Conceding Non-Consensus

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Are we to conclude this Monastery is full of suffering and enduring?

Suffering? You're probably taliking about the occasional whipping? I don't know if that's much suffering, I've heard some of the siblings even enjoy it...


Ooooops, got off-topic (but I had to say it... sorry). Carry on...

[goat starer]

if I may make some suggestions......

Who gets to define harm when it comes to say abortion or euthenasia?

me

How do you agree on a definition of harm when one group thinks this world is all there is, and another believes it is a transitory step to eternal life?

ask me

When does turning the cheek become compliance in allowing atrocities to happen?

when i say so

Here's a concrete example. Most people (me included) admire Gandhi. However, if the whole of India had followed his lead instead of 2.5 million fighting the Axis powers then the Japanese Imperial Army might have broken through into India from Burma with a possible massacre on the scale of Nanking.

Does taking too simplistic a view of harm reduction make you morally culpable for the consequences?  *
Could we ever agree on the complex view?

dont trouble yourselves with such matters. I will sort them out and get back to you

hope this helps.

yours in tolerance and humility

Lord Goat BA Hons OXON MA OXON

[Maelin]

I have to say I disagree with the idea that "I am allowed to disagree with you but I'm not allowed to try to persuade you that you're wrong." I don't think that's a very good definition of tolerance nor a good way to live, since it accomplishes nothing.

I am more inclined to believe that the best attitude in life is this:

I am allowed to disagree with you, and I am allowed to try to persuade you that you're wrong, but only if I do it in a respectful and rational manner and only if I respond in that respectful and rational manner when others do the same to me. In both cases I must remain open-minded about the possibility that I am wrong.

Debate and argument are how we humans can attempt to use disagreement to come closer to truth. I hold that "believing things that are true and not believing things that are untrue" to be fairly important goals, as surely every rational person should. So when two people who disagree on some issue debate it, the goal is to establish which (if either) of these two people is correct. To try to find the truth. A proper, open-minded debate is one in which both people explain their justifications for their beliefs and in which, hopefully, one or both of the parties eventually say, "Oh, I see, I hadn't realised that," and change their belief to something closer to the truth.

It all falls down when people forget the very important "respectful and rational manner" and when they fail to keep an open mind about whether they might be wrong. This is why you get bickering and shouting instead of respectful debate. This is the lack of tolerance showing through - the failure to tolerate disagreement, the failure to tolerate mature debate. As tolerant Toadfish, it is our duty to ensure that when we are presented with ideas that conflict with our own, then if we wish to debate them, that we do so in that respectful and rational manner, and with open minds.

The world would be a happier place if everyone lived in such a way.

[The Meromorph]

I don't exactly disagree with you. I think that, to you, your choice of words accurately defines an attitude that is very close to my own.
What I have learned, however, is that what I think my words mean are not necessarily what someone else thinks they mean. So I could take what you said, and place an entirely different construction on it and sincerely believe you and I were in substantial disagreement (I don't think that, in fact, but someone could reasonably think that).
There's an old legal saying that "the Law is not what is written, the Law is what is read." When I post something here, and someone reads it. I haven't communicated what I wrote, I've communicated what they read. If we are lucky, the two are pretty close. If we are starting from two different viewpoints (and there isn't a lot to be gained from 'arguing' with someone who thinks exactly like you do), then there may be quite a mismatch between written and read.
I would rephrase the point you quoted (in the light of what I now read about how you read it), as "I am allowed to disagree with you, and I'm allowed to try to persuade you that I'm right, but I'm not allowed to try to persuade you that you're wrong."  I'm hoping that might clarify what I was trying to say.

