Debate threads – assuming a lack of understanding

[va32h]

I completely agree with you ead79. I don't understand it either. My favorite is when people say "You and I just have different opinions on the issue. But you're wrong". I've seen this twice. There is no right or wrong on topics. It's all your perspective. I am pro-choice but I can absolutely unserstand why someone would be pro-life. I like Bush but I can understand why some don't like him. It's not about being passionate about what you believe in so you feel like you have to fight it to the death with anyone who disagrees, it's about understanding that others don't feel the same way and that doesn't make them wrong or right. I have seen it alot more lately on the CB and I, too, think it's sad.

I think I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I think we have to believe that some things are "right" or "wrong". Society cannot function if everything is based on moral relativism. How would we establish laws, for example, if things like theft and assault are based on perspective? I am sure the perspective of the assaulter is very different from the perspective of the assaulted.

I often hear people say "opinions can't be wrong", and the example I usually cite is that I may be of the opinion that I can stand in the middle of the 635 freeway and not be injured by a car, but if I were to test that opinion, I would quickly find that it was entirely wrong.

One of the things that drives me crazy in DIS debates is a leap to hyperbole. It's like a game of telephone, where the message gets twisted along the way. I started a thread about locking doors, for example, and after a few pages, the thread became not about merely locking a door, but people who imprison themselves in their own homes and live in constant fear of their lives and obviously need therapy. Quite a leap. And in the Dakota Fanning thread, the "controversial scenes" on page one have morphed by page 9 into full nude scenes of a 12 year old being violently raped. Which is fascinating, since no one has actually seen the movie yet.

 

[VSL]

I really do not understand people that can't accept your opinion. They feel like they need to make you change your ways or life as we know it will end.

I'm not going to comment on your list, but I will say that a lot of people probably get worked up about these things because of some (or all) of the following reasons:
- morality
- if numerous people break the rules, we may all end up having to pay extra
- if numerous people break the rules, we may all end up losing something that we like
- it's not usually just an opinion on the pool-hopping/mug-refilling/etc. threads, but rather something that someone plans to do while in WDW that may result in the above two points

There are probably more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

I didn't read all of that thread (or post on it) but I read a few pages and it was interesting that at least one poster who disagreed with stem cell research was paraplegic(sp?) - and so possibly one of the people who may benefit from it.

That was me

 

[VSL]

Ah yes, so it was - don't know how I could have forgotten such a familiar poster!

 

[BuckNaked]

Actually, the stem cell debate is similar to the abortion debate, in that one side is viewing it logically, while the other is viewing it emotionally. Again, it is hard to have a real debate when the two sides can't agree on the terms to be used (a blastocyst is not a baby, but one side says that it is).

The following is not meant to debate the stem cell issue, but rather to use that debate as an example in my response to wvrevy.


While I understand where you're coming from on this, I think that the phrase you used (intellectual v. emotional) is itself one example what the OP is talking about. By saying that your position is intellectual, while dismissing the position of those with whom you disagree as emotional, you are basically saying that they are uninformed about facts.

While I support federal funding for stem cell research, who am I to say that those who oppose it are being emotional rather than intellectual when they say a life is being destroyed? As far as I know, there has been no definitive scientific determination as to when life begins, it's all opinion. So the person that says no life is being destroyed in the process really has no more facts in their corner than the person that says life is being destroyed. Lots of opinion perhaps, but not facts.

Same with the use of terminology. Scientifically, there is no "baby" until birth - until that moment, the "baby" is a "fetus". Now, while most people will indeed begin talking about "the baby" as soon as they find out that Mom-to-be is pregnant, scientifically, there is no "baby". So, is the person that refers to a blastocyst as a "baby" any less intellectual than the person that refers to a third-trimester fetus as a "baby"? Scientifically, both are incorrect, but who is "more incorrect"?

Not trying to pick on you, wvrevy, just pointing out that when we reflexively dismiss opposing arguments as emotional, we really are telling people that they are uninformed.

 

[taximomfor4]

I can see exactly where OP is coming from. Not just on the Community boards, either. It's all over...especially ANYTHING having to do with parenting, bus seats, etc. I have been on the receiving end of opposing viewpoints, and have been insulted and belittled because of it. DH cannot understand how I stay on here, after he read two of the threads it happened on. I told him that just because people don't ADMIT they heard me, doesn't mean they didn't hear me.

Plus, no matter what viewpoints I hold, I do like to educate myself about where OTHERS are coming from.

