Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Is Agreeing to Disagree a Dead Concept?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    432

    Default Is Agreeing to Disagree a Dead Concept?

    You know, it seems in America today, and here quite a lot as one reads through the posts in the various threads of this section, that while as always, people have differing opinions on various issues, whether it be politics, religion, or just plain old philosophical principle, that in addition to those differences in opinion, now more than ever, people refuse to just let other people have their opinions without it blowing up into some big argument.

    One of my core philosophies personally is that to solve any problem, you need to take the lesson of the story of Hercules fighting the Hydra in the 12 Labors. In the story, he tries to kill the hydra by cutting off its heads, which were right in front of him and easy to see and get to, but no matter how many times he did, his efforts only made the problem worse, causing two more heads to grow in the place of the one that was cut off. Finally he defeats the hydra by going for its body instead, stabbing it in the heart.

    Like all of the 12 Labors in that myth, this story is a metaphor, one that teaches that you can't solve any truly complicated problem by just hacking at it from the surface. You have to find the root cause of the problem and "go right to the source" as they say.

    There's so much division and hatred in our country today [speaking only for America of course, although from what I know, its similar in other places too] that people have stopped being willing to compromise and work together, despite their differences. Look, at the end of the day, people have a right to disagree with you, and you can't force them to change their minds. Instead of bickering over things that you're never going to resolve, perhaps it would be better if people try to get back to looking for common ground, and working for their common interests, regardless of any philosophical or even religious differences they might have with that person.

    At the end of the day, Cooperation is what really makes the world go round, and the less people are willing to cooperate with each other, the more the machinery of society gets clogged and broken down with stupid pointless arguments that will never go anywhere. I am speaking of course primarily about the American political situation at the moment, our system having nearly completely broken down at this point due to both sides unwillingness to work together [although the same could be said for a great many issues in the world today].

    Actually, whether or not you realize it, the Black and White Pokemon games have the philosophies of Conservatism AKA Ideals vs. Liberalism AKA Truth, as their primary theme anyway. One of the most prominent lessons those games was supposed to teach was the danger of thinking in black and white terms, that is, in absolutes. When you listen to the things Team Plasma, and especially N say, they're speaking in a very absolutionist manner, a sort of "I'm right, you're wrong, and there's no room at all for negotiation or differing opinions." kind of philosophy.

    That kind of rhetoric is extremely damaging to a society, and really, both sides have their valid points, and both sides have their weaknesses. I'm personally more liberally minded, but I'm also pretty moderate, and have many issues I hold conservative views on [For example, I think people should be allowed to own whatever kind of guns or weapons they want, as I am a strong supporter of second amendment rights. Now still, I don't mean this in absolutes, and some gun control, especially on the number of weapons a single person can own, should still be instituted].

    Anyway, my point is that I try as much as I can to see the validity in both sides of the argument, even if I do often fail at it. You see, the reason people often fall into Absolutionist ways of thinking is quite simply, because its easier to understand the world that way. Things are simple and clear when you define them in black and white terms, but in doing so, you completely distort the reality of the situation, and blind yourself to any part of it that doesn't support your position. Therefore, as much as we can, people should try to think of the world in the more complex, albeit also more mentally straining, viewpoint that actually reflects reality.

    Now, while it is true that Conservatism, which is fueled primarily by emotions, religion, and all to often, selfishness [its basically for people who do only what is in their own best interest, caring about other people only so far as they can help them] has a tendency to promote and generate hatred, something which is a known fact, at the same time, Liberals often have a tendency to look at the "irrational" way in which Conservatives might behave and think, and end up meeting that hatred with hatred of their own, usually in a condescending, elitist manner because they think that their logically based positions and greater "intelligence" automatically make them superior to their conservative counterparts.

    So really, although they might think otherwise, Liberals are usually no better than the hate-spewing Conservatives they like to point to [which I will note, does not represent the full spectrum of conservatism, simply being the most publicly visible one and the easiest to criticize], and they, just as much as their opponents, get into looping trains of thought that play back like a tape, simply because it is human nature to do so.