The essential point, as I see it, is that if I try and persuade you of the rightness of my view, that's an opportunity for you to point out where your understanding of my argument doesn't make sense, and then for me to clarify/rephrase the argument until at least we are both understanding the same words the same way. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but I've found that approaching it from that standpoint is much more likely to lead to mutual respect and understanding, not necessarily agreement, but clarity at least. After all it isn't always true that one of us has to be right and the other wrong, even if we totally disagree. Yes there are some times that one view is right  and the other is wrong, but it may be far less frequent than, it seems to me, you are assuming.

Starting from an assumption that the other person is at least as intelligent and thoughtful as I am, and if what they are saying seems wrong to me, it may well be that I'm understanding their words differently from how they are understanding them, and therefore respectfully restating, or pointing out logical consequences (e.g. "are you saying that..." or "wouldn't that mean that..."), has been successful for me in avoiding 'bickering and shouting'., even on strongly emotional subjects.

I hope you now see that I am after the same objective as you are, mature, rational, and polite debate; I'm advocating specific techniques to achieve it more readily - clarify your own point in response to perceived misunderstanding, and ask for clarification, when your understanding of what someone says is that "that doesn't make sense". The techniques are designed to be non-confrontational.   It was difficult, at first to 're-train myself' to work like this, It took conscious effort for quite a while. By now it's more natural, but I still find it beneficial to preview a post like this one, and to run a 'how could this be misunderstood' check on it, before posting.
This one took three lengthy reviews and substantial changes...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, in every culture on earth the most important value (whether it's followed or not) is not to harm eachother. It is important to our species, but we keep doing it because we are distracted by our emotions or our leaders ask us to do it for political reasons.

I am not so sure about that. When I see the emotional response of 'Us vs Them' I have noticed that they don't consider the 'other' as a person or human or worth living. We have a natural habit to discriminate (in the sense of perceive differences in natural patterns) and it would seem that it is all to easy to use a little difference as an easy way to *demote* others from the "Us, good guys, humans".

Certainly the emotional response has a big part on the whole but it isn't the only hardwired factor that influences those kinds of perceptions.
---
Wow, I'm out for a moment and the thread gets moving.

I believe Mero's points are quite accurate regarding individual discussions, ironically Opas' point (above) touches one important thing that convolutes the problem even more: many times the emotional response that comes from those 'fundamental disagreements' is exploited by third parties wanting to take advantage of the situation. How can you disarm those feelings if important people in high places are calling for 'crusades' or claiming that 'we are being invaded' or that 'they bring diseases', 'want to destroy our country', 'our way of life', etc, etc, etc? How can you show someone that he is being played for (mostly) political gain, without being immediately demonised as 'collaborators' or 'traitors'?

You need a minimum level of open mindness just to try. 

[Sibling Chatty]

Goat brings something up that's very important.

Each person, in their innermost thoughts, believes that THEY ALONE are correct. Even if you don't EXPRESS it, or even noticeably FEEL it, to HOLD an opinion or belief implies that one considers that thought to be the correct one.

And in our own subjective reality, each of us is right.

The question comes: WHEN is it right to try to impose one's own subjective reality on another? Are we balanced enough that when our concept of a 'debate' starts and the other party chooses to NOT enter into that debate that we DO NOT go off on the "You can't even blah, blah, blah..." to prove the correctness of our own subjective opinion?

I don't discuss religion ANYWHERE on the web but here. And, although I am in a minority position here, I feel safe ONLY here because there is respect for my beliefs, even if they are not shared. Were another member to choose to debate me on the validity of my beliefs--that member would be talking to their own ends, because MY beliefs are exactly that, MINE.

Too often, especially on the intarwebbie, people assume that debate is what's needed. Debate immediately implies adversarial positioning. (I was a Speech and Debate minor in college until I realized how much I hated debate and persuasive speaking. I've been a debate judge on the high school and college level for 25+ years. I STILL hate debate.) I abhor adversarial positioning, although if it's started with me, I will fight like a rabid wildebeestie, especially if the topic runs into either cruel or condescending attitudes. (See: Much of the bullshit at Omnia)

I MUCH prefer discussion to debate. I can SHARE ideas with others without having to debate them. I can share ideas with anyone. i can learn things from any source. There is often much good in what the 'opposite number' of your own position has to say. By sharing, not debating, you get a truer picture of what people think. The adversarial positioning is gone.