 

[mrsltg]

The following is not meant to debate the stem cell issue, but rather to use that debate as an example in my response to wvrevy.


While I understand where you're coming from on this, I think that the phrase you used (intellectual v. emotional) is itself one example what the OP is talking about. By saying that your position is intellectual, while dismissing the position of those with whom you disagree as emotional, you are basically saying that they are uninformed about facts.

While I support federal funding for stem cell research, who am I to say that those who oppose it are being emotional rather than intellectual when they say a life is being destroyed? As far as I know, there has been no definitive scientific determination as to when life begins, it's all opinion. So the person that says no life is being destroyed in the process really has no more facts in their corner than the person that says life is being destroyed. Lots of opinion perhaps, but not facts.

Same with the use of terminology. Scientifically, there is no "baby" until birth - until that moment, the "baby" is a "fetus". Now, while most people will indeed begin talking about "the baby" as soon as they find out that Mom-to-be is pregnant, scientifically, there is no "baby". So, is the person that refers to a blastocyst as a "baby" any less intellectual than the person that refers to a third-trimester fetus as a "baby"? Scientifically, both are incorrect, but who is "more incorrect"?

Not trying to pick on you, wvrevy, just pointing out that when we reflexively dismiss opposing arguments as emotional, we really are telling people that they are uninformed.

Too funny - I was thinking about this on the ride home yesterday (yes, I need a hobby!). I agree completely. Labeling one side as emotional while concluding that your side is logical is a prime example of what Elisabeth is pointing out.

I also recall a thread a while back where the topci was the soldiers who may or may not have shoot innocent people who were in a surrender position. Because I said something to the effect of, "You can't kill people just because you want to," I was called a bleeding heart liberal. I was not "supporting our troops," because I felt there should be an investigation and if the investigation revealed wrongdoing, a trial. I had to laugh!!! People familiar with my posts must have laughed. I believe I'm liberal, but not in today's terminology!

I think a good guage of who I am politically and whether or not I'm really thinking for myself is whether I agree with the same people all of the time. When I find myself agreeing with people all over the spectrum I know I'm using the grey matter. When I find I'm simply agreeing with one party or another, I feel I'm buying into talking points.

I also agree with the poster who stated spiritual beliefs come into play in her opinion forming process. Of course they do, and they should. Whether you believe in a higher power or not, you still have "spiritual beliefs". All experiences shape you as a person. I cannot begin to dissect 31 years of life to say, "if this hadn't happened then this would be how I feel." It's all part of who I am.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Actually, the stem cell debate is similar to the abortion debate, in that one side is viewing it logically, while the other is viewing it emotionally. Again, it is hard to have a real debate when the two sides can't agree on the terms to be used (a blastocyst is not a baby, but one side says that it is).

I disagree with you here. To prove the blastocyst is or is not a baby is not science but a definition of when a baby becomes a baby. One side says it starts at conception and the other at a later time. A baby being viable is a definition that can be backed up with facts.

The part of that particular debate I find annoying is the hypocrisy shown when people object to stem cell research then don't object to IVF, which results in the destruction of many more "babies" than research would ever use.

Again, it's logic vs. emotion, and there can be no true debate when that is the case.

I agree with you here. I am for stem cell research. If you believe that life begins at conception than the frozen embrios from IVF are babies and need to not be destroyed.

 

[chobie]

Too funny - I was thinking about this on the ride home yesterday (yes, I need a hobby!). I agree completely. Labeling one side as emotional while concluding that your side is logical is a prime example of what Elisabeth is pointing out.

I seem to remember a while back on a thread about hospitals refusing to give morning after pills to rape vicitms, that you accused me of being "emotional" whereas your side of the argument was "logical." Am I right about this?

We as humans are emotional beings, not only can we not separate emotions out of issues, I don't think we should try. We should try to balance logic and emotion, however.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I'm not going to comment on your list, but I will say that a lot of people probably get worked up about these things because of some (or all) of the following reasons:
- morality
- if numerous people break the rules, we may all end up having to pay extra
- if numerous people break the rules, we may all end up losing something that we like
- it's not usually just an opinion on the pool-hopping/mug-refilling/etc. threads, but rather something that someone plans to do while in WDW that may result in the above two points

There are probably more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

[Disney Doll]

This made me LOL, because my younger brother DID take it, and was also on the debate team for 3 years. Add to this the knowledge of how to push all his sister's buttons, and you have a grade A, # 1 debater.

