The bliss of ignorance

[Lotusflower]

I think anyone faced with proof they are wrong should have the good grace to admit it. However in the case of many issues there is no proof just personal opinion (guff like religion or how mass immigration is evil/super being an example).

 

So in those cases maybe just accept that people have different views and not preach about it?

 

Let's hope these words don't come back to haunt you then.

[boyfriday]

So in those cases maybe just accept that people have different views and not preach about it?

 

I agree that people have different views, but if those views are based on false assumptions there's then an over riding tendency to prove their position is wrong, or they should at least consider the evidence that disputes it..and then it kicks off.

[Lotusflower]

Agree with much of that cosy, it's a shame you're discouraged from posting because of certain features that you believe have disappeared, I've regularly run away kicking and screaming-frustrated by a poster's intransigence, as I'm sure others have been frustrated by mine, but this is still a great means of exchanging views, the anonymous environment encouraging debates and views that might not be expressed in real life.

With regards to 'ignorance', I don't believe this is necessarily a negative quality, I recall one poster last week who was confident enough to admit they didn't know what halal meat was and sought the answer so they could make an informed contribution. Their subsequent posts enlightened the debate from a neutral perspective, as opposed to those with views that might have appeared entrenched, my own included.

 

It's unfortunate at times that the anonimity also encourages insults and personal attacks. My own yardstick is always speak to a person on here exactly as you would were they sitting in front of you.

 

What I find most irksome is the practice of displacement.

You know the sort of thing...don't answer a question or follow a point...throw it back by talking about what somebody else did or said.

 

Having said that I still see the forum as an entertaining debating chamber...by and large.

[danot]

I would say 90% of topics discussed on this forum are related to news stories, news articles, links etc.. which at best can only be taken at face value by the vast majority who are not personally involved or in anyway connected to the incident and/or the individual/s being discussed.

 

With this in mind, any poster/s not personally connected to the topic being discussed can only be expected to contribute their personal point of view towards the subject; and/or the views of other posters discussing the subject.

 

Which will inevitably turn the discussion into a debate over differing views, as opposed to the topic which is.. 'was', being discussed.

 

Once posters realise that most arguments are formed not by knowing the truth about the subject matter.. but rather formed by the personal opinions they hold towards the subject matter, we can then simply agree to disagree with one another instead of resorting to the usual petty insults.

[boyfriday]

Once posters realise that most arguments are formed not by knowing the truth about the subject matter.. but rather formed by the personal opinions they hold towards the subject matter, we can then simply agree to disagree with one another instead of resorting to the usual petty insults.

 

That's not the point of the thread though danot, there's no problem having a personal opinion, but when it's based on inaccuracies, there seems little desire to change them when evidence is presented that proves otherwise.

[danot]

That's not the point of the thread though danot, there's no problem having a personal opinion, but when it's based on inaccuracies, there seems little desire to change them when evidence is presented that proves otherwise.

What do you mean by: "evidence that proves otherwise"?..

[boyfriday]

What do you mean by: "evidence that proves otherwise"?..

 

Well if I were to say the sky is green, and you & others provided photographs to prove it was blue and I still denied it..that kind of evidence.

[danot]

Well if I were to say the sky is green, and you & others provided photographs to prove it was blue and I still denied it..that kind of evidence.

you, me or anyone else is hardly likely to ever claim the sky is green BF. So without using any more ill fitting analogies;), what evidence could you or another poster provide that could prove to me that what you or "another poster" are claiming to be true is indeed true?.

[flamingjimmy]

As my dad told me when I first started complaining about people on SF completely ignoring any evidence based arguments I make: Generally speaking, you can't change people's minds with evidence. It just doesn't work with regards to any issues that they feel strongly about.

 

What you need is a good strong appeal to emotion, or perhaps authority, much more likely to be successful.

 

This is why critical thinking should be brought to the forefront of education, no child should leave school without a decent grounding in ti, purely so they can filter out the nonsense that is most of everything.

[boyfriday]

you, me or anyone else is hardly likely to ever claim the sky is green BF. So without using any more ill fitting analogies;), what evidence could you or another poster provide that could prove to me that what you or "another poster" are claiming to be true is indeed true?.

 

I think it's more subtle than that, evidence might be presented, but the intransigent poster is unable to counter it with evidence of their own or unwilling to consider the evidence of others-their position is based on instinct..I still believe the sky is green by the way, even though I've never ventured outdoors or opened my curtains