your own beliefs to see if your belief is actually the wrong one.

Or as eBadge put it:

it's up to you to determine if your own beliefs are justified or not - generally by becoming informed, which is conveniently done by listening to what the other person is saying.


Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2015, 10:21:05 AM »
By listening to what other people say, considering the facts and arguments presented, and then evaluating your own beliefs to see if your belief is actually the wrong one.

Or as eBadge put it:

  Obviously, that's what I do. But I am hardly ever swayed by the arguments of others. Sometimes I am, but the majority of the time I'm not. So either I'm an unappreciated genius with most of the answers, or I have a bias to for my own existing opinion. And if it is the latter, I have no way of knowing when I actually have the better argument, and when I am overvaluing my own.

  You're not telling me to do something that never occurred to me, I already do this, I do listen to others. It just doesn't work.

Offline Cycle

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2015, 11:17:31 AM »
  Obviously, that's what I do. But I am hardly ever swayed by the arguments of others. Sometimes I am, but the majority of the time I'm not. So either I'm an unappreciated genius with most of the answers, or I have a bias to for my own existing opinion. And if it is the latter, I have no way of knowing when I actually have the better argument, and when I am overvaluing my own.

  You're not telling me to do something that never occurred to me, I already do this, I do listen to others. It just doesn't work.

*shrugs* 

So we seem to agree that's the best answer to your question.  Good luck.


Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2015, 11:19:44 AM »
*shrugs* 

So we seem to agree that's the best answer to your question.  Good luck.

  Pretty much, and the best answer really isn't helpful. That was my point from the beginning. Explaining it took a bit longer than I thought it would.

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2015, 11:28:28 AM »
Anyone who disagrees with me here (believing instead that a pregnant 13 year old rape victim should be forced to go through with the pregnancy) is plain wrong, and a monster to boot.

Anyone who objects to killing a growing child is plain wrong and a monster?  Again, interesting.  There's debate on when a fetus is its own entity, rather than the mother's body, and of course the social impact of unwanted children, but I would hardly call "let's not kill babies" monstrous

The only possibly shade of grey I can think of is what if an underage girl who got pregnant wants to keep the baby but her parents want her to terminate the pregnancy.

So that stepfather choosing to abort his 13 year old rape victim's child without her consent is a grey area? 

You're trying to shoe horn shades of grey in where they don't exist.

And I feel you're in obtuse denial of them. 

Okay fine: when does someone disagree with me because they are uninformed/misinformed, and when do they disagree with me because because they simply reach different conclusion/are better informed? And how do I tell the difference?
 
Again, listening to them and making a legitimate attempt to understand their viewpoint.  And countering it with something more informed than 'you're a plain wrong, monstrous idiot'; if you're unable to provide sound reasoning, it's a strong indication that you're the one who's uninformed (note our birth control debate). 

This is incredibly naive. The idea that racism is fine as long ass its not acted upon? You really think that passive, "harmless" racism won't promote more incidents of active racism? Plus what causes harm isn't always clear. Is scientific illiteracy harmful? Because that makes a whole lot of opinions wrong.

That would be 'acting upon them to inflict harm'.  By all means, discuss how you plan to regulate thoughts and by what metric you propose we identify what we're allowed to think.  I'm not thrilled if someone sits at home writing racial slurs in their diary, but agree with their right to do it - because at one point doing that in public was fine, and writing a romantic poem about someone of another race, or the same gender, wasn't okay.  Freedom isn't free, as they say, and the greatest test of it is defending the right of others to think differently. 

And yes, what causes harm isn't always clear.  Welcome to another grey area. 

Obviously, that's what I do.

 :-\

But I am hardly ever swayed by the arguments of others.

Which should indeed concern you deeply. 

I have no way of knowing when I actually have the better argument, and when I am overvaluing my own.

And yet again, listen to the other viewpoint and counter it with facts and logical conclusions or change your opinion.  As I keep emphasizing, if your response is 'it's plain wrong' or 'it's stupid', then you're overvaluing your own opinion because you're maintaining it without justification beyond your ignorance and ego. 