Wow!!! I didn't think they even still had debate teams!!!!

I think there are some subjects that cannot be adeqautely debated...religion being one of them. Many religions, by virtue of the nature...are not fact-based but faith-based, and to a person who does not "believe", faith is a moot argument...one they would consider ridiculous because it is not able to be backed up by "fact". But for those of us who do believe, faith is very real, and essentially unexplainable. Now, I suppose we could debate which religion is best, but again, hard to find facts to support that. The religion which is best is theone that brings thebeliever comfort, peace, and the means by which to conduct their life, if they choose to conduct their life with religion as one of its cornerstones.

I also agree with the previous poster who said that there are some folks who denigrate the discussion into "well if you had a loved one who was affected by _____, you'd agree with me". How do they know that I don't have a loved one who was affected by ____? Most recently, I have heard this debate in regard to stem cells, but it also used in the capital punishment debate a lot...I've used it myself, much to my chagrin!!!

I do love a good discussion. I do like it when they can be spirited and both sides can learn something, if we don't bring ourselves to total agreement on the issue. When they start getting stupid though, I usually bow out.

 

[Disney Doll]

I really do not understand people that can't accept your opinion. They feel like they need to make you change your ways or life as we know it will end. So right now I'm going to say what I really feel:

1. I don't care if you refill your mug from 10 years ago. I might even do it myself next year!
2. I will always put my child on my lap on a bus or give up my seat to elderly or anyone that I feel needs the seat more than I do.
3. If you are really crazy enough to want to bring a toaster or crockpot & cook on your vacation, have at it. ( I have worked for a hotel chain for 17 years, want to know what burns hotel rooms down?? It's not crockpots, it's cigarettes!!!!).
4. I never knew about pool hopping, but know that I have heard about it on the Disboard, I just might try it.
5. I lie about my age all the time! So why should I have any problem lieing about my childs age?

Boy that sure felt good!!! And guess what I totally understand what I just said!

#1-4 are OK with me.

#5-well, I am proud I made it to my 40's, am happily married and content with my life, so I'm not going to try to be any younger!! Don't have kids, so whay age I make them isn't an issue!!!!

 

[Maleficent13]

Edited because I sounded incredibly condescending and that was not my intent in anyway. I will have to figure out how to better articulate my thoughts before posting again. Bad Mal, bad!

 

[Disney Doll]

I know that when I was younger, I knew a lot more about nothing than I do today.

Tag fairy, where are you?????????????????????????

 

[Planogirl]

I personally enjoy hearing different viewpoints. I don't like being called immoral or crazy or whatever though. Even if I am, I don't like hearing it.

 

[NeverlandClub23]

I think I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I think we have to believe that some things are "right" or "wrong". Society cannot function if everything is based on moral relativism. How would we establish laws, for example, if things like theft and assault are based on perspective? I am sure the perspective of the assaulter is very different from the perspective of the assaulted.

I often hear people say "opinions can't be wrong", and the example I usually cite is that I may be of the opinion that I can stand in the middle of the 635 freeway and not be injured by a car, but if I were to test that opinion, I would quickly find that it was entirely wrong.

One of the things that drives me crazy in DIS debates is a leap to hyperbole. It's like a game of telephone, where the message gets twisted along the way. I started a thread about locking doors, for example, and after a few pages, the thread became not about merely locking a door, but people who imprison themselves in their own homes and live in constant fear of their lives and obviously need therapy. Quite a leap. And in the Dakota Fanning thread, the "controversial scenes" on page one have morphed by page 9 into full nude scenes of a 12 year old being violently raped. Which is fascinating, since no one has actually seen the movie yet.

I said that there are no right and wrong to "topics" and people's perspectives on them, that's fine if you don't agree with me. I'm not talking about how people perceive things here on the Dis in relation to making laws for our country. I think there's a big difference between opinions and facts. It is a fact you will get hit by a car eventually if you stand out in the middle of a busy interstate, not an opinion. Many people skew their "opinions" into "facts".

I'm not here to debate as I'm not a person who cares about debating. I just think it's sad things have gotten so nasty here on the Dis and I have known several Dis'ers who have gone to just lurking here or not coming on here at all. People may say they shouldn't take things so personally or be so sensitive but who wants to spend their free time getting berated by some stranger? People are on here to have friendly conversations, get info, or have civil debates and shouldn't feel like they're going to get attacked for anything they say, whether someone agrees with them or not.