    In the end, what a person should ideally strive for is a balance between the two of them. You have to look out for yourself and make sure that you'll be alright, or else you won't be prepared when things happen that you didn't plan for. Still, at the same time, without help from other people, and supporting everyone as a whole, society will very rapidly break down and stop working, because people won't be working together and will only be blindly concerned with holding onto their own possessions.

    So, if there is any true path, I would argue that it is moderation between these two things. Still at the same time, people are fully allowed to disagree with me on this, and indeed, sometimes an absolutionist view is indeed called for, but all to often we leave ourselves on auto-pilot and forego thinking through our actions before we go through with them, saying and doing things out of habit rather than true thought, and this is where we tend to get ourselves into trouble.

    So, thoughts, anyone?
    Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How?
    EXACTLY!
    Torkoal is my Bishie

    STEW'S A PIMP!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Being able to accept someone has a different opinion than yours requires acknowledging there is in fact more than one point of view. To many people have Black and white and misses all the greys in between! Now me, I can normally see both sides of an issue. I have my opinion, I can understand that your opinion (may) have merit but will disagree philosophically. If I am debating, I will make my stand, but if it is just a discussion, I am more flexible. I am fully capable of agreeing to disagree. But I am from a different generation than all of you.
    ...
    ...
    ... Drink a Shot people!

    So true!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Following that star
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    With apologies for taking your post out of order and not discussing all of it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Torkoal View Post
    Actually, whether or not you realize it, the Black and White Pokemon games have the philosophies of Conservatism AKA Ideals vs. Liberalism AKA Truth, as their primary theme anyway. One of the most prominent lessons those games was supposed to teach was the danger of thinking in black and white terms, that is, in absolutes. When you listen to the things Team Plasma, and especially N say, they're speaking in a very absolutionist manner, a sort of "I'm right, you're wrong, and there's no room at all for negotiation or differing opinions." kind of philosophy.

    That kind of rhetoric is extremely damaging to a society, and really, both sides have their valid points, and both sides have their weaknesses. I'm personally more liberally minded, but I'm also pretty moderate, and have many issues I hold conservative views on [For example, I think people should be allowed to own whatever kind of guns or weapons they want, as I am a strong supporter of second amendment rights. Now still, I don't mean this in absolutes, and some gun control, especially on the number of weapons a single person can own, should still be instituted].
    I don't really think that conservatism and liberalism can be split along those lines. In fact, quite a number of liberals I have heard of express somewhat utopian, idealistic concepts. And some liberals today ascribe to postmodernism, a philosophy which denies the reality or the accessibility of objective truth.

    I will have more to say in the next section about Team Plasma's unwillingness to reason:
    Quote Originally Posted by Torkoal View Post
    You know, it seems in America today, and here quite a lot as one reads through the posts in the various threads of this section, that while as always, people have differing opinions on various issues, whether it be politics, religion, or just plain old philosophical principle, that in addition to those differences in opinion, now more than ever, people refuse to just let other people have their opinions without it blowing up into some big argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torkoal View Post
    There's so much division and hatred in our country today [speaking only for America of course, although from what I know, its similar in other places too] that people have stopped being willing to compromise and work together, despite their differences. Look, at the end of the day, people have a right to disagree with you, and you can't force them to change their minds. Instead of bickering over things that you're never going to resolve, perhaps it would be better if people try to get back to looking for common ground, and working for their common interests, regardless of any philosophical or even religious differences they might have with that person.
    There is always room for debate. Even if I believe someone is very much incorrect, that's the whole point of using reason and evidence to debate something. And common ground is essential. To use an example from my own Christian beliefs, every human lives in the world God made, and every human is still made in the image of God. So while they may be wrong, it's almost a guarantee that they have something right. Thus even in the biggest disagreement, the best course of action is to attempt to persuade.

