I'm right and you're wrong.

[GirlinContempt]

I have pretty strong beliefs in different areas, I'm opinionated, and I obviously believe that I'm right or I wouldn't bother with the ideas.

However, I also think there is a difference between believing yourself to be right and talking about your opinions, and outright telling someone else they are wrong. Disagreeing with someone about opinions isn't saying "you're wrong" it's saying "I don't believe that to be true, this is what I believe to be true".

It can sound like a lot of pussyfooting around, but I think there is a valid distinction. On a lot of things, I have a hard time believing that either I am totally unconditionally right, or that someone else is totally unconditionally correct. I'm not talking about, say, how many kilometers from point a to point b, but things like where government funds should go.

Now, that doesn't mean that I am so unsure of my stance that I will refuse to put it forth, defend it, or debate it. It just means that I recognize the distinction between opinion and fact, and during discussion or debate will keep that in mind, no matter how strongly I disagree.

I've always had problems with this. If I believed in God with all my heart and soul, and believed that he was sending gay people straight to hell, would I be able to say that I would deny those gay people human rights? No, at least I don't think so, and I hope not. That would be like saying "I know I'm right, I know you're wrong, it's indisputable" which it isn't.

So, what do you guys think? Is saying "I disagree with you, but I hear where you are coming from" tantamount to saying "I am right, you are wrong, go to hell"?

This isn't the first time I've thought about this or been confronted with it, but it came up recently and I'm interested to hear the opinions of others.

[Shell Beau]

1. Not necessarily.

I think it may mean...I can totally understand why you feel that way but I don't. I say that at times and I genuinely mean it. I think it gets the point across that you don't think that person is loony. You see why they think what they, but you don't agree with what they think. Just my two cents.

Edit to add, that it probably does mean that if you are talking to a fundie or extremist. Open minded people who are willing to listen and see your view mean what I said above. At least I do.

[GirlinContempt]

3. Yeah

Thats what I think too

[Shell Beau]

4. I edited to add a little more. Not sure if you saw or not!

:)

[GirlinContempt]

5. Oh, I was replying to the first part

didn't see the edit :)

[Shell Beau]

7. I figured b/c as soon as I edited, I saw your response!

:)

[ghostsofgiants]

2. Exactly...

And this is why the apparent lack of decorum in American politics, even among the left itself, is pretty disturbing. In political discussion, there needs to be a level of respect and maturity or it just doesn't work. That means acknowledging that there is a difference between disagreeing with a person and saying to them "no, you are wrong". People seem to forget this.

If you just dismiss any ideology that you hold as not valid, it's impossible for you to grow and mature as a political being. Spewing bile at anyone who doesn't share your exact political ideology just serves to make you regress as a political being.

At least in my opinion.

[GirlinContempt]

6. Hear hear

:)

[enigmatic]

13. Perfect

Thank you; you've got it.

[Tafiti]

8. My take:

I think there's definitely a distinction, and I think it's an important one. I think we've all been in that place at some point in our lives when we're in an argument, and there is no give and take, only "I'm right, you're wrong." If someone brings up an undisputable fact that contradicts your own argument, what do you do? You get defensive. You stick to your guns no matter what, because hostility has been built up, and you're not about to let the other person "win".

On the other hand, if there's understanding and at least partial validation of the person's points, and vice versa, it's much easier for them to let down their guard if you lay your ace on the table, so-to-speak. There's a better chance for concession, when you feel the other person has been listening and actually values your opinion. Less of a reason to save-face. Nobody likes to admit that they're wrong, but it's easier when it's been pointed out gently.

[ghostsofgiants]

9. Bingo

It becomes more about winning the argument than coming to the truth and advancing the ideas.

Also, you're just one away from 1,000 posts!

[Tafiti]

10. Ah, yes.

"It becomes more about winning the argument than coming to the truth and advancing the ideas."

That would've been a perfect concluding sentence.

Here it is, my 1,000th! Only took 378 days! :woohoo:

[ghostsofgiants]

11. Congrats!

[Canadian Socialist]

12. I think there is a disconnect here

between what you (editorial you) and what X have to say. That is, I may "believe" something, but if I don't have the facts to prove that belief, I am liable to be shown to be incorrect.
"I've always had problems with this. If I believed in God with all my heart and soul, and believed that he was sending gay people straight to hell, would I be able to say that I would deny those gay people human rights? No, at least I don't think so, and I hope not. That would be like saying "I know I'm right, I know you're wrong, it's indisputable" which it isn't.

So, what do you guys think? Is saying "I disagree with you, but I hear where you are coming from" tantamount to saying "I am right, you are wrong, go to hell"?"
I'm trying to be logical here. I may believe in god and that he was sending gay people straight to hell. BUT, I have no way of proving it. I can be wrong about facts, but I can never be wrong about belief. Okay, this is a mess (what I've written). I think that facts are indisputable; belief is disputable. Ergo, if I am wrong on facts, I am wrong: if I am wrong on belief (faith) there is no way of telling. It is belief. Still a mess. Makes sense in my head. <heeee>

[GirlinContempt]

15. I think part of it is

on a lot of issues, people seem to think that they are factually correct that, say, democracy is the best system ever because it has produced the best country the world has ever seen. However, they don't seem to realize that 'best country ever' is an opinion, not a fact. Sure there are lots of great facts about the country, but that doesn't make it in fact the best.