 

[cardaway]

IMO much of what people are posting about is just as much on the person reading the posts as the person writing them. That's especially true with people reading an opinion in a post as the person stating a fact.

 

[wvrevy]

The following is not meant to debate the stem cell issue, but rather to use that debate as an example in my response to wvrevy.


While I understand where you're coming from on this, I think that the phrase you used (intellectual v. emotional) is itself one example what the OP is talking about. By saying that your position is intellectual, while dismissing the position of those with whom you disagree as emotional, you are basically saying that they are uninformed about facts.

While I support federal funding for stem cell research, who am I to say that those who oppose it are being emotional rather than intellectual when they say a life is being destroyed? As far as I know, there has been no definitive scientific determination as to when life begins, it's all opinion. So the person that says no life is being destroyed in the process really has no more facts in their corner than the person that says life is being destroyed. Lots of opinion perhaps, but not facts.

Same with the use of terminology. Scientifically, there is no "baby" until birth - until that moment, the "baby" is a "fetus". Now, while most people will indeed begin talking about "the baby" as soon as they find out that Mom-to-be is pregnant, scientifically, there is no "baby". So, is the person that refers to a blastocyst as a "baby" any less intellectual than the person that refers to a third-trimester fetus as a "baby"? Scientifically, both are incorrect, but who is "more incorrect"?

Not trying to pick on you, wvrevy, just pointing out that when we reflexively dismiss opposing arguments as emotional, we really are telling people that they are uninformed.

When people on one side of the debate insist on assigning an emotional value or tag (namely, "life" or "baby", in this debate) instead of using a scientific tag, it reduces the possibility of examining the issue from a logical basis, and attempts to move it onto emotional ground. Don't take the term "intellectual", as used here, as meaning that anyone that takes another standpoint isn't using their brain. But they are arguing from an emotional, rather than a logical base. A blastocyst is no more "life" or "a baby" than a single strand of DNA is.

Yes, we're very loose with our language in everyday use. When DW was pregnant, I absolutely referred to "the baby" rather than "the fetus". But that is simply a reflection of my emotional attachment to that potential life that was growing. But in a debate, speaking in exact terms becomes more important, to reduce misunderstanding.

I don't use the terms "emotional" and "intellectual" in regards to debate in order to elevate one side or degrade the other. Often times, I will feel that the emotional side is the correct side. But when I do that, I understand that logic may not lead to the same conclusion. Still, humans are not ruled by logic alone, nor should they be. They wouldn't be human, otherwise. They're just descriptive of the key factors that support one side of the argument over the other.

 

[va32h]

I said that there are no right and wrong to "topics" and people's perspectives on them, that's fine if you don't agree with me. I'm not talking about how people perceive things here on the Dis in relation to making laws for our country. I think there's a big difference between opinions and facts. It is a fact you will get hit by a car eventually if you stand out in the middle of a busy interstate, not an opinion. Many people skew their "opinions" into "facts".

I'm not here to debate as I'm not a person who cares about debating. I just think it's sad things have gotten so nasty here on the Dis and I have known several Dis'ers who have gone to just lurking here or not coming on here at all. People may say they shouldn't take things so personally or be so sensitive but who wants to spend their free time getting berated by some stranger? People are on here to have friendly conversations, get info, or have civil debates and shouldn't feel like they're going to get attacked for anything they say, whether someone agrees with them or not.

How on earth did I attack you? I said "I respectfully disagree", and absolutely nothing in my language was inflammatory towards you at all. I don't understand why you would use words like "attacking" or "berating" or being "nasty" to describe a post that respectfully disagrees.

But there's that good old DIS hyperbole again.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

How on earth did I attack you? I said "I respectfully disagree", and absolutely nothing in my language was inflammatory towards you at all. I don't understand why you would use words like "attacking" or "berating" or being "nasty" to describe a post that respectfully disagrees.

But there's that good old DIS hyperbole again.

LOL! Does anyone else see the irony here?

Sorry, but I didn't get the impression that she was talking about you when she used those words, but the CB in general.

As to the OP, I agree that some people take things too personally, and that's usually when the personal attacks start. I think "you don't understand" is too often used as a passive-agressive means to call another person stupid, which we all ought to know better than to do, even if we might be thinking it in our heads. (Rarely, really!)

Of course, it doesn't help when you ask questions, trying to understand the other side, and no one will answer them. I can't help but take that to mean they don't know how to back up their opinions with reason.