    I don't mean to be over-critical, but some of the things in your post seem to have almost forgotten that this is the Debate Forum. In many cases, it looks like a big argument because it is! (It's usually big even if it's not angry!)


    Quote Originally Posted by Torkoal View Post
    Now, while it is true that Conservatism, which is fueled primarily by emotions, religion, and all to often, selfishness [its basically for people who do only what is in their own best interest, caring about other people only so far as they can help them] has a tendency to promote and generate hatred, something which is a known fact, at the same time, Liberals often have a tendency to look at the "irrational" way in which Conservatives might behave and think, and end up meeting that hatred with hatred of their own, usually in a condescending, elitist manner because they think that their logically based positions and greater "intelligence" automatically make them superior to their conservative counterparts.

    So really, although they might think otherwise, Liberals are usually no better than the hate-spewing Conservatives they like to point to [which I will note, does not represent the full spectrum of conservatism, simply being the most publicly visible one and the easiest to criticize], and they, just as much as their opponents, get into looping trains of thought that play back like a tape, simply because it is human nature to do so.
    You know what? I'm not even really all that worried about the fact that I'd disagree with your view of conservatism; this expresses a lot of balance.

    Basically, this reminds me of the way I have to wonder about some of the stuff I hear people say they heard on Fox News or on conservative talk radio. And I've even heard some of my friends indicate that Fox is the only source that's telling it straight! But I realized that it is more important to be right than to be conservative.


    I think agreeing to disagree might be good in daily practice. If lengthy discussions lead to anger, maybe they should be avoided when you have to work with someone. But for the Debate Forum, attempting to convince, in as respectful of a manner as possible (but forcefully if necessary) is the way it should be.

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  4. #4

    Default

    I agree with and like the underlying point of the OP. A fundamental human problem that inflicts us is that we deep down 'pretend', or trick our mind sometimes into thinking that what we experience as our reality is not subject to change(particularly in any sort of negative/harmful or sudden way). I am meaning for example, we think that our relationships with the people we know will always be the same and that they will always be who they were as we knew them, but people and things change and evolve/grow all the time constantly. We sometimes trick ourselves into thinking that we are in control after awhile and that things will not change, forcing you to adapt to whatever it may be. Where I am getting at with this little bit is that we sometimes delude our reality by doing what I have just mentioned, and by locking into this absolute view of black and white; that there is this way or no other way. Both can cause delusion by distorting the observer's perception of reality.

    Cooperation is what makes the world go round, agreeing to disagree peacefully is a very important thing.
    Last edited by Cosmical El Amarna; 24th August 2012 at 1:07 AM.
    My FC for 5th gen is 4041 2078 1937
    current wifi team
        Spoiler:- MasterBark:

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    With my head in the clouds
    Posts
    371

    Default

    The real route of the problem is we do not live in an ideal world where everyone is raised on the same beliefs, ethics, finance, and opportunity. Here in America especially we are so heterogeneous as a nation that we can not agree on almost anything, and this causes a lot of conflict.

    As we age it becomes difficult to accept working with, living with, and even putting up with other people who have a polar opposite in terms of values. When your fellow employee is making decisions based on things you completely disagree with, it can really dig at a person. However a level-headed and morally thriving individual would take more time to evaluate that persons past, his present, his goals, and upbringing. This is the only way we can reach true understanding of one another.

    However even reaching understanding is not merely enough. A lot of people can understand why I am so sardonic and bitter, yet they still can not accept it. The reality is any system or society that allows any kind of individuality and difference in net income per yer will never achieve the idealistic view of true acceptance. People will always fight about everything.

    Agreement and acceptance are physically impossible in this world. Even if we were all to make the same amount of money, raised on the same values, and forced into a sort of slave like system (Relative to the Church's absolute control centuries ago.) the world still requires different occupations and requirements to sustain humanity. These are all different levels of requirements on a hierarchy, and therefore true equality is impossible, and disagreement is inevitable.