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2015, 11:50:20 AM »
Anyone who objects to killing a growing child is plain wrong and a monster?

  When its growing inside a 13 year old rape victim? Yes, very much so. You can be pro-life, I'll disagree but we are all entitled to our own opinions, but if you do not make an exception to your stance for a 13 year old rape victim, you are a monster.

So that stepfather choosing to abort his 13 year old rape victim's child without her consent is a grey area?

  No. He's wrong and needs to go to prison, she needs treatment for her violation. No grey area. It could potentially become a grey area if you introduce additional factors, but anything can.

And I feel you're in obtuse denial of them.

  Interesting. You feel I'm wrong and you are right, I feel I am right and you are wrong. This is exactly what I mean as problematic. How do we know which one of us is actually right?


Again, listening to them and making a legitimate attempt to understand their viewpoint.  And countering it with something more informed than 'you're a plain wrong, monstrous idiot'; if you're unable to provide sound reasoning, it's a strong indication that you're the one who's uninformed (note our birth control debate).

I have been making arguments other than 'you're a plain wrong, monstrous idiot'. Women have a right to regulate their own reproductive freedoms, religious freedom cannot encroach on others, so it isn't a valid objection, and neither is "I didn't want my tax dollars spent on it", because the only reason they don't want their tax dollars spent on it is they object to the practice to begin with. If they didn't object to the practice, they wouldn't mind their tax dollars funding it, so that isn't an argument in of itself either.

  If you have other arguments to justify denying subsidized birth control I'll happily hear them.

That would be 'acting upon them to inflict harm'.  By all means, discuss how you plan to regulate thoughts and by what metric you propose we identify what we're allowed to think.  I'm not thrilled if someone sits at home writing racial slurs in their diary, but agree with their right to do it - because at one point doing that in public was fine, and writing a romantic poem about someone of another race, or the same gender, wasn't okay.  Freedom isn't free, as they say, and the greatest test of it is defending the right of others to think differently.

  Sure I agree, we cannot make legislation against passive racism, but private citizens address it. And don't we have a duty to? Sure, pick your battles. An 80 old stuck in the past, maybe let them have their bigoted opinions, but a young 25 year old? Don't we have a duty to at least try and address his racism and make the world a better place?

And yes, what causes harm isn't always clear.  Welcome to another grey area.

  Oh I'm not saying grey areas don't exist, just most of the ones you have put forwards are questionable. Like politics. Yes, the art of politics is the art of comprise, but that's the making of the bill. When it comes to the voter, they have the black and white choice of voting for or against the bill.

:-\

Which should indeed concern you deeply.

  Maybe. There's not much I can do with that sentiment, but then there's not much I can do without it.

And yet again, listen to the other viewpoint and counter it with facts and logical conclusions or change your opinion.  As I keep emphasizing, if your response is 'it's plain wrong' or 'it's stupid', then you're overvaluing your own opinion because you're maintaining it without justification beyond your ignorance and ego.

  Again, I don't actually do that. The very first time I brought up the idea of people being idiots for disagreeing with me I then dismissed the notion in the same paragraph.

I think it's now clear to everyone how LisztesFerenc views the world.  Maybe we can go back to discussing news stories?

  If you don't mind (and if you do then just ignore), how do you deal with feeling you know something is right and yet finding someone who disagrees, convinced they are right. Two people have told me to listen to their arguments, okay, fair enough. Does that always work for you? What do you do when you listen to someones arguments, aren't convinced, yet they still aren't by yours? Or does that only happen to me?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 11:53:08 AM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2015, 12:38:05 PM »
  If you don't mind (and if you do then just ignore), how do you deal with feeling you know something is right and yet finding someone who disagrees, convinced they are right. Two people have told me to listen to their arguments, okay, fair enough. Does that always work for you? What do you do when you listen to someones arguments, aren't convinced, yet they still aren't by yours? Or does that only happen to me?

