The more we argue?

Think this is true?

Yes
7 votes
Somewhat
12 votes
No
4 votes

Only members can vote.

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 32 total items

Cancel

I don't know, but I think that the more we argue the more we end up hating the opposing. It may be just me but it just seems to be like that.

Personally, I think that since like how we humans are stubborn and don't want to give in to the opposing side, we end up hating. It may be just because I'm weird or something, but we develop a hate towards on or another and this can develop some stereotypes.

Now, I'm asking for your guys opinions on this. I don't know if I should be using the word hate like as is but I don't know any other word that would really suit it that well. By the way, I have no idea if this is the right forum to put it in XD.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Nov 19, 2006
Cancel

Look no further. Take a peep at the Science and Religion thread and you have found your answer. Ego plays a part too.

We're not bound to professionalism unlike those which arguments are part of their job like academicians, scientists, etc, generally speaking.

  • Nov 19, 2006
Cancel

yes, kiopi has got the point, ego plays a part, we people most of the time think or has this mentality that we are fully right, where in fact, (what i think) we are only partially correct.
different people come from different backgrounds, making it difficult for one to see things through a person, from a different background, point of view.
and due to our different background, the way we are brought up, what may seem just to one may not seem just to another
the professionals do not just simply argue, they reason, and reason critically, such that not only that their stand point is clear, they also understand the opposing viewpoint. and reasoning critically is something something simple but yet difficult.

Cancel

I guess, it depends on the kind or arguing that takes place. I mean, kiopi is right. If you go and look into the science and religion forum, well, a whole lot of people just argue their believe based on their... religion, whose existence was being questioned in the first place, and they refuse to see anything logically. I mean, how hard it is to see anything from their point of view, if we have to knock off 50 points of our IQ to do so? Therefore, I guess, it is rather hard to not hate them.

Some people argue with some logic and reason behind it. Those people, as xiaodick (chuckle, why the self deprecating name?) term it "reason", I think, I have grown to respect. I guess, the fact that they actually put some thoughts behind their argument, and not just blindly charge, makes me think and try to look at things through their glasses. Sometime, you end up agreeing with them, but if you don't, you can rebut and still point out what you think is not quite there. And in the end, you will mutually respect each other.

If you're worried about the people in religion and science, lol, why waste your time?

  • Nov 19, 2006

URanimEnigma

URanimEnigma

No substitute for experience.

Cancel

I might say that if we are to understand each other we must first broaden our perspectives. It seems as though fear is a factor in denying the replies of others. Yet, while there is communication, patients and the drive to know the facts and more would prove to be a virtue. Meaning, instead of simply doubting without having any factual proof of something, even taking the time to learn the differences, some would benifit from that communication. To be more accurate, an understanding would produce results. But, know that misunderstandings, if neglected, cause problems and do not produce conclusions. Thus, the intervention of the law. The intervention of the law would then commence the process of reaching a conclusion and seeing fit as to what would be the best result in respects to the principles of well-being and justification.

But while some mean to interperate differently, others become confused. Then it is the responsibility, of the confused one to patiently assess the problem with patients and question the "interperater" with the intention to reach an understanding. And it is the responsiblity of the "interperater" to explaine with intention to reach that understanding. I say "responsibility" because, the interaction has now become an affect on them both. Neglect is just that. A neglection of responsibilty can lead to an undoing of what is productive, constuctive, and progressive in a respectful manner. So, to reach a productive result, the solution to a problem must be concluded accurately, or by mathematical terms, absolutely. This is my perspective of reaching an understanding. But, what is also important is diversity, for there are so many different things to interact with. Which means, you are always changing for there is not a second that goes by that you are not interacting with something or someone or somewhere.

A writer, like an artist, can create.
An Artist, like a writer, can compose

hofodomo01

hofodomo01

lol wut

Cancel

I like to see it as: the more we argue, the more we test ourselves. I like the tension...it provokes the other side, which really lets you see what you're capable of arguing.

Whether you wanna use superior logic, or you just have a way with words...you'll find out something new by arguing, no?

Signature Image
Grand Thoft Auto

Cancel

Not if it starts getting up close and personal.

