Intelligence: To pander or not to pander?
0
IsawIcameIconquered wrote...
Spoiler:
You obviously did not understand what you read from my post. Re-read it before going on completely misinformed rants. I completely understand what you are attempting to convey, I am telling you why it is incorrect in its assumptions.
ITT a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Now watch this perfect example of option 2 being chosen as I remove myself from the "debate". I am not saying none of what he has posted is valid, (a few points are fine) but that all of it that pertains to where he thinks my position is is entirely misinformed, and thus I cannot reasonably discuss it with him until he gets a factual grounding in what I said.
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
ITT a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Now watch this perfect example of option 2 being chosen as I remove myself from the "debate". I am not saying none of what he has posted is valid, (a few points are fine) but that all of it that pertains to where he thinks my position is is entirely misinformed, and thus I cannot reasonably discuss it with him until he gets a factual grounding in what I said.
Does that count as silent treatment? =D
I was reading a discussion regarding religious views a few weeks ago, and one of the atheists present said something similar to this topic: debating with religious people is like playing chess with a pidgeon. It knocks over your pieces, shits on your board and then flies back to its kin to boast how it won.
But seriously, I think I know what you mean. There are people who aren't willing to admit that someone else is right. I know at least one of these people and I have to admit that I have these tendencies myself. It even isn't about the issue at hand anymore at that point, it's an argument between people, not issues as it should be.
If I know beforehand that there is a debate coming, I remind myself that I can and will change my mind if the arguments the other party offers are convincing enough. If it turns out we have very different views about the matter (ie. I think he or she is just blabbering idiotic things) I ask as politely as possible some details and sources until I can be almost 100% sure that the other party is wrong. Then I tell him or her that I disagree. If they want to know why, I will tell them, but usually it ends there.
I guess that means option 2. I try not to mess with anyone's opinions and values without their consent. All the debates are done only for my own benefit, fufufu.
0
Spoiler:
You can choose to ignore me but I just want to clarify what happened in this discussion that you don't seem to understand.
Not to burst your bubble or anything but you did ask me for more information on my opinion.
GroverCleaveland wrote...
For most of your post yes. I wanted clarification on what you thought wasn't valid.
I responded trying to clarify what i meant when i said it wasn't valid.
You then wrote:
GroverCleaveland wrote...
I was never talking about simple disagreements. This position I am discussing is only for when the person you are discussing something with shows themselves to be completely ignorant on the subject, and refuses to admit fault. I can see why my post would seem very arrogant if you assumed I was talking about anyone who disagreed with me, but that is not the case
I was perplexed that out of everything I said to you, you somehow thought I was talking about "simple disagreements" because I never once mentioned the words "simple disagreements". So I further explained to you what I meant so you could understand it.
You then responded with your current comment stating I was using misinformed rants when in actuality I was responding to your "wanting clarification" with my opinion.
You can disagree with my opinion all you want, and I have nothing bad to say about that because we all have our own opinions about it. But what you're trying to say is that I'm wrong without even letting me finish what I was trying to clarify for you. Kind of rude when you're the one that asked for it.
What you failed to realize is that you're making up assumptions while I'm actually using what you said as facts.
So to clarify again: because you didn't see my comment as an opinion you must have took it as an insult furthering my belief that you didn't read or understand any of my comments at all.
Additional notes: IMO means In My Opinion
0
Kavi wrote...
GroverCleaveland wrote...
ITT a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Now watch this perfect example of option 2 being chosen as I remove myself from the "debate". I am not saying none of what he has posted is valid, (a few points are fine) but that all of it that pertains to where he thinks my position is is entirely misinformed, and thus I cannot reasonably discuss it with him until he gets a factual grounding in what I said.
Does that count as silent treatment? =D
My shoulder is so cold right now it could solidify nitrogen.
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
Kavi wrote...
GroverCleaveland wrote...
ITT a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Now watch this perfect example of option 2 being chosen as I remove myself from the "debate". I am not saying none of what he has posted is valid, (a few points are fine) but that all of it that pertains to where he thinks my position is is entirely misinformed, and thus I cannot reasonably discuss it with him until he gets a factual grounding in what I said.
Does that count as silent treatment? =D
My shoulder is so cold right now it could solidify nitrogen.
You're also negative enough to be imaginary.
0
Choice one is much more of my liking. I'm never often sure if I am entirely correct. So I am willing to listen to the otherside.
0
You have to ask yourself some questions: is the point in contention important? Is the person you disagree with likely to find the premise of your argument feasible?
If you don't make an effort to understand why the person you are trying to convince believes what he believes, you probably won't be able to convince him of anything by boldly and arrogantly proclaiming your own enlightened views and telling that person how much of an idiot he is. If you've managed to demonstrate that your main interest is parading around acting like a pompous dick who is the source of all intelligent thought, not many will stick around to even hear the crux of your argument.
Your argument will only be effective on someone else if that person is likely to respect the validity and authority of your supporting evidence. It's unlikely to convince a biblical fundamentalist who believes the earth is 5000 years old otherwise, regardless of what evidence is presented.
So, taking into consideration these factors, it is worth explaining or debating if you can connect with the person and the debate will at least serve to challenge their established beliefs and make them think.
If you don't make an effort to understand why the person you are trying to convince believes what he believes, you probably won't be able to convince him of anything by boldly and arrogantly proclaiming your own enlightened views and telling that person how much of an idiot he is. If you've managed to demonstrate that your main interest is parading around acting like a pompous dick who is the source of all intelligent thought, not many will stick around to even hear the crux of your argument.