Speaking only about myself and how I deal with that situation?  I try to walk away from the discussion for a half hour or two.  Maybe get something to eat or walk outside.  Then look again to see if I've missed anything.  And then more often then not, I'll post something neutral and propose that we move on to talk about something else.  It doesn't always work, but that's what I try to shoot for.

I've found that investing too much energy and emotion in an online debate ultimately achieves very little benefit for me (really, what does it matter if they are right or wrong?  it's not like I make or lose $5 either way).  Also, this forum, like most others on E, are public to the entire membership.  More people see what we write here than we may realize.  So fighting over something too long--and more importantly, too hard--can drive away some potential writing partners.  And ultimately, that's why I'm here.  To RP.  Spending too much energy in political debates can also simply take time away from writing RP replies.

But again, that's just me. 


Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2015, 12:59:04 PM »
You can be pro-life, I'll disagree but we are all entitled to our own opinions, but if you do not make an exception to your stance for a 13 year old rape victim, you are a monster.

It's okay to support not killing children, unless the father they never met was a criminal? 

Interesting. You feel I'm wrong and you are right, I feel I am right and you are wrong. This is exactly what I mean as problematic. How do we know which one of us is actually right?

You're still stuck on the concept of one of us being right, and one being wrong.  The better goal is to work to understand why you're both right. 

I don't think you're entirely wrong.  I'm pro choice, actually.  I just don't think you're expending any effort to understand and respect other viewpoints and opinions. 

I have been making arguments other than 'you're a plain wrong, monstrous idiot'.

You've also made a lot of arguments of 'if you don't make an exception, you're a monster'. 

Don't we have a duty to at least try and address his racism and make the world a better place?

Wouldn't we hope he'd listen and consider, rather than just calling us monstrous?

Again, I don't actually do that.

 :-\ again. 

If you don't mind (and if you do then just ignore), how do you deal with feeling you know something is right and yet finding someone who disagrees, convinced they are right. Two people have told me to listen to their arguments, okay, fair enough. Does that always work for you? What do you do when you listen to someones arguments, aren't convinced, yet they still aren't by yours? Or does that only happen to me?

Interested, usually.  I enjoy debates and research to reveal why someone thinks differently than I do.  I'm particularly fascinated at why decent, intelligent, moral, responsible people support ideas or actions that I would consider evil or unpleasant.  Yes, it pretty much always works for me, in the sense that I can respect their point of view.  I mean, I'd still totally shoot an ISIS terrorist in the face, but I can see how he'd pull certain messages from the Koran and feel he was achieving the greater good. 

Disagreement happens all the time.  I mentioned a while back that it was a good thing.  Understanding another point of view helps a lot to identify points of contention so that we can work around them, and even if that's not possible the respect involved can lead to a cordial interaction. 

For instance, calling someone who is pro-life a monster is an attack.  I'd prefer "I don't share your opinion, but I really think it's awesome that you're working to protect children.  I just don't agree with your interpretation of independent life and don't feel there's a social benefit, particularly considering the socio-economic and age groups that would be most impacted by a reversal of Roe v. Wade.  So wanna go have a beer?" 

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2015, 04:56:46 PM »
It's okay to support not killing children, unless the father they never met was a criminal?

  No. Why would you assume rapist can automatically be expanded to to all criminals?

You're still stuck on the concept of one of us being right, and one being wrong.  The better goal is to work to understand why you're both right.

  That may be beneficial for peace of mind, but it doesn't help in reality, where we have to actually make a choice that on the ballot will be a yes or no typically, and if not, it will be from a finite and rather short list, not infinite shades of grey. As I said, they come up behind the scenes.

  Also I did try to understand those arguments. Quite a while ago, they weren't new. I gave them thought, and ruled them out for the reasons I already shared.

I don't think you're entirely wrong.  I'm pro choice, actually.  I just don't think you're expending any effort to understand and respect other viewpoints and opinions.

