|
| Thread: the argument |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 21, 2010 04:48 PM |
|
|
You don't force anyone to agree, you just present your points, whereas others present their side of the coin. No one is forced - influenced, maybe, but neither forced nor violated.
Very often compromises won't satisfy anyone - nor do they work, and in THAT case the problem with a compromise is that you can't even blame anyone for it, because everyone will say - and with good reason - that they wanted something else, actually.
Your 3rd possibility is just speculation, right? Could you name an example, a real one when that happened?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 21, 2010 07:09 PM |
|
|
I really wonder what the term "compromise" has to do with democracy....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2010 04:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't force anyone to agree, you just present your points, whereas others present their side of the coin. No one is forced - influenced, maybe, but neither forced nor violated.
of course, but it doesn't mean you are going to listen to what other people say. you may also deny things that are true, and assume that what you say is true whereas it's false because you think you have arguments to back it up. like Hitler saying all jews were evil. lots of people seemed to believe him because he had arguments, while it was not true.
influencing people could be a kind of violence, if you are relying on mind manipulation.
Quote:
Very often compromises won't satisfy anyone - nor do they work, and in THAT case the problem with a compromise is that you can't even blame anyone for it, because everyone will say - and with good reason - that they wanted something else, actually.
actually, it is likely that every person will just blame all the other debaters.
Most of the time, the truth is those people were unable to debate properly and that's why they couldn't reach a satisfying compromise. the problem may be because some debaters don't care about what the other ones think, or because they don't think the other ones care about what they think, thus they take a defensive position.
Quote:
Your 3rd possibility is just speculation, right? Could you name an example, a real one when that happened?
it's hard, for the reason I stated above. most people are too bad at debatting for reaching that kind of compromise. often, all they can do is make the situation even worse than it was.
maybe among tibetan people? I read buddhist monks are very good at debating.
maybe the fact that some scientists accepted to consider buddhist views in some of their searches could be an example, because there is usually a very clear separation between sciences and religions.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2010 08:25 PM |
|
|
Just asking, Fauch, but aren't you doing now what you are debating against? I mean, yoo try defend a position - your position -, but you are not trying to find a compromise, right?
Isn't that a contradiction?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2010 11:12 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 23:48, 22 Feb 2010.
|
well, I didn't disagree with everything you said.
in another hand, it's hard to reach a compromise when debating with someone who absolutely do not want to reach a compromise 
in our case, I don't really know what the compromise could be, but if we knew before hand, there would be no debate
finding a compromise about whether a compromise is possible or not? sounds funny
actually I think I understand, maybe we don't have the same definition of a compromise. do you think it's trying to reach an average of all the ideas of the debaters?
actually, it's about finding a solution that will fully satisfy everyone. it doesn't necessarily imply to agree with what other people say, but if you say something is true, you should be able to prove it, with proofs that are true as well.
for example, with the Hitler example : "all jews are evil and they must all die"
let's say his proof for this is all the jews he has known were indeed evil. that means those jews were evil, not all jews. then you can also discuss whether evil should be fought with evil (killing)
whatever, we have 2 points of views :
-all jews are evil and must die
-not all jews are evil and they all have a right to live
if we try to reach a compromise which is an average of those 2 ideas, we would have something like :
-not all jews are evil and they must all die.
however if we tried to reach a solution satisfying everyone, it is likely that the 2nd idea will win, after Hitler has been convinced with true facts (not his biased vision).
another solution is if hitler manipulate the mind of the other guy. then his solution will also seem satisfying to the other guy, but only until this other guy actually understand.
note : the more someone is closer to the truth, the harder it should be to manipulate them. the buddhists know most of the thing we (billions of humans) are absolutely convinced are true and over which we think there is no possible debate, are actually only illusions conceived by our mind. I can't comment on it, since it is currently a too complicated subject for me (and for about anyone on the planet who hasn't received the proper training) but it is one of the reasons why their control over their mind is far superior than what a "normal" (buddhist monks are normal people too) person can do.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2010 08:01 AM |
|
|
Disclaimer: For everyone who reads this, please keep in mind that this is purely theoretical and not my opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your example isn't QUITE correct, Fauch. If we disregard the fact that not only Hitler had something against the Jews (antisemitism was very common at that time and before) and accept for the moment - just to be able to work with the example - that indeed Hitler was the guy who "invented" antisemitism.
However, antisemitism isn't about all Jews being evil; antisemitism is about the Jews being THE ROOT of all (or at least a certain part of) evil.
The impact of this distinction may not be immediately obvious, however, it's the difference between being something and having a function. A disease germ does what it does - it's not evil because of it. However, in order for a human to survive it's necessary to kill that germ.
