Are we having a discussion or should I treat this as a sermon?
I often have posts that follow a theme. This one was the next place my mind took me after I'd had some time for my post I wrote a little while ago to sink in a little more.
I love discussions. I am however, very much against pushing religion on other people. I view everyone I speak to as a fellow human. I therefore ASSUME they have the same make up as other humans. This means I do not believe one of us is super human and omniscient and knows everything. I prefer discussions over having someone preach to me.
What is the difference?
A discussion is a two sided thing. Both sides can learn. Both sides can be right about some things, and wrong about others. In some cases both sides can be totally wrong, and in other cases they can both be right but just were coming at it from different perspectives and didn't realize it until they had a nice civil discussion. This later type where both are right often occurs when people were operating under different definitions for some words. There are some pretty heated topics that have labels that people will have very different interpretations of the definition. So often it is simply realizing what each others interpretation of the definition was that can lead to understanding.
I don't EVER (absolute) go into an argument expecting to WIN as I've recently been accused. To me that can actually be losing. The ideal argument/discussion/debate is one where both sides learn things. To me that is winning. I have zero interest in preaching to anyone. I have zero interest in saying "this is how it is" and expecting people to blindly agree with me and offer me no challenge. That is losing as far as I am concerned.
Yet, that also means I am very against people approaching me as though they are the CHOSEN ONE that has the answers and I should listen to them, hear them, and have my mind masterfully CORRECTED.
If you speak to people with the mental mind set that you will not change your mind then how is that actually different from delivering a sermon or preaching to them? You are speaking, you are not listening. It is no longer a two (or more) way conversation at that point.
What is the point?
I've never met anyone I'd consider actually worthy of being treated as though they KNOW the answers and I should unquestionably agree with them and never question. I also do not expect the same from those I interact with.
If someone presents me with evidence I can go analyze that is one thing. If someone does not present me with evidence and is treating opinion as fact, that is another thing. The later I'm not going to respond to without challenge.
If my challenge is then met with "you'll not change my mind" or something similar then at that point I have to wonder, was I just being subjected to a sermon? If I cannot have even the potential of changing a mind then that would imply the person is not truly listening... they only are speaking. What is the value in that?
I agree with those entire article! I have been very pleased at times to agreeably disagree on Steemit leaving the topic feeling likely I had an educational experience.
Other times though I feel like hanging my head into a wall because dogma and absolutism have replaced listening and a willingness to even consider the other person's perspective.
Thanks for posting!
Exactly, one-sidedness and the extremes of any side leads to people not listening or hearing the other side/demonizing them.
There is so much in the media of "this side did that" and "this side did this and that omg!!" but we forget that 90% of us are somewhere in the middle of it all,and the fanatical 5% on one side and 5% on the other are the ones who need to calm down and talk to each other.
Science as a religion. Where all science is settled science.
When I meet these people, it just hurts. My heart cries for them.
Because science is (or maybe was) about finding out new things, constantly developing new theories and testing them.
Now, I have conversations with people and they make a statement as a fact, and if I question it, they go ballistic. Even if I know much much much more than them. Like a person talking about circuit design (and stating something that is physically impossible) while I hold a soldering iron in my hand.
So, what do you do in a debate, when you figure out, that this is not a debate, this will be you explaining the basics to a person who thinks they know everything?
Decide if you have the time. Decide if you want to put fort the effort even if you may get no return on investment for that time.
Case by case basis. Unfortunately some of those people you can't help too easily. You can do what I do sometimes rather than debating them...
If you're going to have to talk about basic things and foundational concepts that seems better as a post than a reply. Why? At least then other people might learn something from it, or someone that is not them that can poke a hole in it and knows what they are talking about might respond. :)
I agree 100%
Great post!
:) I feel like good philosophy is more of a question than an answer to anything. Great post D-blood! We need to do some steemit promotional raps. :P
Oh he doesn't tend to go with the thug rap type approach, no gats, crack, hos, cribs, homies, etc. So if you want that type of rap even he would likely need to fake it. I could probably fake it if I allow @chaospoet to stomp around in my head.
LOL, that isn't really my style any more. I take the more "philosophical" approach now. You should see the one I made for Ron Donson a couple days ago, you might get a kick out of it. :P
Hehehe.... Rap... you might want to reach out to my son in law @ray.luv.music as he can deliver far better than I can on the raps. I might manage if I let @chaospoet out of his hole.
Namaste!
Absolutely agree!
;-)
hope you have a great day!
I agree
Talk with me, do not talk at me.
nice!
Great post,