  • Nov 20, 2006
Cancel

aruging usually does make a person feel that they are even more correct than before. When something is just running around in your brain, your only talking to yourself. But once someone else gives their view point, your stuborness reacts along with the outside influences to make you even more determined that you are right. I think that because there are almost always good facts to back up both sides of an argument (ex for and against there being a god) that it really comes down to the way you think, not what arguments the opposing side makes. And then once a person makes a stand about one side or another, they then procceeed to complete ignore what the other person said. Sorry if none of that made sense. Its a more abstract thing and its hard to describe the reasons behind it, but I definetely think that arguing usually just makes people more convinced that they are right a lot of the times.

  • Nov 20, 2006
Cancel

Depends, I'd say most of the time yes but it depends on the topic.

  • Nov 20, 2006

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

Speaking for myself and myself only I find it a waste of time to get mad at someone because they disagree with me. Personal attacks irritate me but more because the individual hasn't added anything worthwhile to the discussion than for any other reason. I see an argument as the statement and defense of two mostly opposing views and in the case of personal beliefs this can become emotionally charged. I see no reason to get upset with this since I've stated what I believe and why and if you can;t accept that then its your problem and not mine. I do not expect anyone to agree with me (although its nice when people do) and on most major issues it does not matter what the other side believes since it is unlikely to change my own beliefs unless there is overwhelming proof that the other belief is correct or "more correct" than my own.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Nov 20, 2006
Cancel

well, no one's perfect. Some arguements can end up with better understanding; it depends on the person actually. Others well..can't they just accept there's a different perspective for many? ^_^'

Signature
	Image
My Newest Submission:Curse Of The Prosperity God

Cancel

Glad to see that I'm not alone. XD Well yeah, as many stated it's pretty much the person that makes it.
Well... personally, I do accept different perspective, doesn't mean it matters a lot to me XD

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Nov 20, 2006

URanimEnigma

URanimEnigma

No substitute for experience.

Cancel

Ah. So many perspectives. Yes. Like the last episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion describe. I think that does a great job at explaining how to use perspectives. Heh. That's great. This makes me smile.

A writer, like an artist, can create.
An Artist, like a writer, can compose

himura088

himura088

~Smile

Cancel

It depends.. Sometimes the more you argue, the more you understand how the other person is like.. And maybe, slowly, you try to accept the other party. haha

  • Nov 20, 2006

asinine

asinine

++_Sleeveless Vampire_ ++

Cancel

Quote by kiopiLook no further. Take a peep at the Science and Religion thread and you have found your answer. Ego plays a part too.

We're not bound to professionalism unlike those which arguments are part of their job like academicians, scientists, etc, generally speaking.

Actually i think Ego plays a very big part... the reason we argue is to prove you are right or that person is very wrong(of course if you are arguing a serious matter)... And you dont want to be on the losing end when you argue... the more determine or larger your ego is the longer you going to argue with... And such negative attitude will never result in goodness... it just makes you want to kill the person.. and of course you hate the person more.... unless you make the other person realise what went wrong or where their mistake lies... you may be nemesis for life..

At the end of the day, i would always turn around and say.... "Egao Saku... "
Signature
	Image
Co-Administrator of MTSingapore
<3 Me Luv U Sooo Muchi Hino-Chan!

Cancel

Nobody wants to compromise. There must be give and take in arguments for no one is 100% correct all the time. But everyone wants to take but don't want to give.

  • Nov 21, 2006
Cancel

Arguing can be seen as a means of stating one's point as well as potentially destroying another seemingly incorrect point. Arguing is often, as you stated, destructive and makes barriers and tears down morals to achieve a single goal of wrong or right, but just as arguing has two points, it is in itself two separate actions. On one hand, destruction and as you so elequently put it, hate. But the other is fortification, the strenghthening of the other point, as the more the topic is argued, the stronger each point becomes until both are undeniable, and contrary to kiopi's point (although it is a large part of the subject, and still does play a large part in arguments) it becomes fact. Yes, two, simultaneous, co-existing facts that are no longer points, because the controversey has been destroyed in the flaws of the earlier argument. So arguing can be it's own cure, but most issues don't get that far, and as has been stated hate develops and both parties focus less on the issue and more on the ignorance of the other person(s), and in the end both are ignorant.