  Funny. Given that you tried to ambush me with the example of a raped 13 year old, then just assumed I would substitute rapist for any criminal, I feel the same about your commitment to understanding my views and opinion.

You've also made a lot of arguments of 'if you don't make an exception, you're a monster'.

  No I haven't. Them being monstrous is the conclusion of the argument, not the sole leg of it. For example, someones racist. Racism is illogical, it has no bases in reality as any difference you can point to will be much more dependent on social and cultural differences rather than the colour of their skin. Therefor, someone who would promote the mistreatment of people of colour and use them as a scapegoats for the problems of today when they cannot possible influence such events on that scale, is monstrous.

Wouldn't we hope he'd listen and consider, rather than just calling us monstrous?

  Sure, and I won't call them monstrous to their face, however I will probably consider it.

:-\ again.

  Yes, because I'm pretty sure that was the second time I had to clarify that. Could be wrong though.

Interested, usually.  I enjoy debates and research to reveal why someone thinks differently than I do.  I'm particularly fascinated at why decent, intelligent, moral, responsible people support ideas or actions that I would consider evil or unpleasant.  Yes, it pretty much always works for me, in the sense that I can respect their point of view.  I mean, I'd still totally shoot an ISIS terrorist in the face, but I can see how he'd pull certain messages from the Koran and feel he was achieving the greater good.

  So its bad to call someone monstrous for disagreeing with you, but fine to shoot an ISIS terrorist in the face, as long as you respect why they do what they do? Obviously this is an extreme corner case, but you understand why I find that last sentiment confusing, given everything else you've said?

Disagreement happens all the time.  I mentioned a while back that it was a good thing.  Understanding another point of view helps a lot to identify points of contention so that we can work around them, and even if that's not possible the respect involved can lead to a cordial interaction.

  But what if I cannot respect someones logic? Whether or not you respect someone isn't a choice. I can choose to pretend to respect them, and I likely will in real life, but I cannot make myself see their side of the argument if I disagree with their logic.

For instance, calling someone who is pro-life a monster is an attack.  I'd prefer "I don't share your opinion, but I really think it's awesome that you're working to protect children.  I just don't agree with your interpretation of independent life and don't feel there's a social benefit, particularly considering the socio-economic and age groups that would be most impacted by a reversal of Roe v. Wade.  So wanna go have a beer?"

  Sure, and for the sake of social interaction I do this. I have to, I live in Hungary. But it troubles me to no end. I hear my friends saying such stupid things, like "90% of all rapes accusations are fake" (yes, really), "there is no male privilege, but there is female privilege", "the world is controlled by women", "acknowledging the existence of gays is just PC culture", "Its irrelevant that Magic the gathering now has a transsexual character" "Racism is wrong but gypsies are scum". I try to challenge these notions, but sometimes I have to let them slide, but inside I am shouting at them "You idiot, this is the age of information, you have access to the internet, to a certain degree you are ignorant by choice".

  And it bothers me, because they are so sure they are right, and I am so sure they are wrong. And it cannot be both. Women cannot simultaneously control the world and basically be second class citizens, its cannot simultaneously be significant and irrelevant that magic the gathering finally has a transsexual character. One of us has to be more wrong than the other, but both of us are so sure it isn't them.

I've found that investing too much energy and emotion in an online debate ultimately achieves very little benefit for me (really, what does it matter if they are right or wrong?  it's not like I make or lose $5 either way).

  To me its important to know which way society will benefit the most. If I'm advocating X, and the other person is advocating Y, if I'm wrong, and Y is the correct choice, I'm making the world a worse place by advocating my opinions.