It's partially semantics, yes, but it's an important semantic distinction.

[Aggie]

*very happy to see some serious discussion*




Why, goatie....  did you become an Autotheist while I wasn't looking?  It's very nearly spiritual Capitalism, you know...   

[Pachyderm]

I would have to agree with Sibling Chatty. Discussion is preferable to debate. The more intelligent the opposite number, the better the discussion.

Although, sometimes I enjoy the adversarial aspect, and the pitting of wits. The fact that I generally only get into debates on topics I know well, and usually with morons, means I win a lot of them.

I was accused of intellectual elitism in the last one. Is using your brain to explain your point and opinion coherently elitist? Apparently. Mind you, she thought leather was compressed plant material....

[beagle]

dont trouble yourselves with such matters. I will sort them out and get back to you

I don't usually. The older I get the more I'm convinced life is just a bad joke in poor taste (c.f. Bob Dylan's view in "All along the Watchtower" and John Gay's epitaph "Life is a jest and all things show it...").

Once a year though I feel obliged to have a bash at a serious post, just to prove I'm still awake.

Why, goatie....  did you become an Autotheist while I wasn't looking?  It's very nearly spiritual Capitalism, you know...   

I think it may be mandatory at Oxford.

[Opsa]

Ah, "elitism". That word frequently gets tossed about like a mysterious weapon. How can you argue against name-calling? You can always tell that the discussion is nearing it's cutoff point when someone mentions elitism.

This is a terrific discussion, and everyone contributing seems to me to be an excellent Toadfish, whether or not we see exactly eye to eye, word for word. We are sharing. Being here is just part of the voyage.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Isn't the word 'elitism' raised if the opponent recognizes that a point was well made but he doesn't understand it?

[Opsa]

Exactly. 

But if I was discussing something with, say, William F. Buckley and he went over my head, I would hope that I would simply ask him to clarify himself rather than accuse him of elitism.

So if you're accused of elitism, maybe one approach could be to say something like: "I'm sorry. Let me see if I can rephrase my point." I don't know if that would help matters, but at least you would have tried to communicate rather than accepting the accusation.

[Griffin NoName]

Nothing to add to excellent discussion except on the matter of truth.

I spent most of my life seeking truth, valuing truth beyond many other things.

In latter years I have had to give up on truth and seeking it has been quite destructive. The older I get the less truth makes any sense.

I'd be happy to discuss that endlessly.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

So if you're accused of elitism, maybe one approach could be to say something like: "I'm sorry. Let me see if I can rephrase my point."

Heh, and then you can get really condescending...

In latter years I have had to give up on truth and seeking it has been quite destructive. The older I get the less truth makes any sense.

The truth is a very dangerous thing particularly if it interferes with vested interests, also the truth can be very hurtful and might not get you where you want to be.

Still I am curious about what truths don't make sense.

[Griffin NoName]

In latter years I have had to give up on truth and seeking it has been quite destructive. The older I get the less truth makes any sense.

The truth is a very dangerous thing particularly if it interferes with vested interests, also the truth can be very hurtful and might not get you where you want to be.

Still I am curious about what truths don't make sense.

Mostlly, there is no such thing as truth. There is only perception and interpretation.

I'd like to go as far as there is no such thing as truth without the mostly. But that begs responses of the simple kind. EG. I am watching Live Earth on TV (with the sound turned off) and I expect I could get a lot of people to agree that indeed there was a transmission of a concert called Live Earth at this time etc. but in truth all I am prepared to conceed is that a lot of people would agree with me, they would probably agree with whatever I see too, like the people performing, etc. But that doesn't validate anything other than that we all agree with what we all think is happening.