TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 12:08 pm jason812,

Your mastery of Zen knows no equal...what does your post mean?

Disagree is agreeing, wait, wait, now my head is exploding!

You asked if we can agree to disagree. If I disagree about that, does that mean I agree with you?

Can you disagree to disagree?

I was being a smart donkey.

Voltaire’s ideal of defending contrary opinion to the death is canon, but I believe we all agree he never shot a Glock.

OlBill wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:43 pm I've found if I post in a suit and tie, people are more apt to agree with me.

I see what you did there.

Abraham wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:14 am On quite a variety of topic some folks seem overwrought if another member expresses a difference of opinion.

Must you agree with me?

Of course not...nor I you.

Can we agree to disagree civilly?

Yes, yes we can.

Maybe it's just me noticing of late it seems if I (and others too, of course) think subject "A" and not "Z" one (sometime both) go hammer and tongs with harsh/insulting language. Why, if that's what you think, you're a (fill in youor favorite invective) so and so.

Honestly, if I express an opinion or you for that matter, the world won't come to an end if we disagree.

It's going to one very boring site if all agree about all things.

Vive la Diff'erence!

People should be able to disagree and be civil. I am very disappointed that over the last generation of young adults, they respond to opposing opinions with a violent veto to silence people. These young adults use the phrases "hate" and "nazi" like candy without any real idea what those terms mean. To them, Free Speech applies them only. They have little respect for the people that sacrificed their lives to protect free speech, but demand so much from society.

Rant over.

Please remember the people that are not with us today on Memorial Day.

strogg wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:59 am Abraham, I agree. There are times I post an opinion that may not be accepted by others. Most of the time it gets ignored. Sometimes, someone will counter back with arguments against what I said, or facts I didn't know to counter what I said, which is expected. This is a discussion board, not an argument board. Now, there are times when things escalate to flared arguments and personal attacks. Not always, but some of the time. And I sometimes find that it happens because people mistakenly perceive counter arguments of a discussed topic as personal attacks or a show of aggression, then take action against it. Of course, there are the bad actors out there that really do attack other members personally. It happens in every message board. I surmise that if everyone tries not taking things personally, ignore any personal attacks (perceived or otherwise), and keep a cool head, things will stay civilized. Also don't forget. Someone may write something that sounds very brash and offensive, when in reality, that person has the best of intents. Give people the benefit of the doubt.

Normally, what I do is that if things get heated to the point where tempers may explode, I stop posting. It is not worth my time to mitigate the situation. I just end it, and move on. There will be other times I can get my point across without inciting an aneurysm in others.

The perception of attack over a disagreement seems to be rampant today in our society. Perhaps it is because the losing side of an argument, failing to find any defensible points in their position resorts to an attack. But I don't see that as the case many times. The attacks seem to come almost immediately because there are certain viewpoints that people are just not allowed to publicly hold, no matter how calmly they are presented. Certainly this board displays the instant attack problem less than other places but it does seem to occur. It occurred more with several now past members whose first post on a topic showed their willingness to attack anyone who dared to challenge one of their key positions. I agree that walking away is the best answer to them.

But I find myself torn on social media. I refuse to secede the ground to the bullies. We have one local Facebook group with "Cares" as the last word in its title that is riff with immediate personal attacks on any opposing view point. Only a small number - 50 out of 7,000 members seem willing to do that and they dominated while the rest of us tried to not be targets. Now even the new moderator has taken up the personal attack mantra and regularly shows ugliness to posters who don't agree. Users are blocked or "muted" for periods of time for that disagreement. We are very fortunate here on this forum to have moderation that deals with the aggression and permits discussion that isn't tainted with the personal attacks to continue.

MaduroBU wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 4:58 pm The well-reasoned rebuttal is the teacher of the learned. I don't learn anything from people who agree with me. Even if I am correct, being forced to re-examine and explain my rationale always reminds me of and often distills its value.

Well stated! I enjoy, a reasoned, intelligent discussion, or debate, as long as it stays reasoned and intelligent. When it descends into name calling, or personal attacks, to me it only demonstrates, that the other person, is either no longer confident in their arguments, or was never confident in the first place, and fears having to reexamine their stance. If the discussion remains reasoned, and intelligent, I can still disagree with someone, but fully respect their views, and opinions.
Also your observation, that discussions among those who agree, are not conducive, to expanding one's viewpoints, is spot on. I think that this is exactly what we see today in echo chambers, on both sides, of any issue, where there is no actual discussions between the two sides. JMHO

The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon May 28, 2018 7:49 am

OlBill wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:43 pm I've found if I post in a suit and tie, people are more apt to agree with me.