  Also:

Also, this forum, like most others on E, are public to the entire membership.  More people see what we write here than we may realize.  So fighting over something too long--and more importantly, too hard--can drive away some potential writing partners

  Teehee - https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=231217.100

  Don't take this as a serious counter point, just a playful observation that the one person tyo say debating can drive away RP partners is the one person I've see have two people express interest in RP-ing with based off them debating.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 05:36:47 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline HannibalBarca

  • Defiant General of Hopeless Causes * Henry Rollins for President campaigner * Mako-phile * Uncle Iroh in shades * Disciple of Dr. Cornel West *
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: At large, am tall. "People keep asking if I'm back. Yeah...I'm thinking I'm back."
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2015, 06:11:09 PM »
Quote
Interesting. You feel I'm wrong and you are right, I feel I am right and you are wrong. This is exactly what I mean as problematic. How do we know which one of us is actually right?

throughout history, societies that have considered themselves moral decide this by seeing which choice promotes the most well-being among the most people, and the least harm among the smallest amount of people.  Or, more succinctly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

With abortion, the argument tends to lie most firmly on the question of when is a fetus considered a viable human being?  This was decided in Roe vs Wade as 28 weeks; in some cases 24.  However, this was mostly based on the survivability outside the mother's uterus at the time.  Medical science has improved to allow a baby to survive sans mother earlier than that.

Pro-life advocates have a hard time understanding this seeming lack of empathy for what they see as a human child.  It seems arbitrary.  How can someone be a human being, or not be a human being, based on the advancement of technology?

Pro-choice advocates feel an empathy for the woman, a fully developed human being with fully developed emotions, memories, and personal relationships.  They have a hard time understanding how someone can side with a collection of human cells with none of those traits yet.

Making this observation of both sides empirically and objectively using their own words and beliefs, other than the rhetoric of either side of the other, is an important part of truly getting to the bottom of these kinds of debates.  It's a normal thing to react emotionally to charged debates like these, but that will get you nowhere closer to a solution.

And contentious arguments like these don't usually have clear-cut solutions, either.  Choices have to be made that often end in compromises that neither side agree on completely.  Life is messy that way.

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2015, 06:21:01 PM »
  No. Why would you assume rapist can automatically be expanded to to all criminals?

A rapist is a criminal; nor did I say all criminals.  Although an interesting notion.  Murder is usually considered worse than rape; is it okay to kill the child of a murderer?  Again, considering neither actually had anything to do with the crime. 

That may be beneficial for peace of mind, but it doesn't help in reality, where we have to actually make a choice that on the ballot will be a yes or no typically, and if not, it will be from a finite and rather short list, not infinite shades of grey. As I said, they come up behind the scenes.

You're very fixated on the ballot.  Also on the strange notion that lawmaking involves one immutable piece of writing, unchanged before or after voting, unchallenged by similar or contrary laws, judicial review, or enforcement.  I don't think the law works the way you think the law works. 

On the other hand, speaking of 'reality', very little of your time is involved in voting.  Also, your single vote on its own has no real impact at all on anything beyond the most local scale; it's a drop in the ocean.   I suggest you redirect your decision making toward your daily life and things more in your control. 

Funny. Given that you tried to ambush me with the example of a raped 13 year old, then just assumed I would substitute rapist for any criminal, I feel the same about your commitment to understanding my views and opinion.

By 'ambushed' I assume you mean 'asked a clear question which your previous attempts at broad binary answers hadn't considered, and which made you feel uncomfortable because they challenged your worldview and required more critical thinking, then gave you as much time as you needed to respond.'

No I haven't. Them being monstrous is the conclusion of the argument, not the sole leg of it. For example, someones racist. Racism is illogical, it has no bases in reality as any difference you can point to will be much more dependent on social and cultural differences rather than the colour of their skin. Therefor, someone who would promote the mistreatment of people of colour and use them as a scapegoats for the problems of today when they cannot possible influence such events on that scale, is monstrous.

And yet unfreedom, in varying degrees, and usually NOT based on skin color, has been the norm for humanity throughout all recorded history, including for those who laid out our current notions of morality and social justice, and continues today on a large scale.  Doesn't the logic seem worthy of some consideration?  How are we to reconcile that with human nature?  Were there no decent people until the modern era? 

So its bad to call someone monstrous for disagreeing with you, but fine to shoot an ISIS terrorist in the face, as long as you respect why they do what they do? Obviously this is an extreme corner case, but you understand why I find that last sentiment confusing, given everything else you've said?