    So what can we do about it? Well nothing really. People have tried and it only results in radical and unethical prospects like fascism and communism.

    America is doomed though, don't kid yourself otherwise. The country's economic and political will collapse completely in your life time. It never has gotten better and the government only knows how to stall. I have seriously been thinking about moving.
    Last edited by iFi Salamander; 24th August 2012 at 1:10 AM.

    Thanks to Steel Sector Graphics for the userbar and banner!


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    I'll agree to disagree iFi. It may collapse in your lifetime, But I am much closer to that finishline. No Nation has ever been the world leader Forever, and the day will come when the curtain falls on the US and other "major Powers" But for now, love the ride while it lasts.

    So true!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Torkoal View Post
    Now, while it is true that Conservatism, which is fueled primarily by emotions, religion, and all to often, selfishness [its basically for people who do only what is in their own best interest, caring about other people only so far as they can help them] has a tendency to promote and generate hatred, something which is a known fact, at the same time, Liberals often have a tendency to look at the "irrational" way in which Conservatives might behave and think, and end up meeting that hatred with hatred of their own, usually in a condescending, elitist manner because they think that their logically based positions and greater "intelligence" automatically make them superior to their conservative counterparts.
    Just to nitpick, both sides ascribe to their own religion, you will find that liberals can view things like Global Warming and Evolution, not in rational terms of debate, but one based like a religious belief where nothing can challenge it.

    Furthermore your view on emotions and selfishness are incredibly backwards when attributed to Conservatives. It would be easy for Conservatives, especially economic conservatives to follow what liberals do, and that is to give, and give, and give to minorities, in essence buying their vote. It is easy to scream that their opponents are racists and that everything will be great. But Conservatism, especially Economic Conservatism is not that, it is considered being "The Parents" in that they are the ones that have to say "No you cannot have that" and "No we have to fix that".

    Again it would be easy for Conservatives to act in the way you describe, saying that the nation's finances should be screwed and to help as many people as they can just to get reelected on that minority vote. But then that would not be economic Conservatism, that would be liberalism.

    On the concept of "Agree to Disagree" I would say that personally I do not like it, I find it as a coward's way out. One in which your opponent says "Well I am losing this debate, and I do not wish to acknowledge that my points are weaker, so I am going to act as if we are on even terms." Thing is, when your opponent says that, you are not on even terms, usually one is the victor, and one is the loser. The loser just cannot acknowledge that.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    On the concept of "Agree to Disagree" I would say that personally I do not like it, I find it as a coward's way out. One in which your opponent says "Well I am losing this debate, and I do not wish to acknowledge that my points are weaker, so I am going to act as if we are on even terms." Thing is, when your opponent says that, you are not on even terms, usually one is the victor, and one is the loser. The loser just cannot acknowledge that.
    Wow this makes me feel really good on the inside.
    My FC for 5th gen is 4041 2078 1937
    current wifi team
        Spoiler:- MasterBark:

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    On the concept of "Agree to Disagree" I would say that personally I do not like it, I find it as a coward's way out. One in which your opponent says "Well I am losing this debate, and I do not wish to acknowledge that my points are weaker, so I am going to act as if we are on even terms." Thing is, when your opponent says that, you are not on even terms, usually one is the victor, and one is the loser. The loser just cannot acknowledge that.
    On one hand, I can understand why you look at 'agreeing to disagree' from that standpoint. On the other hand, it could very well suggest the bullheadedness of the side that doesn't want to concede by agreeing to disagree. It's not always about winning the argument, but rather getting the two parties to meet the middle ground with their ideas, to make something that is perceived as black-white, more grey (depending on the issues of course, take abortion for instance. Both pro-life and pro-choice parties offer interesting thoughts yet neither are willing to budge and take into consideration what the other side is saying, thus we end up involving emotion rather than objectivity).