Your argument will only be effective on someone else if that person is likely to respect the validity and authority of your supporting evidence. It's unlikely to convince a biblical fundamentalist who believes the earth is 5000 years old otherwise, regardless of what evidence is presented.
So, taking into consideration these factors, it is worth explaining or debating if you can connect with the person and the debate will at least serve to challenge their established beliefs and make them think.
0
I strongly feel people have the right to believe what they wish, regardless of whether or not I may personally agree with their opinions / views. It is not really all that important to me to make them feel like my opinion on a certain topic is universally correct. I'm much older / wiser now, and less concerned about being "right" all the time than I used to be. To a degree "truth" really is subjective anyway.
0
Hentai Pantsu wrote...
I strongly feel people have the right to believe what they wish, regardless of whether or not I may personally agree with their opinions / views. It is not really all that important to me to make them feel like my opinion on a certain topic is universally correct. I'm much older / wiser now, and less concerned about being "right" all the time than I used to be. To a degree "truth" really is subjective anyway.Does everyone have the right to believe what they want to? Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Yes.
Does that mean that we should not bother to endeavor to educate others so as to improve the general quality of intelligence in the human species?         Â
Of course not.
It's not about being "right" all the time, its about teaching people things so that they can be more intelligent in the future. We should always seek knowledge, and seek to spread knowledge. If you are in an argument with someone and you realize that they honestly have no goddamn idea what they are babbling on about, you should try to reason with them, and show them why they are being an idiot, so that they can avoid it in the future. If they willfully disregard evidence and arguments against their position and are passionately attached to their own ignorance, and loathe to be parted with it, then you realize that you are wasting your time, and should vacate the "discussion"
PS: mfw "Truth is subjective"
Spoiler:
"Truth" is inherently objective. It's kind of the point of the concept. Sure there are "personal truths" that aren't really the same thing, and should probably be called something else, but truth is in and of itself pretty much as non-subjective as possible. What two people think of as true may differ greatly, but in the end, one of them is right, and the other is wrong.
0
To a degree though it is hubris to assume that by imposing my opinion or view on a certain subject to someone, I am effectively "increasing their intelligence". I understand what you are saying with your commentary, and sure in some cases (especially when dealing with people who are truly ignorant and oblivious about a topic) you are right, but there are also a lot of cases where it is simply your opinion versus someone else's (and the validity of either opinion is solely a matter of perspective).
also, nice touch with the image caption, really helps get your point across.
also, nice touch with the image caption, really helps get your point across.
0
I'll argue with them just for the sake of arguing. I'm not always right but I will always stick to what I believe in wrong or not and give the other person an ear full. That is just my nature.
0
I did this recently with a person IRL. There are certain things that I will point out, in a manner of "just throwing this out there, google it if you want to learn more." I believe that while certain amount of responsibility lies in me to enlighten others if I know, it is not my job to spoonfeed them everything. If they wish to learn and evolve themselves to enlightenment, then they will exert the effort to find and learn the information themselves. I will not forcefeed anyone who does not wish to learn. They can just stay ignorant and have their lack of wisdom come back and bite them in the ass later, and have only themselves to blame.
0
I choose the first choice most often, for two very different reasons, the first one being that if I am involved in a debate of some sort or an argument, I argue to win, and second of all, isn't it important for those of us who are relatively more intelligent than others to educate them? I do think that whenever possible we should educate the ignorant people out there who decide to say things without thinking.
That being said, there are those who just refuse to keep an open mind to others' points of view, and those are the ones with whom it is pointless to try and convince that your way of thinking is correct. However, arguments such as those can also be used as way to get your point across to others as well, but only if your argument is occurring around others, in which case you could structure your argument such that those around you are the ones being educated, and not the ignorant person you are arguing with.
Of course then you find those people who will argue with you about anything you say just to argue with you, one of my current roommates is like that, except for the fact that his arguments often involve senseless name-calling and insults directed at his opponent's personality, and that just makes me so mad that I find myself stooping to his level and hating myself later.
In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I think I'm going to walk away from the debate/argument angry at my opponent or myself and not having felt like anything positive resulted, I'll generally try to walk away from said argument (unless I am personally insulted by the other party). If I think something positive can come from the experience, then I'll duke it out and hopefully walk away feeling as though I have helped someone else to learn something new, or that I have learned something new as well, hopefully both.
That being said, there are those who just refuse to keep an open mind to others' points of view, and those are the ones with whom it is pointless to try and convince that your way of thinking is correct. However, arguments such as those can also be used as way to get your point across to others as well, but only if your argument is occurring around others, in which case you could structure your argument such that those around you are the ones being educated, and not the ignorant person you are arguing with.
Of course then you find those people who will argue with you about anything you say just to argue with you, one of my current roommates is like that, except for the fact that his arguments often involve senseless name-calling and insults directed at his opponent's personality, and that just makes me so mad that I find myself stooping to his level and hating myself later.
In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I think I'm going to walk away from the debate/argument angry at my opponent or myself and not having felt like anything positive resulted, I'll generally try to walk away from said argument (unless I am personally insulted by the other party). If I think something positive can come from the experience, then I'll duke it out and hopefully walk away feeling as though I have helped someone else to learn something new, or that I have learned something new as well, hopefully both.