As Malcolm Reynolds would say, that was through a perfectly legitimate conflict of interest.

Are you truly so naive as to think we only kill bad people?  That every soldier fighting for the Reich, Imperial Japan, or the Confederacy was irredeemably evil and deserved death?  That bombs falling on Syria and Iraq only hit monsters?  How do you resolve the dilemma that some people have to die for the greater good?  Is this where you cast a ballot and say you only had two choices?
 
But what if I cannot respect someones logic? Whether or not you respect someone isn't a choice. I can choose to pretend to respect them, and I likely will in real life, but I cannot make myself see their side of the argument if I disagree with their logic.

Respecting another is absolutely a choice.  And not being able to see the logic of anyone you disagree with concerns me deeply. 

And it bothers me, because they are so sure they are right, and I am so sure they are wrong. And it cannot be both. Women cannot simultaneously control the world and basically be second class citizens, its cannot simultaneously be significant and irrelevant that magic the gathering finally has a transsexual character. One of us has to be more wrong than the other, but both of us are so sure it isn't them.

And my usual conclusion, faced with such individuals, is that while you've come to a logical conclusion based on reasoning, evidence, and moral justice, they've arrived at one based on insecurity and fear.  Insecurity and fear are true; they exist, they are actual reasons.  Perhaps try to address those things instead. 

To me its important to know which way society will benefit the most. If I'm advocating X, and the other person is advocating Y, if I'm wrong, and Y is the correct choice, I'm making the world a worse place by advocating my opinions.

Welcome to being an adult.  That's why it's good to understand as much as you can, make an informed opinion, and be willing to change it. 

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2015, 06:35:10 PM »
I'm lagging a bit behind the discussion here, but I felt this kinda needed addressing.

I disagree.  Per the FBI, in 2013 in the US there were 189 blacks killed by whites, 2245 blacks killed by blacks, 409 whites killed by blacks and 2509 whites killed by whites, all of which are well established patterns, indicating that most violence is actually confined within racial groups and violent white on black hate murders are in fact limited, contrary to what the talking heads try to imply during skewed news coverage of dramatic events.  In fact, considering the comparison of population (13.2% black and 77.7% white) blacks are much more likely to kill and also much more likely to kill a white than a white is to kill a black.  In my opinion there are a ton of socioeconomic reasons for this, rather than innate racial characteristics, but if simply making blanket statements based on skin pigment then the numbers are not what the article is trying to imply.
First: Stats on murder in general do not speak to hate and spree murder in specific. Second: "Limited" is such a vague term. Exactly how many of these incidents must there be in a month and six days before it is in fact acceptable to say "There's a problem here?"

There are 11 examples provided.  Per the 2010 census there are 223,553,265 white Americans, 49.2% of which are male, so .00001% (1 in 10,000,000) of white American males was involved in those shootings. Running the 2013 numbers (and not even correcting for multiple murders by the same individuals) a typical white American male has a .0025% chance of committing murder.  That is 1 in 400,000, or about 1.5 in a population equivalent to the state of Wyoming, which is, I submit, a pretty isolated incident.  I agree, however, that culture is certainly an issue, although I'm more concerned with the result of beliefs based on anecdotal evidence and dramatic media influencing the behavior of isolated psychotics.
Not even going to bother checking your math, as it doesn't speak to the point. The issue was not about the commonality of murderers in the general population, but the fact that we are steadfastly ignoring a particular, privileged demographic's overrepresentation in certain particularly horrifying areas, in a way that can only possibly be construed at this point as willful.

TL;DR: I am not saying that whites, or men, or white men are evil. I am asking Why do we keep ignoring, minimizing, and dismissing horrifying crimes when white men commit them?

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2015, 06:42:09 PM »
A rapist is a criminal; nor did I say all criminals.

  Yes you did:

"It's okay to support not killing children, unless the father they never met was a criminal?"

