Oh no, I've offended muir The Sage, Advisor of the Wise and Seeker of Truth. Whatever shall I do?
Should the purpose of argument ultimately be to reach an agreement?
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
Oh no, I've offended muir The Sage, Advisor of the Wise and Seeker of Truth. Whatever shall I do?
yeah that's what i thought...you're not really interested in seeking the truth...more in power struggles
Why not go and find lark? he and you seem to like to spar
Then stop acting like the thought police and let people read what they want to read
And if you want to be humble then maybe you should focus on the info instead of getting involved in petty personal struggles by trying to discredit other posters instead of looking at the content of their posts and judging that
Hey, you're the one who came to me talking some shit about "If someone has spent a lot of time looking at the facts and makes an informed statement then the wise listen to it and the wise want to listen to it" which is so obviously meant to mean you.
If you were a bit less grandiose and said something like "maybe you should listen to people who know what they're talking about" I might have respected it more, but it's actually you bringing in petty personal struggles because I know this comes out of your persecuted sage idealization.
The way I see it, that's why you engaged me - because you felt threatened when I wasn't even talking to you. And you're continuing to engage me because I hit a nerve that IS PERSONAL.
You're good at dragging people down to your level...i'll give you that...but that's not something i respect
let the facts speak for themselves
if you're that interested then read my posts, look at the information and match it up with events as they occur
if i'm calling it right then i'm calling it right and you'll have to swallow your sour grapes
And as for me...i don't give a fuck what you think of me
Where are the facts in this thread?
That's a big change from "the wise listen and want to listen"
I'm not talking about whether anybody is right or not.
Yes you do.
The wise are able to match information to the events
Then they can discearn the truth amongst all the bullshit...some people though seem to just want to languish in the bullshit...and ultimately that is their value system
That is why matching up information to events will determine the veracity of something
Perhaps the difference between us here is that you are a relativist and will always retreat into relatavism; but i live in the real world where information can give insight into events past, present and future
Some people are interested in the information and in gaining insight into events; this would likely apply most in a thread like 'news and politics' where people are discussing matters to try and gain a greater understanding of whats going on
people don't always agree on whats going on but often as events unfold it becomes clearer which viewpoint was correct
this is not complicated
Sure. Provided the information you have access to is actually true and not tampered with. I don't know about you but I personally can't guarantee that from where I sit.
"My kingdom," replied Jesus, "does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my subjects would have resolutely fought to save me from being delivered up to the Jews. But, as a matter of fact, my kingdom has not this origin." "So then *you* are a king!" rejoined Pilate.
"Yes," said Jesus, "you say truly that I am a king. For this purpose I was born, and for this purpose I have come into the world–to give testimony for the truth. Every one who is a friend of the truth listens to my voice."
"What is truth?" said Pilate. But no sooner had he spoken the words than he went out again to the Jews and told them, "I find no crime in him."
"Yes," said Jesus, "you say truly that I am a king. For this purpose I was born, and for this purpose I have come into the world–to give testimony for the truth. Every one who is a friend of the truth listens to my voice."
"What is truth?" said Pilate. But no sooner had he spoken the words than he went out again to the Jews and told them, "I find no crime in him."
From where i sit things are pretty clear
As i said it comes down to the foundations upon which an understanding is based upon
But some people get distracted by whether or not they like another poster
If you care about seeking the truth then it doesn't matter what you think of another poster; all that matters is what they say
This is why i will even give thumbs up to people who have been rude to me...because i thumbs up posts i agree with regardless of what i think of the poster personally
Some people only thumbs up the people they like...but that is not so much related to seeking the truth and more about them persuing social currency
I'm not interested in social currency...i don't care if you think i'm a dick...what i'm interested in is the information being shared and how it fits into events
So for me an argument is an opportunity for the right information to rise to the surface
But for some people the point of an argument is to attack other people
It boils down to the following saying:
''small minds discuss people, mediocre minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas''
Some people are focussed only on people whilst others are looking at the bigger picture
of course those that are focussed on the people will snidely remark that those that are looking at the bigger picture are full of themselves and those that are looking at the bigger picture will try and not allow themselves to get bogged down in all the personal petty person orientated talk of the small minded people
Is that clear enough now?
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
I'm allowed to feel, think, and pursue many perspectives at once and they're not mutually exclusive. I'm allowed to like or dislike somebody and objectively peruse what they say at the same time, and am in fact able to do so!
I recognize that this shit happens, people aren't robots, egos get in the way - but if somebody is truly interested in truth, they will not object to the tearing down process of the ego until truth is what remains.
There's very few people who won't discuss people. You do it. I do it. We both just got done doing it. However my approach is not to reign in pettiness and aggression, because I find that to be unrealistic, if you suppress it then it merely colors everything in a covert manner. My approach is to kill it and see what comes out of the other end.
Personal feelings harbor truth tainting biases. If I can make sure a speaker is earnest by ripping through that, something will come out the other end if it's worthwhile.
I'm allowed to feel, think, and pursue many perspectives at once and they're not mutually exclusive. I'm allowed to like or dislike somebody and objectively peruse what they say at the same time, and am in fact able to do so!
I recognize that this shit happens, people aren't robots, egos get in the way - but if somebody is truly interested in truth, they will not object to the tearing down process of the ego until truth is what remains.
There's very few people who won't discuss people. You do it. I do it. We both just got done doing it. However my approach is not to reign in pettiness and aggression, because I find that to be unrealistic, if you suppress it then it merely colors everything in a covert manner. My approach is to kill it and see what comes out of the other end.
Personal feelings harbor truth tainting biases. If I can make sure a speaker is earnest by ripping through that, something will come out the other end if it's worthwhile.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
Moreover you mentioned agreement earlier. Agreement is also in the thread title.
Agreement is hogwash - the sole purpose of agreement is to soothe egos. Agreement has nothing to do with truth. Agreement does not make something true and many have agreed about things which aren't true.
Agreement is useful to understand your mutual starting point, but if agreement is the only end of an argument then the argument was pointless.
Moreover you mentioned agreement earlier. Agreement is also in the thread title.
Agreement is hogwash - the sole purpose of agreement is to soothe egos. Agreement has nothing to do with truth. Agreement does not make something true and many have agreed about things which aren't true.
Agreement is useful to understand your mutual starting point, but if agreement is the only end of an argument then the argument was pointless.
Agreed
if i care each time when i speak that i might put someones nose out of joint then i'll never open my mouth
But i have learned some information that i'd like to share and in order to share it i have to accept that some noses are going to be put out of joint because it doesn't matter what you do in life you will piss off someone
So seek the truth and speak it and to hell with what people think because ultimately the world doesn't improve through people burying the truth under shallow niceties...what the world is desperately short of at this time is some hard truth
Did he give a shit what people thought when he flipped over the tables of the money-changers?
No....he did it because he couldn't stand walking by without saying and doing something
Most folks were just going along to get along, but along comes jesus and says ''fuck this...this is all bullshit'' (not in so many words obviously)
Some people respected his insight and some hated him for it and wanted him dead
The story certainly has some ring of truth in that sense
Now that we've got that out of the way... truth sharing has not much to do with arguments or reasons for arguments.