It's not like Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because he thought they were evil. He wanted to eradicate them from the face of the world because he thought that they would corrupt the rest of humanity. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE: Today, Hitler would doubtlessly point to the fact that money and greed rules the world, point to the unholy role banks and monetary speculants play and would point out how many strings are pulled by Jewish "money-lenders", and he would say that this attitude is the result of the Jews corupting the world. Just as an explanation: He thought this "way" would be the "nature" of the Jew.
The problem is, you can't just "debate that away" because it's a quasi-religious belief. It's like someone saying, umm, there are Demons in this world, the harbingers of Satan, and they posess people, and all those serial killers and amok-runners are posessed by Demons, doing what they do.
This poses quite an interesting problem. The first thing is: there is no compromise in how the problem is seen. The second is, there is no working or practical compromise either. Because:
To reach a compromise you have to take BOTH positions into serious consideration, so compromise not only means that Hitler would have to check his facts, it would mean as well, that the other side would have to seriously consider his position.
Now, the REAL problem here isn't the question what to believe, but the question, what to DO about it (if anything). Antisemitism is a pretty old thing, and there have always been outbreaks of local violence against Jews, that's nothing new.
To come to a satisfactory compromise here, means, that you cannot judge one side to be false right from the start. Instead you must necessarily allow a possibility that BOTH positions, Hitler's as well, may be true, and the compromise would have to be found on the basis of accepting that everything was possible, even that Hitler was right.
Do you see that?
So a compromise would be, for example, expropriation, exilation and isolation of all Jewish people into a separate state or area, and quarantining them for a certain amount of time - let's say 30 years, one generation - until checking how the rest of the world had developed without them.
A compromise is not, making Hitler realize he is a stupid idiot believing what he believes.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2010 06:17 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:26, 23 Feb 2010.
|
makes sense.
btw, it's no so relevant to talk about my example not being historically correct. of course, it's somewhat a silly example, but still a debate. and yeah, it is somewhat clear that in my example, "hitler's" point of view seem stupid and is likely to be proven wrong (that being said, in some other context, it could lead to a real debate)
Quote:
To come to a satisfactory compromise here, means, that you cannot judge one side to be false right from the start. Instead you must necessarily allow a possibility that BOTH positions, Hitler's as well, may be true, and the compromise would have to be found on the basis of accepting that everything was possible, even that Hitler was right.
well of course, maybe my example was a bit simplistic. 
of course, hitler will probably be right on some (or maybe many points) but it's not hard to prove that not all jews are evil (or that means all humans are evil? )
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2010 07:48 PM |
|
|
Not quite, read the beginning of my post again.
They were not to die because they were evil (this needs a will to be so); they should die because THEIR VERY NATURE was supposed to be harmful to humanity. You know, greedy, money-grubbing hagglers, eternally in a clinch with their own god who found it necessary to extinguish them and chasten them, and when he sent them his own son, they killed him..... (If a Jew is reading this, no offense, I'm just repeating the claims here).
See that?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2010 11:39 PM |
|
|
duh, what are you talking about?
it was just a random example. we were debating about debates (lol)
not about the reason why hitler wanted all jews to die.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 07:55 AM |
|
|
I talk about this:
Quote:
but it's not hard to prove that not all jews are evil (or that means all humans are evil? 
The question never was whether Jews were evil. The question was whether Jews had a detrimental influence on the rest of humanity, specifically, "the superior race(s)" (the races that are supposed to having advanced culture). Jews were supposed to be something like a parasitic race.
But, ok, that's only a minor detail here.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To reach a compromise you have to take BOTH positions into serious consideration, so compromise not only means that Hitler would have to check his facts, it would mean as well, that the other side would have to seriously consider his position.
I don't see anything wrong with the above, to be honest. Do you prefer instant dismissal and witch hunts instead?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 06:10 PM |
|
|
Death, um, I made that point to Fauch.
And since I made that point, you are now asking me what's wrong with the point? Driving home that point was the whole purpose of the conversation: that a compromise means to take EVERY position equally serious - even if there may be absurd looking positions.
Which, in the end, is one of the reasons why real compromises are so difficult to reach.
Anyway. I answered a post of yours. There you go. The end is near. Repent.
Seriously, I'm not entirely sure, whether it's a good idea. HC has been a better place these last weeks and months. I ignored you and Elodin and I think - with Elodin being busy and your posting rate for some reason has been down as well - the overall effect was good.
On the other hand it was a bit boring as well. 
*Shrug* Nothing lasts forever, so let's see what will come out of this.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 06:12 PM |
|
|
Ok I know it was out of context... you know, I like to quote individual parts, but the sound of that taken by itself is kinda... weird. That's all I meant.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 06, 2010 06:43 PM |
|
|
Corribus "Wins"
I agree completely with Corribus. He said what I feel.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
| |
|
|
