People hate to be wrong.

[EdEarl]

Some people dig in and refuse to change their opinion, at least in public, whenever evidence indicates they have made a mistake. Grinding can be counterproductive.

[John Cuthber]

You are obviously wrong and nothing you can possibly say will ever change my mind about this.

[pwagen]

You are obviously wrong and nothing you can possibly say will ever change my mind about this.

I'd hate to have that said to me.

[knownothing]

If you are trying to convince someone of something contrary to what they have built their life on, then admitting wrongness will cause severe mental distress. Take a Christian, for instance. One may pretend to look hard at the evidence against him or her, and then laugh at it and say that it has been refuted. But in reality, the Christian never seriously entertained the idea that there might not be a God or an afterlife. It is easy for one of you to say that life is good without God, but to a Christian this is preposterous and your skepticism comes tied to dread and misery.

 

I say don't bother with such things. It is hard enough to get people to understand that bigfoot does not exist, and that is of no consequence to them.

[Delta1212]

This is true of basically everyone on some level. People do not like to lose, and many times an argument stops being about what is actually true and starts being about beating the person you're arguing with. Some people fall into that pattern more easily than others, but most people will fall into it under certain conditions.

[ajb]

People do not like to lose, and many times an argument stops being about what is actually true and starts being about beating the person you're arguing with.

I hate it when that happens. The real issue, and maybe it was me who made the honest mistake, gets lost. It ends up being an argument not about the issue, but about the way in which the other person tried to deal with it.

[EdEarl]

I love this forum, but I may end up biting my tongue off to keep myself from saying things that shouldn't be said.

[iNow]

^ For what benefit?

[EdEarl]

^ For what benefit?

LOL to keep from insulting people.

 

I do believe in being kind and to not harm anyone, as Buddhist do. Although, I have no qualm about killing flies, mosquitoes, spiders, etc. that carry disease or venom. Nor would I expect anyone to starve themselves to avoid killing for food.

Edited May 24, 2013 by EdEarl

[pwagen]

LOL to keep from insulting people.

Just remember; if someone is mad at you, nothing ticks them off worse than being super polite to them.

[Delta1212]

Just remember; if someone is mad at you, nothing ticks them off worse than being super polite to them.

There was a point when this was my entire online posting philosophy. The angrier I'd get, the nicer I made my posts.

[EdEarl]

Just remember; if someone is mad at you, nothing ticks them off worse than being super polite to them.

That scenario presents a dilemma. I believe making someone angry is harmful, and should be avoided. Unfortunately, I am an engineering type, similar to autistic, and miss interpersonal clues. Is it better to say nothing and make them madder or continue being polite and make them madder.

 

^ For what benefit?

My Freudian ego enjoys winning debates, I must admit. Although, I believe such victories are hallow when someone else is embarrassed or otherwise emotionally harmed. Were I a Flagellant, my back would be covered with scars.

[Phi for All]

My Freudian ego enjoys winning debates, I must admit. Although, I believe such victories are hallow when someone else is embarrassed or otherwise emotionally harmed. Were I a Flagellant, my back would be covered with scars.

 

If everyone worked a bit harder on making sure their words emphasize only an attack on an idea and not the person who has the idea, and if everyone worked equally hard at separating their ideas from themselves, discussions would be much more efficient. We spend a lot of time dealing with insults, both implied and inferred. Attack the idea, not the person.

 

If people are neither good nor bad, but prone to good or bad actions, then people are neither wrong nor right. It's the ideas that can be wrong or right, and that's what we should be discussing, always.

[EdEarl]

I totally agree, Phi, one should not attack a person. Unfortunately, people interpret idea attacks as personal quite often.