  • Nov 21, 2006
Cancel

When no one wants to acknowledge the flaw and tries to back it up even more with their own reasoning, frustration develops and ppl lose their cool.

  • Nov 21, 2006
Cancel

Well, not exactly "hate", but some cases in the Religion and Science Forum come very close. I gueess that's why almost none of the moderators want to step in that sticky swamp some of us love so much.

Respect to the other's people's thougths, beliefs, and personal phylosophies is essential.

And by beliefs, I don't mean only religious. Being eskeptikal, agnostic or atheist is a Phylosophy, a way of seeing life. So, respect has to be both ways.

merged: 11-28-2006 ~ 03:40am
Oh, here's an example, not far away, from good pal babyLemon:

Quote by babyLemonIf you go and look into the science and religion forum, well, a whole lot of people just argue their believe based on their... religion, whose existence was being questioned in the first place, and they refuse to see anything logically. I mean, how hard it is to see anything from their point of view, if we have to knock off 50 points of our IQ to do so? Therefore, I guess, it is rather hard to not hate them.

Here you can see a radical possition: automatic descalification for being a believer. As some religious guys also wouldn't even answer to you because they're stuck in their positions. Radicalism also, but in the oppossite extreme.

Well, you get insulted in your beliefs. What most peolpe would answer? Another insult. But the chain breaks if ONE IS CAPABLE ENOUGH OF ANSWERING WITHOUT ANOTHER INSULT. It's difficult. But not impossible.

What would I answer?

Hi, BabyLemon.

Granted, there are people who are extremist in their beliefs and wouldn't accept evolution, Big-Bang, etc.

But you know, most people aren't like that.

And, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE FAITH, THAN "BELIEVING" ONLY IN HARD FACTS.

The most faithfull people I know, are those that anyone would despise: the poor, the ignorant, the simple. I have come to known them well in my apostolate.

I envy these people, because in their faith, they have hope, and in their lack of material things, they have happiness. They have no scientific knowledge, but they have wiseness. Not all Human knowledge comes from hard, material evidence.

  • Nov 27, 2006

Lionhearted911

Lionhearted911

~:. LioNe$s .:~

Cancel

Quote by MnemethSpeaking for myself and myself only I find it a waste of time to get mad at someone because they disagree with me. Personal attacks irritate me but more because the individual hasn't added anything worthwhile to the discussion than for any other reason. I see an argument as the statement and defense of two mostly opposing views and in the case of personal beliefs this can become emotionally charged. I see no reason to get upset with this since I've stated what I believe and why and if you can;t accept that then its your problem and not mine. I do not expect anyone to agree with me (although its nice when people do) and on most major issues it does not matter what the other side believes since it is unlikely to change my own beliefs unless there is overwhelming proof that the other belief is correct or "more correct" than my own.

hail wise one?
yup i agree with Mnemeth

Signature Image
FaMiLy MeAn$ NoBoDy GeTs LefT BeHinD 0r ... FoRgoTTen ... ^^

  • Nov 28, 2006

joemighty16

joemighty16

Hope is an optimist

Cancel

In principle I believe it is good to argue - you can't be just opinionated, you have to able to defend your convictions, otherwise (to my mind) they are worthless.

But granted, sometimes people just can't be convinced. You can explain and argue all you want but they just won't listen to reason....Or is it you that won't be convinced?

Thats the one drawback of a written argument - you don't have to read it - you can skim down to the Reply box, state your opinion and leave again. At best you don't read all 50 or more posts thoroughly....you skim over the posts to get the genereal gist of the argument, post your opinion and leave again. It is the minority of cases when people will actually argue "face to face" (while online and typing) on each other's arguments.

But even then arguing strengthens your convictions, each practice gives you more ammunition for the next. I believe we don't have to convince anyone on anything - we must just argue coherently and plausibly. Yes, religion sometimes playes a major role in a person's convictions and then it is usually impossible to get around them (I must admit though that I don't hold religious reasons [because God said so or did that] in extremely high esteem. Religions differ and don't hold any ground with each other. Therefore I will be convinced by someone who can use facts (on imperical topics), and logic argumentation (on humanatarian and philisophical topics).