    It's exactly as the OP stated, we care too much about conforming people to our mode of thinking without being objective and understanding that the same mode of thinking can be flawed or that the other side could have some intriguing ideas.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    This must be the place.
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Just to nitpick, both sides ascribe to their own religion, you will find that liberals can view things like Global Warming and Evolution, not in rational terms of debate, but one based like a religious belief where nothing can challenge it.
    Science is not a religion. The key difference between religion and science is faith. Religion relies on faith for belief, science does not.

    You cannot challenge a faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Furthermore your view on emotions and selfishness are incredibly backwards when attributed to Conservatives. It would be easy for Conservatives, especially economic conservatives to follow what liberals do, and that is to give, and give, and give to minorities, in essence buying their vote. It is easy to scream that their opponents are racists and that everything will be great. But Conservatism, especially Economic Conservatism is not that, it is considered being "The Parents" in that they are the ones that have to say "No you cannot have that" and "No we have to fix that".
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Again it would be easy for Conservatives to act in the way you describe, saying that the nation's finances should be screwed and to help as many people as they can just to get reelected on that minority vote. But then that would not be economic Conservatism, that would be liberalism.
    You're mistaking politics with political philosophies. The political philosophy of a liberal is that it is up to the people to collectively support each other through means that everyone can contribute to. The political philosophy of a conservative is that each individual is responsible for his/her self, and that everyone else can benefit when individuals act for themselves (assuming they do so successfully).

    There's absolutely no reason, other than simple close minded people such as yourself, that these philosophies shouldn't be able to work together.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    On the concept of "Agree to Disagree" I would say that personally I do not like it, I find it as a coward's way out. One in which your opponent says "Well I am losing this debate, and I do not wish to acknowledge that my points are weaker, so I am going to act as if we are on even terms." Thing is, when your opponent says that, you are not on even terms, usually one is the victor, and one is the loser. The loser just cannot acknowledge that.
    Just because you don't shut up, doesn't mean you're right.


    Among rational people, it is still entirely possible to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, when irrationality takes over, it is very difficult for anyone to agree to disagree. We see a lot of irrationality in politics.
    Last edited by SugarFreeJazz; 24th August 2012 at 5:27 AM.
    [IMG]http://i37.*******.com/2d164cz.png[/IMG]

    pock pock pock

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    Science is not a religion. The key difference between religion and science is faith. Religion relies on faith for belief, science does not.

    You cannot challenge a faith.
    You would be shocked in how quickly Liberals will choose to ignore science that disagrees with their own set of ideals in the hopes of preserving their "religion".

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    You're mistaking politics with political philosophies. The political philosophy of a liberal is that it is up to the people to collectively support each other through means that everyone can contribute to. The political philosophy of a conservative is that each individual is responsible for his/her self, and that everyone else can benefit when individuals act for themselves (assuming they do so successfully).
    You seem to forget that part of political liberalism is that some poor people need support than others, that way it "balances" everything out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    There's absolutely no reason, other than simple close minded people such as yourself, that these philosophies shouldn't be able to work together.
    Aww did I strike a nerve?

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    Just because you don't shut up, doesn't mean you're right.
    Going to ask again, did I strike a nerve?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You would be shocked in how quickly Liberals will choose to ignore science that disagrees with their own set of ideals in the hopes of preserving their "religion".
    tell me moar about climategate

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Aww did I strike a nerve?

    Going to ask again, did I strike a nerve?
    grown man assumes because someone points out the obvious he "struck a nerve" on a pokemon debate section
    Last edited by bel9; 24th August 2012 at 7:00 AM.
    Beware children and heed Uncle Lutz, lest these devious feminists obliterate you:

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    There are a few feminists out there with such a extreme view in terms of wiping out men that it matches the Nazi's movement of seeing a lower class and or being utterly genocidal.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    This must be the place.
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You would be shocked in how quickly Liberals will choose to ignore science that disagrees with their own set of ideals in the hopes of preserving their "religion".
    Right, right. But I wouldn't be shocked by how quickly Conservatives choose to ignore science that disagrees with their own set of ideals in the hopes of preserving their religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You seem to forget that part of political liberalism is that some poor people need support than others, that way it "balances" everything out.
    I forgot how awful it was to provide help to those in need.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Aww did I strike a nerve?
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Going to ask again, did I strike a nerve?
    Is that somehow a testament to your ability to debate?