It's not just faith, but opinion. Sure, its a fact that there are x number of poor people in the world. But saying all poor people are lazy? Not a fact. Saying x number of poor people were, say, given reasonable jobs and homes and childcare and whatever, and then quit those jobs and sat around eating doritos is a fact, if theres something to back that number up. And that STILL doesn't make 'all poor people are lazy' fact.
Am I making sense?

[Canadian Socialist]

16. Yes!

You got it. I learned basic logic back in the day. i.e. if A = B, and B = C then A = C. Cartesian logic, which also can be used in Boolian logic (for digital theory). However, I also learned that the majority of "opinion" does not make something fact. e.g. My philosophy/logic professor said, "If 10 billion flies eat shit, does that make it alright to eat shit?" Makes sense, in an odd way.

[GirlinContempt]

17. Just seems like common sense to me

:)

[Gormy Cuss]

14. There are those who can not tolerate a different world view

Sometimes it's restricted to a few hot button issues, sometimes it's a generally inability to admit there may be another valid opinion. I try to say I disagree when it's a philosophical difference and call someone wrong only when someone is ignoring data held by most as fact. The moon isn't made out of green cheese, for example.

As long as you're clear about the difference between opinions and facts, be as opinionated as you want to be. I am!

[GirlinContempt]

20. yeah

I getcha

[xmas74]

18. They are not the same thing.

Saying that you disagree w/ someone but can hear (or understand) where they are coming from shows that you can be a broadminded person and that you are willing to listen to the other side. Saying that you are right and someone else is wrong is the same as telling someone to f*ck off, they are too stupid to have the right to an opinion.

[GirlinContempt]

19. Yeah, but some people I guess

seem to think that by saying "I disagree, but I get you" or whatever is just a 'nice' way of saying fuck off... And I don't get why

[xmas74]

24. I don't get it either.

I know a few people like that. They seem to have a lack of listening skills and only hear what they want in the first place.

[GirlinContempt]

29. Yeah I was talking to Jon about that

people seem to have no problem reading MORE than is presented to them, or hearing more words than are said, if it suits their purpose.

[miss_kitty]

21. I just tell them outright:

"You Are Wrong, motherfucker. So shutup. Lalalalalalala! I can't hear you. I'm right...You can think that shit if you want to-it just makes you look like a total moran!"

It works well. For me, anyway. :P

[GirlinContempt]

22. I'll get right on that

:P

[Splatter Phoenix]

23. Oh, go to hell already.

Just kidding!

This is actually an amazingly good point, well done. I have yet to learn the distinction between opinion and fact, but am progressing enough to know I DON'T know it yet...

Progress is tooth and nail, slow...very slow.

[GirlinContempt]

25. LOL

;)

[Robeson]

26. This is a current article in the current issue of Ode which fits....

...into what you are saying. Its written by Eve Ensler. I think you'll enjoy it.

Excerpt:

"Something happened when I began to travel. I got lost. I became uprooted in time and space. I became a permanently displaced person. At first it was terrifying, not knowing who I was or where I was. Then I realized that we are all essentially displaced people, all of us are refugees, we came from somewhere—and we are hopefully travelling all the time (even if we never leave our rooms), moving toward a new place. Freedom means I may not be identified as part of any one group, but that I can visit and find myself in every group. Freedom does not mean I don’t have values or beliefs. But it does mean I am not hardened around them. I do not use them as weapons.
Freedom means not being owned, not occupied, not bought.
Freedom means finding the place in me that connects with every person I meet rather than thinking of myself as different, better or on top."
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4165

[GirlinContempt]

31. Thanks for that

:)

[RandomKoolzip]

27. Yes, and unfortunately it happens in non-political discussions, too.

Me and SouthoftheBorderPaul used to get into nigh-physical confrontaions about the absolute stupidest shit. He was unable to distinguish between me saying "Band X sucks" and me saying "Band X sucks, and therefore YOU suck and you have no worth because you like Band X."

It's taken him a while to realize that opinions are just opinions, and subjectivity is the building block unit of measurement of the universe.

Okay, cough syrup just kicked in.

Godd night...not making sense...

[GirlinContempt]

28. Thanks zippy

and goodnight, you're making sense.

[dajoki]

30. like Spock, you seem very logical...

people can disagree without the "i'm right, you're wrong" attitude. of course you must have reasonable people.

[GirlinContempt]

33. Yeah

the reasonable-ness seems to be at an all time low ;)

[WCGreen]

32. A good point to be seen by all....

I recommended

[GirlinContempt]

34. Wow, thanks

:)

[WCGreen]

37. A reasonable voice must be heard...

[GirlinContempt]

38. I can't make head nor tail of some

of my replies in GD

[WCGreen]

39. Too much chemical rage can cloud the brain.....

[Zero Division]

35. People often take disagreements as personal insults.

I think that's one of the major reasons why people act like their opinions are indisputable facts. It seems that the more a person feels an opinion of theirs is an inherent part of who they really are, the more they refuse to honestly consider the opinions of others. I know I'm often guilty of this myself.

I see that RKZ mentions this aspect in a post above mine. Certain topic matters are worse than others in this regard. It seems that the more a topic is associated with personal identification (politics, religion, etc.), the more the attitude you're describing affects a discussion.

[GirlinContempt]

36. Well, I think more people need to read Robert's Rules of Order

or learn about formalized debate

[Zero Division]

40. More people need to learn and think about debating...

that's for sure. Too much emphasis on what to debate and not enough on how to debate. Of course, then we'd be debating about debating--ooh..very meta.