But I don't contribute to a forum with the goal to convince someone to think like I do. The forum is public, and I ONLY give MY opinion. IF, however, someone questions my opinion and proceeds to poke holes in it, then I will defend it accordingly. But I will adapt my opinion if convinced.

But yes, ego. It doesn't allow you to even try to see the other person's view. Admittedly its basically impossible for me to see someone from a different culture, religion and ideology's viewpoint, so I can only look at his written argument and poke holes in THAT.

But I don't hate anyone for having an different opinion. I just get irritated if they can't argue (or give poor or no arguments) but are still adamant that they are correct. They may be, but if they can't convince me with a written argument, then I can't be convinced.

Quote by mireya2And, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE FAITH, THAN "BELIEVING" ONLY IN HARD FACTS.

For me the one led to the other...because I wasn't satisfied with merely believeing (I wanted to know as fact), I dug in deeper into the histories of my religion, trying to earth the cold hard facts. I wanted to accept Jesus as much a historical person than say any Roman emperor. In the one you have to BELIEVE (blind faith), and the other just is. Or was. I wanted my religion to be a historical topic, not only religious. But not through blind faith....I wanted to make my understanding of religion a historical reality as much as anything else non-religious and historical.

What I found, however, was / is still a bit difficult to accept if you want to stay religious (for me at least). I know a bit of general religions and such, but also of historiography, and the one, unfortunatley, are based on more facts than the other.

So I believe it is easier to keep yourself ignorant and just have blind faith than to make facts and belief work together.

Life is a game played by gods who are bored and who fight over the rules.

Signature
	Image

Cancel

Yes, I believe the more you argue an issue with someone the more you two begin to dislike each other. That is why I will never participate in an arguement with people I have to deal with daily. I may say something, and then they'd say an opposing view, and I will immediately shut up, smile, and do something else.

  • Dec 11, 2006

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

Quote by Lionhearted911hail wise one?
yup i agree with Mnemeth


Wise huh? Wisecracking is more like it. I tend to see that sort of position as more of a not so common "common sense" approach to the subject.

Quote by joemighty16In principle I believe it is good to argue - you can't be just opinionated, you have to able to defend your convictions, otherwise (to my mind) they are worthless.

Actually this point can be advanced much further in that sometimes arguing can created a better "idea" than the two ideas under discussion. Take engineering for example. You have two possible products in the same field for similar or identical purposes and the creators of each argue that their implementation is the best and while arguing realize that both products are good and combine them taking the best features (this usually involves arguing as well) from each and incorporating it into a whole new "better" product.

Quote by MystFyreYes, I believe the more you argue an issue with someone the more you two begin to dislike each other. That is why I will never participate in an arguement with people I have to deal with daily. I may say something, and then they'd say an opposing view, and I will immediately shut up, smile, and do something else.

I disagree in that I argue with my friends and co-workers regularly and see almost no effect other than the transient anger/joy at losing/winning the argument. Being totally non-confrontational may be a way of avoiding bad feelings but my opinion is that it basically shows you as weak and unwilling to defend your ideas in the long run. Not a good position to be in. But that does not mean that you harp/whine/boast about arguments that have occurred because that can be really annoying. The other thing is that you do not have to like who you work with (but it does help) you just have to be able to work professionally and courteously with them. And being professional means that you stand up for yourself when you think you are right and you continue with that stance until 1. you are overruled by a higher authority (this will happen especially when those people that have more experience) or 2. you win the argument. I know this because I have exercised my abilities in these areas and both won, partially won/lost, and lost my arguments.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Dec 11, 2006

flyindreams

flyindreams

[Ninja] Lurker

Cancel

Interesting thread lol xD

I'm not much of a forum goer, I usually only skim a couple of threads of the frontpage that looks interesting... but I think, people tend to go in opposites when they argue on a forum like this. You sort of start or get more extreme as you argue... in my case a lot of times out of stubbornness. But then once the other person goes WOAH I usually take a step back and then we hit middle ground. It's a lot of fun to get to that stage. It's funny though, looking back at your first post... usually I don't do heavy arguing unless it's with a friend, because I know and the friend knows just how far to go before going to the middle ground. And it's fun to be like OMGWTFBBQ sometimes with friends who understands that it may not be all serious or personal. :D

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 32 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.