    Though, since I'm still right and you said nothing to the contrary, I'm going to say no.


    What I can't understand, is why you seem to be so adamant about not working together. Why you need a winner and a loser. Why you can't simply agree to disagree, and then work on what you can agree on. What is so inherently difficult with that concept?
    [IMG]http://i37.*******.com/2d164cz.png[/IMG]

    pock pock pock

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    Right, right. But I wouldn't be shocked by how quickly Conservatives choose to ignore science that disagrees with their own set of ideals in the hopes of preserving their religion.
    No doubt but my argument isn't about conservatives in religion, it is about liberals and their religion. Try again.


    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    I forgot how awful it was to provide help to those in need.
    Read my sentence again, I am not saying it is wrong to provide for people in need, what I am saying is it is wrong to place one group of those in need over another when both are equally needy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    Is that somehow a testament to your ability to debate?

    Though, since I'm still right and you said nothing to the contrary, I'm going to say no.
    Honest question to a idiotic response.

    Quote Originally Posted by SugarFreeJazz View Post
    What I can't understand, is why you seem to be so adamant about not working together. Why you need a winner and a loser. Why you can't simply agree to disagree, and then work on what you can agree on. What is so inherently difficult with that concept?
    Who says I cannot? The debate forum is not a area of the real world, maybe I did not make that clear but that was what I was specifically talking about. In which case there is nothing to work toward to after the debate is done.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    138

    Default

    I agree with the OP. People need to learn that others will have different opinions, values, and beliefs than you. More importantly, people need to stop trying to make others conform to their opinions. The abortion debate is an excellent example of this. It is obvious that for the most part neither side will budge on their beliefs. However the debate continues. Each side trying fruitlessly to change the views of the other. And one side trying to control the lives of others. That is not how a healthy society should function. In a healthy society each parties' opinions should be considered and a compromise should be reached. At worst, the scenario that while not a compromise allows for the most freedom should be chosen. For example, in the gay marriage rights debate there are two very hard-headed sides. In that particular scenario a compromise cannot really be reached. Marriage is marriage regardless. So in a healthy society since a compromise couldn't be reached gays would be allowed to marry. That way gays would have the right that they wanted, and people who don't like gay marriage don't have to be in one (they should be happy then, because we can't have people trying to control one another's lives now can we?)

    I have to agree with previous posters and admit that agreeing to disagree is a weak action. However it is sometimes necessary. As my father always used to say in an argument "I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong".
    FC: 1463 5647 1777


    Come check out my Trade Shop!!!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    I'm struck by the irony of a thread that seems to be about compromise openly endorsing one side and putting down the other side as selfish. Sabotaged from the very start!

    You can't really moderate between two belief systems while trying to hold up your own. People will sense your lack of commitment.

    But kudos for drawing the parallel to Black and White, you'd think more people on the Debate forum would use the Team Plasma/Unova story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    This must be the place.
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    No doubt but my argument isn't about conservatives in religion, it is about liberals and their religion. Try again.
    Well this is going nowhere fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Read my sentence again, I am not saying it is wrong to provide for people in need, what I am saying is it is wrong to place one group of those in need over another when both are equally needy.
    That's not what it says in the sentence that I was responding to. And which groups are you referring to, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Who says I cannot? The debate forum is not a area of the real world, maybe I did not make that clear but that was what I was specifically talking about. In which case there is nothing to work toward to after the debate is done.
    Convenient.