  Without quantifying the criminal clause in that statement, you have expanded it to mean all criminals. You did not quantify it.

You're very fixated on the ballot.  Also on the strange notion that lawmaking involves one immutable piece of writing, unchanged before or after voting, unchallenged by similar or contrary laws, judicial review, or enforcement.  I don't think the law works the way you think the law works.

  Ofcourse I'm fixated on a ballot, that's how the everyday person tends to change society. I never said unchanging, that's you adding stuff again, just that when you're voting, you don't get to go to the booth and say "I'll vote yes, but only with these changes". That's for the politicians to sort out beforehand, and yes possibly afterwards too.

On the other hand, speaking of 'reality', very little of your time is involved in voting.  Also, your single vote on its own has no real impact at all on anything beyond the most local scale; it's a drop in the ocean.

  Following that logic no one should bother voting, but then there will be a difference.

By 'ambushed' I assume you mean 'asked a clear question which your previous attempts at broad binary answers hadn't considered, and which made you feel uncomfortable because they challenged your worldview and required more critical thinking, then gave you as much time as you needed to respond.'

  No, you asked gotcha question, such as:
"So you would pay for Paris Hilton's birth control, but wouldn't for a 13 year old being raped by her stepfather?  Interesting."

  What you are describing above would be - "How would you apply this opinion to a 13 year old rape victim".

And yet unfreedom, in varying degrees, and usually NOT based on skin color, has been the norm for humanity throughout all recorded history, including for those who laid out our current notions of morality and social justice, and continues today on a large scale.  Doesn't the logic seem worthy of some consideration?

  No, that is called an appeal to tradition fallacy, and is stickied at the top of this sub forum on a thread of things to avoid in debates here. If a tradition has merit, it can be justified without mentioning that it is a tradition.

  Incidentally, this taps into another interesting unknowable: what bias and discrimination does the pro-LGBT, pro-gender and racial equality population have, that their children or grand children will witness being overcome? I have no idea, and this frustrates me.

Are you truly so naive as to think we only kill bad people?

  No I'm not, and I'm puzzled as to where you got that from. I was confused by you saying it was wrong for me to call people who disagree with me monstrous, yet freely admitting to the capability to shoot someone in the head, suggesting a hierarchy of wrongs that is at odds with societies.
 
Respecting another is absolutely a choice.

  No it isn't. Acting with respect to another is absolutely a choice, but feeling respect? There's no switch for that. I can no more control that than I can flick on the happy switch when I am feeling down.

And not being able to see the logic of anyone you disagree with concerns me deeply.

  You're adding absolutes which weren't in my statements.

And my usual conclusion, faced with such individuals, is that while you've come to a logical conclusion based on reasoning, evidence, and moral justice, they've arrived at one based on insecurity and fear.  Insecurity and fear are true; they exist, they are actual reasons.  Perhaps try to address those things instead.

  But all I have is your word for it. I also feel that people who disagree with me on the abortion issue are similarly using fear and illogic vs. my rational thinking, yet here you disagree with me.

Welcome to being an adult.  That's why it's good to understand as much as you can, make an informed opinion, and be willing to change it.

  I know. There's an anti-gay marriage page in my Facebook frequently visited pages. I go there periodically to see what arguments they have, I'm also visited by Jehova's witnesses semi regularly because I listen to what they have to say. Lack of exposure isn't the problem. I can even argue against my believes (somewhat convincingly according to others), I just don't buy my own arguments when I do.

  So how do you deal with the possibility that you are making the world a worse place if you are wrong?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 06:52:44 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2015, 06:56:40 PM »
  Teehee - https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=231217.100

  Don't take this as a serious counter point, just a playful observation that the one person tyo say debating can drive away RP partners is the one person I've see have two people express interest in RP-ing with based off them debating.

I think you need to read that thread again and see why they expressed interest in writing with me...


Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Changing Opinions
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2015, 07:07:26 PM »
I think you need to read that thread again and see why they expressed interest in writing with me...

  As I said, don't take it as a serious counter point.