First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Why, Instead Of Attempting To Argue Your Beliefs, Do You Remain Content in Ignoring Posts On The Assumption That You're
8502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 5/26/16 , edited 5/26/16
In response to another thread, I decided to word this one more wisely. Why is it that I see people ignoring posts like certain forumers with their sources. Why is it, that these people, who rally against SJWs to the Conservative Right, in the name of logic, fail to act logically by not engaging in debate to learn, nor engage in debate with people who are great at it, instead debating points easily refuted but avoiding other arguments entirely? Why do you continuously ignore these posts, with various sources from peer review journals and whatnot?

What do I mean? Take various transgender threads, from the bathroom bill to the prison thread. Take talks of evolution being a myth propagated by leftist scientists. Anyone who can argue a damn somehow isn't the center of attention, and is conveniently not targeted by said people.

How many times do they have to reiterate her point before someone replies? It feels as if you are purposely avoiding these studies, these posts because you are afraid of being mistaken or wrong. As if you cling to these outdated beliefs that been numerously debunked in said threads, to make more posts saying why you think said thing is wrong or immoral.

Take this for example. Forumer A makes a thread about a wrong he feels is well....wrong. Transgenders in prison. Forumer B refutes said claim very well. Forumer A doesn't reply nor change his mind after seeing said evidence.

Forumer A continues to make threads voicing his views despite Forumer B posting in their thread.

It goes on.

TL;DR: The problem is merely this. People are refusing change in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence, that they don't go out of their way to view, nor read them when presented with them. They are, however, fine with debating certain other people....who have the strange relation of appearing to be novices. The problem I feel is that they are refusing to challenge their view.


Now I'm not saying you should apologize for being wrong, I just ask you acknowledge that you are wrong and to change your views accordingly. This is essentially my version on the Ethics of Belief. Essentially, wouldn't the world be better when we do acknowledged we're wrong?


502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
It's not a debate if there is no dialogue. The moment they stop addressing your points or claim facts are not real is the moment they forfeit their position. Anything after that is self gratification.
5619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Korriban
Online
Posted 5/26/16
While it would be nice if everyone could learn from their mistakes, it will never happen, (I mean, Hitler did the same thing with Russia that Napoleon did). There are many humans too stubborn to realize they are wrong, and if they do, to admit they are.
665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
why does your butt hurt? why are others afraids me? WHY
Posted 5/26/16 , edited 5/26/16
As I've said before, I'm an independent. I disdain those labels such as conservative and liberal. Often I find it that many people (not all) these days who wear those labels are or tend to be hypocrites at one point or another. Everyone is a bit of both somewhere at some point with something eventually, as they get older and see more grey areas.

I think change is sometimes good but it shouldn't be forced. I think seeing things as black and white is counterproductive (and I've done it quite a bit), but having said that, there are just some things I hold true that I won't let be taken away, for instance my right to bear arms.

I don't mind being wrong, and I'm open to reconsider something after reflecting on it if I believe it to have merit.
665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
so if i am muslim i am labeled evil? explain t me this?
665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
Fact Muhammad was from Mecca, a city near the Red Sea in what is now Saudi Arabia. An orphan from childhood, Muhammad was raised by an uncle, a man named Abu Talib, and became a merchant. Muhammad was a religious man, often going on retreats to the mountains where he would pray. During one of these he reported being visited by the angel Gabriel, who supposedly gave Muhammad a revelation from Allah, the Muslim name for God Muhammad reported having several other revelations from Allah as well and Muslims regard him as Allah’s last and greatest prophet to mankind.
8603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F
Offline
Posted 5/26/16 , edited 5/26/16
People just hate being wrong. They're stubborn and they might even continue to argue even when they know they're wrong. It's immature and stupid, I agree. It takes real courage to say "Huh, I didn't think of it that way."
37144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
It's because of cognitive bias, and we are all susceptible to it.
qwueri 
16460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 5/26/16 , edited 5/26/16
Like I'd let a little thing like facts get in the way of my way of thinking.