    The discussion was directed at the stubborn absolutist tendencies of people in the real world, not our debates on the debate forum. Hence, my misunderstanding.
    [IMG]http://i37.*******.com/2d164cz.png[/IMG]

    pock pock pock

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    ehhhhhhhh
    Posts
    805

    Default

    I think we may need to agree to disagree on this debate.
    How did the mathematician solve his constipation problem?
    He worked it out with a pencil.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    This must be the place.
    Posts
    452

    Default

    I agree.
    [IMG]http://i37.*******.com/2d164cz.png[/IMG]

    pock pock pock

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    I disagree. . . Wait.
    Beware children and heed Uncle Lutz, lest these devious feminists obliterate you:

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    There are a few feminists out there with such a extreme view in terms of wiping out men that it matches the Nazi's movement of seeing a lower class and or being utterly genocidal.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,639

    Default

    Well to make my post brief and to the point, I'd say that this topic in and of itself proves that agreeing to disagree isn't necessarily a dead concept.

    It's just that some people seem to have trouble with this idea. Ironically, those people help to illustrate why it isn't a dead concept.
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    into that good night
    Posts
    10,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Furthermore your view on emotions and selfishness are incredibly backwards when attributed to Conservatives. It would be easy for Conservatives, especially economic conservatives to follow what liberals do, and that is to give, and give, and give to minorities, in essence buying their vote. It is easy to scream that their opponents are racists and that everything will be great. But Conservatism, especially Economic Conservatism is not that, it is considered being "The Parents" in that they are the ones that have to say "No you cannot have that" and "No we have to fix that".

    Again it would be easy for Conservatives to act in the way you describe, saying that the nation's finances should be screwed and to help as many people as they can just to get reelected on that minority vote. But then that would not be economic Conservatism, that would be liberalism.
    I think this is an illegitimate and one-sided characterization of the motivations behind the two groups. It might be fairer to allow for the possibility that at least some liberals who try to help people in need are doing so out of an ethical concern rather than merely purchasing the minority vote.

    But I also think the OP's comparison between liberals and conservatives was just as illegitimate and one-sided (to the opposite slant), so beyond this small formal objection I have nothing to say on the matter. We all already know how the far ends of the spectrum think of each other. ^_^;

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC View Post
    You can't really moderate between two belief systems while trying to hold up your own. People will sense your lack of commitment.
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, that seems more pessimistic than an assessment of moderation need be..?

    But kudos for drawing the parallel to Black and White, you'd think more people on the Debate forum would use the Team Plasma/Unova story.
    I'm afraid of sullying Pokemon by bringing it here.



    In any case, I'd like to request folks cease all the political/intelligence insults and stay on the actual topic, forced as it may be.

    As far as that actual topic goes, I would argue that the utility of the practice of agreeing to disagree is context-dependent. Casual disagreements and friendly debates - in short, inconsequential events - don't need a valid resolution. Consequential events do. Say two children need an organ to continue living, but only one matching organ is available. The two sets of parents (or doctors, or whoever) cannot afford to simply agree to disagree over who gets the organ. With no resolution reached, nothing will get done, the organ will go to waste, and both children will die. That's certainly a barest-of-bones and extreme example, but the principle remains. Sometimes inaction or mere tolerated disagreement is insufficient - perhaps even quantifiably the worst option- as the conclusion to a disagreement.

    Not to raise the whole other point that agreeing to disagree ignores and/or omits the recognition of a standard of truth. I'm just saying. I can't stand postmodernism.

    Robin Williams
    1951-2014
    "What's it gonna be? I don't know. But maybe along the way, you take my hand, tell a few jokes, and have some fun. C'mon, pal. You're not afraid, are ya?"

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Profesco View Post
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, that seems more pessimistic than an assessment of moderation need be..?
    It was possibly a more personal response than need be. I have a problem with controlling my rhetoric so I don't say anything hurtful, which has progressed to a difficulty finding the line between absolute bias and absolute neutrality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Profesco View Post
    I'm afraid of sullying Pokemon by bringing it here.
    The spirit of Pokemon is totally with the Debate Form. We like to fight day in and day out like Pokemon do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •