Do you agree to disagree? (page 3)

MrFreeze

I've had myself say "Oh, I guess I was wrong" several times before. It depends on the situation is and what the disagreement is. Usually when cold hard facts are presented, you can't argue against it.

SweetBabyCheezits

Caught up? In what? Your underwear?

No, you crackwh.... uh, Vamp.

I mean I got caught up reading through the debates and Dan's subsequent departure.

Sam Whiskey

My opinion: Time is too valuable to argue an opinion. If someone wants to remain adamant about a position they have taken, right or wrong, that's fine with me. I don't have time to argue.

For example, during the financial meltdown of 2008 Bank of America's stock went from $60.00 to $3.50. People (I know) would argue it's the end of the world and BofA was corrupt, and they deserved a $3.50 share price, and the were going out of business, and they were this, and they were that, etc...

Didn't have time or the desire to argue the points..I just formed my own opinion and kept it to myself. I then proceeded to purchase lots of BofA shares at $4.00. In eight months the price went to $18.00 and I sold.

Lesson: It does no good to disagree if YOU'RE RIGHT.....and they're wrong.

THE GLADIATOR

Although I am sometimes overly sarcastic or critical on the forum in my persona as a gladiator, in real life I am rather more diplomatic. I would not agree to disagree because it is a way of agreeing that we disagree.

My usual response is to say, that's an interesting take on things. Or, I'll have to give your comments some thought. Even, it will take me a while to get my head around that.

My wife simply says, 'whatever' to any challenge or unwelcome comment. Most irritating! Thank you for letting me share.

cyberjesus

"People dont agree to disagree, they just get tired of arguing"

tec

"People dont agree to disagree, they just get tired of arguing"

Funny, that's exactly what I thought agreeing to disagree meant.

Gladiator - Your wife is good :)

Tammy

notverylikely

I then proceeded to purchase lots of BofA shares at $4.00. In eight months the price went to $18.00 and I sold.

You got rooked! It actually dropped to $2.16 at one point, i think.

But still, 450% return isn't bad.

BurnTheShips

Do you agree to disagree?

Only if my rights are not forcibly and unjustly infringed upon.

BTS

VoidEater

There are many points to debate.

Premises, which may be based on supposition or logic rather than a simple "fact"; or may be rejected by the other party for a number of reasons, including interpretation or error. Careful definition of terms helps here.

Argument, which may be based on specific context or circumstance, or influenced by begged questions or subconscious bias. Strict adherence to boolean type logic will help here.

Conclusions, which may not be supported or may take a leap of faith. It can be very hard to get people to see the assumptions they make.

The only pure debates where there can be no disagreement is in the highly controlled language of mathematics - some of those arguments may be terribly complex and misleading, but there alone will you find concusive proof in the end. When you're dealing with the political or religious debates often found here, there is a great divide in value systems which are never willingly examined, let alone released.

For much of debate, there can always be multiple positions because there is very often an element of personal judgment to be made. Some judgments seem to make more sense than others, but are still based on a point of view that is not an objective universal truism.

But then, there is very little structured debate here, as well. And too often opinion is vaunted as fact.

"People dont agree to disagree, they just get tired of arguing"

That may be true in some cases. I don't think you'll find me doing that. But I often refuse to engage further when it's clear the other party is intentionally ignoring what I've presented.

neverendingjourney

All I've said is that when the time comes (whether through death or Christs second coming) WE will see who is right and who is not. If I'm right, too bad

for you. If your right, then wow...how horrible.

I used to end my conversations with recalcitrant householders in field service in a very similar fashion. It's been so long, I've forgotten my pet scripture in Acts where the apostles say some variation of this. At the time, I thought it was a pretty cold-blooded way to end things, but actually it was acknowledgment of defeat.

I could not conclusively prove my position, nor could I disprove the householder's position. So all I was left with was, "We'll see." It was defeat because I was the one claiming to have truth. Truth, by definition, should be provable. By acknowledging that I could not in fact prove the "truth" I was peddling by any conventional methods, my allegations were proven false. What I was bringing them was opinion, not truth. I wasn't telling people that my position was better than other religious positions; I was preaching "truth." If you can't prove "truth" you're preaching, then you have in fact proven yourself a liar.

Do you agree to disagree?

Share this