PDA

View Full Version : The right to upset others


Nancy Allen``
03-17-2007, 07:33 PM
In discussions with some people on the Internet they believe, and have even said, that they have the right and duty to upset people. I really don't know about this one, I think it's just an excuse, but your thoughts.

Jae Onasi
03-17-2007, 07:46 PM
They're entitled to believe that.

That may be acceptable behavior in some places. It's not in this forum.

Achilles
03-17-2007, 08:02 PM
I guess one interesting spin on Nancy's post (which might be fodder for another topic?) is : At what level are individuals responsible for their own behavior?

For instance if someone broaches a controversial topic, and other person has an opposing viewpoint, at what point should the first person politely excuse themselves from the conversation if they are hearing things they choose not to accept?

SilentScope001
03-17-2007, 10:51 PM
I think people should have the right to upset others...as long as they are willing to be upset themselves when they are proven wrong and people use that same right against them. ;)

That's right. Sometimes, I prove other people wrong. Other times, other people prove me wrong. I upset others. Others upset me. If you argue for the right to upset others, you must pay for the consquences, and get upseted yourself. And here's the thing: People who want to upset others DON'T want to be upset themselves. It would be hypocritical to question one person's belief and make them sad...and be angry when someone else question your belief. If a person is not willing to extend that 'right to upset others' to others, then he does not deserve such a right to start off with.

Not to mention it's against the rules of this forum. :p

I actually think that's "right" probraly have something to do with Socrates. He's the "gadfly" of Athens, who go and question everything, including piety and the gods. Guy got executed due to teaching bad stuff and being an atheist (which, to me, he was guilty of both counts). Of course, Socrates is the founder of Western thought...but if he was alive today, we would still hate Socrates. We wouldn't kill him, but we would flame him, for he would upset us all.

For instance if someone broaches a controversial topic, and other person has an opposing viewpoint, at what point should the first person politely excuse themselves from the conversation if they are hearing things they choose not to accept?

As soon as he feels that it would degenerate into a flame war, with him starting the flaming.

Jae Onasi
03-17-2007, 11:24 PM
For instance if someone broaches a controversial topic, and other person has an opposing viewpoint, at what point should the first person politely excuse themselves from the conversation if they are hearing things they choose not to accept?

When you're so sick of seeing 'fallacy' and/or 'delusional' that throwing up on your opponent's keyboard sounds like a viable option.

SykoRevan
03-17-2007, 11:36 PM
I agree with SilentScope001 in that you should only do to others what you allow to have done to yourself. There is a very thin veil between respecting the opinions of others and expressing your opinion. Sometimes people do not respect your opinion, and they get upset when you try to speak what they think is wrong. So in order for debates and forums like this to function, one must be able to respect the opinions of others and expect the same when expressing their opinions, for without either one of those tenets, there would be no functioning debate. Without respect, all you would have is people arguing back and forth like angry lunatics. Without expressing your views... well what kind of debate would that be, where everyone agrees just to please everyone else? It wouldn't be a debate at all.

Samuel Dravis
03-17-2007, 11:40 PM
I think that you should upset people only to the extent that doing so provides a demonstrable positive effect. If you feel that you're correct and just not "getting through", provided the issue is not really important I think you should just agree to disagree until you come up with different methods to assist the understanding of your arch-enemy.

Achilles
03-18-2007, 12:48 AM
When you're so sick of seeing 'fallacy' and/or 'delusional' that throwing up on your opponent's keyboard sounds like a viable option. I think that speaks directly to the first part of my question. If someone chooses to base their argument on fallacy, I don't have much sympathy for them if they don't like having the fact pointed out to them.

Personally, I appreciate it when people point out flaws in my thinking. Helps me learn. I don't understand why more people aren't the same way.

Nancy Allen``
03-18-2007, 12:53 AM
Hmm, I think it's because of one example I've seen in that someone who is intolerent of people's beliefs was labelled a fanantic, which is true, someone who attacks someone because of their beliefs is a fanantic, but this individual didn't like that at all.

Rogue Nine
03-18-2007, 01:06 AM
Personally, I appreciate it when people point out flaws in my thinking. Helps me learn. I don't understand why more people aren't the same way.
Pointing out people's flaws in reasoning is all well and good. Being a condescending and belittling ******* when you do it isn't. I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.

Achilles
03-18-2007, 01:16 AM
On that note, I wonder what belligerence and name-calling accomplish?

(Off-topic: Is this kind of language permitted in a PG-13 forum?)

Actually, if someone felt that my stated beliefs met the definition of the word "delusional" I would be very much interested in hearing their arguments. I'm pretty strident with my views, but that does not make me closed-minded. As I've stated before, I'm perfectly willing to go where ever the evidence leads.

EDIT:
Nancy,

I guess I'd have to understand how you define the word "intolerant". Also, I've never heard "fanatic" defined that way before. May I ask where you got that interpretation?

Nancy Allen``
03-18-2007, 01:42 AM
Intolerent as in believing people don't have the right to their beliefs. To give an example not allowing deacons (religious folk) to believe in their view the fallacy that their chosen God exists. The term 'fanantic' in that interpretation comes from a friend who got the definition of fanantic from a book of John Laws, a famous Australian radio presenter. I'll write to her and get the actual wording of how it was put.

Achilles
03-18-2007, 02:12 AM
Interesting. Out of curiosity, aside from religious persecution, how would one go about preventing you from believing whatever you choose to? Furthermore, how would they do it on a message board?

Ah, I see. The definition offered by the dictionary is very different from what you described so I was having a difficult time understanding how you came up with that argument. It would seem that the more common use of the word would be less favorable to those that have an unfounded belief than those that would disagree with them. I'll just have to remember to make the switch when I you use the word in the future. Thanks!

Jae Onasi
03-18-2007, 02:27 AM
We're not going to go down the 'delusional' road in this particular forum.

I think it's an incredibly rude term that is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt at condescension under the guise of denotative semantics. It does nothing but put up a big wall in the exchange of ideas.

If someone really is concerned about their opponent _learning_ to make better arguments or avoid fallacies, then s/he should do it with consideration.

People don't like to be belittled into learning, they like to be respectfully assisted.

Since this thread is degenerating into sarcasm and attacks, I'm closing it.