But in seriousness, minds won't be changed unless they're open to change to begin with. And not everyone is going to keep arguing when they see the discussion at an impass. There's not even a garuntee that a poster will necessarily read or notice any given reply.
Posted 5/26/16

qwueri wrote:

Like I'd let a little thing like facts get in the way of my way of thinking.



But in seriousness, minds won't be changed unless they're open to change to begin with. And not everyone is going to keep arguing when they see the discussion at an impass. There's not even a garuntee that a poster will necessarily read or notice any given reply.


This. Sometimes its almost delusional that they can't be wrong. Having said that, there are those who try to shove a thing down others' throats as well.
Posted 5/26/16
You can't force people to change their views.
4019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 5/26/16

sah36ila wrote:

Fact Muhammad was from Mecca, a city near the Red Sea in what is now Saudi Arabia. An orphan from childhood, Muhammad was raised by an uncle, a man named Abu Talib, and became a merchant. Muhammad was a religious man, often going on retreats to the mountains where he would pray. During one of these he reported being visited by the angel Gabriel, who supposedly gave Muhammad a revelation from Allah, the Muslim name for God Muhammad reported having several other revelations from Allah as well and Muslims regard him as Allah’s last and greatest prophet to mankind.


I don't believe that this was ever about "Muslims being evil" from what I can see. I do see you flame baiting hard af though.
20644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
1) When your beliefs and opinions are ingrained in you from your community, family, and people you respect and trust you don't easily give them up.

2) It's embarrassing and you feel ashamed when you are wrong.

3) There is an over-saturation of "scientific studies" that make incredible claims, but the studies are not rigorously reviewed and tested, they get headline attention because of the amazing results in spite of poor methods and or lack of replication by other researchers. The abundance of slip-shod studies dilutes the credibility of factual scientific studies and theories. Just a few bad impressions can ruin a person's trust in science.

It would be helpful if while in school everyone learned about the scientific method, how to be skeptical, and how to communicate respectfully and persuasively.

P.S. There is some annoying bastard playing a goddamn bagpipe near my apartment!
Bavalt 
22029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/26/16
Minds don't change overnight. A debate isn't going to cover every little detail of a person's opinion and how it fits into their holistic worldview. Nobody is going to be convinced of something right away from a debate, because they have other beliefs that are structured around the subject, and vice-versa. It takes time for someone to reconcile a convincing argument with their other views and find a place for it, and even that only occurs if the argument is coming from a compatible set of priorities. If you're debating in the first place expecting to strongarm your opponent into changing their mind, then you're working under the mistaken assumption that everyone approaches the process of building their point of view up in the same way. What makes sense to you might not to someone else; debate is dominated by logical arguments or by demonstrable evidence, but those aren't the only components to something as far-reaching as a set of values, and those whose values are formed in a largely alogical or isolated way have their core arguments ignored by those who debate using nothing but deduction and induction, and are forced to try and support them through means that aren't actually all that relevant to them.

I'm not saying that debate should change. That sort of discourse is fully in its rights to demand (an attempt at) objectivity; the only way we can discuss the validity of our beliefs with each other at all is by assuming that an objective view exists and can be accessed. But the concept of validity itself only exists in that sphere in the first place. Debate necessarily lets some viewpoints, those that have an emotional, instinctual, imaginative, recreational, etc. basis - in short, those that are primarily subjective - fall to the wayside. That is not a problem. What is a problem is to treat debate as though it should be enough to convince those who form their beliefs in those ways, despite that omission. By contrast, you don't see people arguing something like math, because by nature, it's an area that is wholly driven by logic. In math, if something can be proven logically, then it's true, and there's no need in the first place to argue against it - but that's not the case when it comes to more sophisticated topics. The fact that there are dissenters at all should be enough to illustrate the fact that the subject matter isn't exclusively logical.

Besides, discourse isn't going to happen without dissenters. There's no reason to debate if everyone's on the same page, but debate can be instrumental in exploring a topic in its full complexity. It would be a much bigger problem if those "stubborn" people did submit to the more powerful argument, because then there'd be nobody to power the discourse anymore, and it would stagnate. As far as I'm concerned, what's important when it comes to debate is the subject and the process, not the conclusions, so it's sad when a topic is abandoned for an inconsequential reason like "We know the answer already."
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.