I see what you did there.

People who consider Freedom/Liberty important implicitly understand the need for freedom of thought and expression as it relates to a social structure that is vibrant and healthy -- a free society. Progressives eschew this for State control and solutions that inevitably destroy a free society, and cannot be counted on to have polite disagreements with others since freedom of thought and expression run counter to State control. The cognitive dissonance required to support un-supportable positions distills the Progressive lack of politeness toward divergent views to near hatred.

I agree with Abraham on this one. In the words of the legendary Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?". We should be adult enough to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.

I find that a lot of disagreements can be traced back to two things. People failing to educate themselves on a topic and instead just going with an emotional reaction, and a difference in underlying assumptions. One example of the latter is abortion. Just about everyone agrees that killing another human being is wrong. We just disagree on when life begins.

One thing I have figured out is that no one wins in an internet argument. What we can do is make a point. Or clarify an issue. Those we will influence aren't the ones that we argue with. It's the folks on the sidelines.

Liberty wrote: Tue May 29, 2018 9:10 am One thing I have figured out is that no one wins in an internet argument. What we can do is make a point. Or clarify an issue. Checkbooks we will influence aren't the ones that we argue with. It's the folks on the sidelines.

"The only way to win a fight is to not be there when it happens". I can't remember where I first heard that, but it's one of my favorite sayings. Applies to physical, and verbal, fights.

Liberty wrote: Tue May 29, 2018 9:10 am One thing I have figured out is that no one wins in an internet argument. What we can do is make a point. Or clarify an issue. Those we will influence aren't the ones that we argue with. It's the folks on the sidelines.

BUT - I refuse to secede ground to the bully Liberals. Many times on social media, they attempt to filibuster conversations. We have a group for our town that has 7,000 members and less 50 bully posters. I know that I'm not winning any arguments but presenting opposing points of view may help others who are more intimidated than I see that they are not alone. Does it work? I think so. I've gotten friend requests from member of that group after some of the heated exchanges. I always conduct myself in a way that contrasts the name calling and bellicose rhetoric of my opponents. I got put into "time out" over one exchange even though I had not violated any rules. One of the others in the discussion, when she found out about it, went back and took up my side of the argument. Sometimes, someone offering a civil defense, complete with backup links, can have an influence. There is no hope of changing the minds of the bullies but that isn't my goal.

OneGun wrote: Mon May 28, 2018 8:47 am

Abraham wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 10:14 am On quite a variety of topic some folks seem overwrought if another member expresses a difference of opinion.

Must you agree with me?

Of course not...nor I you.

Can we agree to disagree civilly?

Yes, yes we can.

Maybe it's just me noticing of late it seems if I (and others too, of course) think subject "A" and not "Z" one (sometime both) go hammer and tongs with harsh/insulting language. Why, if that's what you think, you're a (fill in youor favorite invective) so and so.

Honestly, if I express an opinion or you for that matter, the world won't come to an end if we disagree.

It's going to one very boring site if all agree about all things.

Vive la Diff'erence!

People should be able to disagree and be civil. I am very disappointed that over the last generation of young adults, they respond to opposing opinions with a violent veto to silence people. These young adults use the phrases "hate" and "nazi" like candy without any real idea what those terms mean. To them, Free Speech applies them only. They have little respect for the people that sacrificed their lives to protect free speech, but demand so much from society.

Rant over.

Please remember the people that are not with us today on Memorial Day.

And therein lies the rub. I'm happy to engage in a spirited, even heated, debate over disagreements about virtually anything. Guns, abortion, religion, whatever, as long as the debate remains a debate regarding the merits of the various positions. But the tactics employed these days will go straight to personal character attacks. I refuse to engage in that type of "debate".

The fact that those of us who attempt to have reasonable debate/discussion refuse to engage in nasty personal insult screaming matches is why Alinsky's tactics work so well. If one side yells nazi, islamaphobe, racist, zenophobe, <insert whatever other character attack you want>, the reasonable side tends to disengage from the debate. Now there is only one voice still active in the debate.......the voice of the radicals.

The latest: You are a jr. policeman if you possess an LTC.

No, you're not.

You must either respond like a jr. LEO or make a good witness.

hmmmm, dilemma?

Depends - really upsets the jr. policeman crowd, being a good witness sets off the other.

My: perspective.....if helping the obvious innocent, I'm willing, if the situation is ambivalent, I'll make a good witness..

Charging in is dumb...

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 12:31 pm

ScottDLS wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 12:11 pm Can't we all just get along.....?

Absolutely! ......as long as you’re willing to admit that I’m right and you’re wrong!

What if I think you're right?

Will I still be wrong?