The other guy's opinion

• I have no problems acknowledging when I am wrong.
• Whether or not I see where the other guy is coming from often depends on how effectively he can argue his position.

In fact, that's the reason why I will perpetuate a debate or discussion. To me, the goal of a debate or a topical discussion is to understand the other side and have the other side understand yours, and probably also find some grounds on which we agree. This is what I call equilibrium, and I will keep a debate/discussion with someone alive until we reach some kind of equilibrium.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Sometimes the other person IS absolutely wrong :P Still, just READING debates on these fora have made me go "Oh, that's actually a pretty good point" and sometimes change my opinion on things I thought I would never change my opinion on. IRL though I sometimes get carried away in the argument and forget about trying to find the truth and focus on just proving the other person wrong!!!

Which is bad.

Wax on, wax off

Authoritarianism is always wrong by definition. Aside from that positive certainty, I guess I can be wrong on lotsa stuff.

edited 24th Mar '11 1:43:40 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Revisiting the WBC (and most definitely not authoritarianism in the United States because I've already looked into and decided "Get off your ass and vote."), I've decided to take a second look at their political actions and beliefs, because well, I don't like to be a hypocrite. However, the end result is still the same, I still disagree with them. There's many reasons, including the fact that there might be a hidden motive to get money via court lawsuits, but I'll take their supposed view.

It's that they are a sect that believes that only a small set of people who are with them will get to go to Heaven. Okay, so let's say they really are the last true Church. They also claim that the Bible is the only source of information. Alas, this is where it goes south. They end up being hypocrites all over the place since there are passages that state anyone can go to heaven if they're a good person. In WB Cism, you have to born into that church to make it to heaven. There's also several passages where it's flat out stated that violence is wrong but only if you're the aggressor. Soldiers in the US army never chose to fight any particular group, they were enlisted by their government to serve for the country they live in. Finally, aggression includes disrespecting the dead. Cause you know, the funeral protests.

I'd like to say they have some legit reasons behind their views, but that's too busy being covered up by the fact that they're too hateful no matter how I look at them and that their belief is more or less based around being a cult. You don't have anything to gain by joining, you can only be ridiculed by them for trying to join (which has happened before).

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Heathen, where do you get your "right" and "wrong" from?

edited 24th Mar '11 3:06:49 PM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

Right is generally helping people and restoring their freedom. Wrong is intiating force against another individual. Frankly I don't see how anyone would consider Authoritarianism right by any standards.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

The same place everyone gets their concept of "right" and "wrong" from. Looking at the world through a lens colored by personal experience and selfish want.

edited 24th Mar '11 3:11:44 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Does the WBC say the Bible is all true or just that it's the only source of information? If it's the latter that doesn't necessarily make them hypocrites... though it still makes them foolish in my view (I don't think you can really blame their absolute cockishness on the Bible per se)

edited 24th Mar '11 3:34:58 PM by Kyelin

Wax on, wax off

Erm, they have their own version of the Bible and it's "faultless", which is problematic in of itself.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

: Mmmm, tastes like crazy

Actually, Louis Theroux went and stayed with them for a bit in one of his docos. Made me feel really sorry for the children

Wax on, wax off

I'm always interested in the details of other people's opinions, but rarely am I swayed or even interested in the root concepts, or at least in most cases. I've seen and read them too much already, and because of that I rarely see anything new. Every once in a while I'll get an exception and see a brand new approach, and I am interested in that, but it doesn't happen that often.

A good example of this for me, is that political/economic discussions that come from a supply-side point of view are simply foreign to me. Or to be more precise, I think that as they're coming from the wrong place, the ideas themselves tend to be suspect. Is that not respecting the other guy's opinion? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. I'm not sure to be honest. (To be fair, as often as it makes sense I do point out that I'm not 100% strictly against supply-side economical thinking. I can see certain situations where I would support supply-side steps. I just don't see them in the real world right now)

I believe that this way of looking at a part of the world is correct, and the opposite is incorrect. I'm always open to a degree of having my mind changed, but again, only a new argument is going to do that, and they don't pop up every day:)

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Karmakin's first sentence sums up what is essentially my view. I have been known to waive my opinion, though.

I will agree with this, with additions:

My own views are based on the basic principles of my upbringing (e.g. "do no harm") combined with various philosophies that have appealed to me over the years (e.g. "an it harm none, do as thou wilt"; "the greatest benefit for the greatest number"). They are not fixed, but subject to modification by new information, and I have dismissed formerly held views as impractical due to the balance of empirical evidence. Nonetheless, I will have a hard time relating to those who start from different basic principles. It doesn't interest me much to learn why people have different principles in that regard; I can respect most views, be surprised by those that are radically different, quibble over finer points with those that are similar, but if you think X and I think Y and we're starting from entirely different places there's not enough common ground to keep talking.

There are also views I simply can't find myself respecting at all — racism, for example.

I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.

If a position was self-evidently wrong, no one would hold it

Kill all math nerds

http://lesswrong.com/lw/i6/professing_and_cheering/

| DA Page | Sketchbook |

Isn't it always the belief of the other, nowadays?

Kill all math nerds