Quote:
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
It depends. I let things slide all the time for several reasons. The main one is it may not be a big deal, or more specifically, it may not be a big deal to me. If someone wants to believe in Santa Clause, what do I care? One of the biggest “contests” people have is proving they are more political correct than anyone else. IMHO, PC is a bane on our society so I try to stay out of that mental masturbation. Would I challenge the wisdom of not getting vaccines for deadly or deforming virtues? Yes, I would. In fact, I think the actual behavior to be challenged is Ophra or anyone else to host such dangerous nonsense.
|
A-to-da-men! Speaking of mental masturbation...may I hear more of that "special" Christmas gift???
The stuff I chose to give this past holiday season certainly pales in comparison. Oh well...live & learn!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
Two things come to mind. One, sometimes it’s in the delivery. And two, just because its the truth, definitely doesn’t mean people want to hear it.
|
I consider the choice between truth & civility a false choice...it's not an either/or proposition. I do think it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. I do think it's possible to tell someone they are flat-out wrong the same way. If they're not in a place to hear what you're saying, that's their problem...or yours if...God forbid...they are right. I fail to see how simply saying something more stridently or more rudely is going to change that.
I'm not a fan of arguing by analogy but...I do think it's rather like trying to speak to someone who simply doesn't speak your language. Is repeating the sentence more slowly...more loudly...more demeaningly...really going to improve the comprehension?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
Ain’t that just the truth. I used to have a friend that would get mad at me when I would disagree with her or state a truism about the world as it stands that didn’t jive with her delicate sensibilities. It’s not my fault that’s the just way it is.
|
I have a brother that is the same way. The older he gets...the MORE dogmatic he becomes. If you disagree with him, not only are you wrong...you're morally inferior. To steal from Joe Jackson, he's...
"Not talking about right & left. Talkin' about right & wrong..."
The dichotomy that blows my mind is...other than that...he's the nicest guy I've ever met. Would do anything for anyone...give you the shirt off his back. Just a nice, nice...but incredibly weird dude... He simply can't help exercising his license to tell everyone where it's at & telling those he "loves" how they ought to be living there life.
Consequently, no one else in the family will argue with him any more...especially when it comes to any of his "hot button" issues. He BELIEVES no one argues because he's right & we all agree with him. The rest of us KNOW it's simply a waste of time & we all value peace in the family above listening to...or being the subject of...one of his tirades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson
I'm just going to say this: the truth cannot be argued. If there are challenging theories on a truth, it's only a publicly accepted truth, which still doesn't make it the absolute truth. Since engaging in this forum, I have not seen any group of people attack any one as I've seen in the last week or so. YES, I notice it too. You take the total of what a person says and blow it completely out of proportion. Just to be ugly. Any entity in this WORLD has the room to become exploitative. Even science. The police. Religious leaders. Government. Not even as a whole, just a few within it. That's all it takes. We're not all going to renounce our religious beliefs because a few of you are adamant that religion is for idiots. I will RESPECTFULLY let you have your opinion. You can call our differences two different sets of publicly accepted truths...
I love to debate. The point of debate is to allow for different frames of reference, eliminating one-track minded thinking. You ever look at how debates are won? It's not about the truth, it's about who presents their argument the best. And these talks should not be in search of a truth, but to see differing opinions of various topics. And there should be no winners. I'm pretty sure that there were people who read the threads on religion, but to keep from telling some of you to kiss theirs and God's ass, they didn't respond. This is not the place to look for conversions.
What happened to live and let live? Damn...
|
I now have the soundtrack from JC Superstar now playing on the radio station in my head. From the trial....
Jesus
Yes you can see I am
I look for truth
And find that I get damned
Pilate
What is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths
Are mine the same as yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky
It was the personal stabs that bothered me....but I know from experience that when you sugar coat it you end up with a much greater influence with them than when you just lose your temper, and yell.
|
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeuр
There is no such thing as either of these. Both are subject to interpretation...
I will always be me, and will only regard my own version of the truth and my own version of politeness, if those versions don't match up with yours, too damn bad...
|
Well, well, well....look what the cat dragged in! You "slumming"; or, is this part of the audition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
This thread is about science NOT being dogmatic. Period. If you are talking to others fine, forget what I am saying but I am not trying to change anyone's mind about their religion or that one is better than the other.
All I am saying is that science is not dogmatic. I will be happy to discuss this with anyone that has a hard time understanding that fact.
I hope that puts any misunderstanding to rest.
|
Just two quick points, WT, I'm not going down your rabbit hole on this one...
1. Capital "S" science is NOT dogmatic. Couldn't agree with you more in that regard. Scientists...are people...just like the rest of us. Some of us are dogmatic...some of us are not. Some of us are normally not dogmatic...but have our "hot button" issues about which we are more susceptible.
That's the bigger concern to me. Rather than expend my bullets defending capital-S "science"...I'd spend them arguing about the fact that scientific research seems more susceptible to...."corruption"...for lack of a better word...than ever before. To use your example, Jenny McCarthy's ridiculous assertions about vaccinations gained traction, in part, because someone was willing to - for a price - produce an study with ginned-up results that supported the assertion. Put those results in front of those that desperately wish to believe what she's saying...bingo! You get,
"I'm not letting some egghead scientist make MY kid autistic..."
The bigger concern to me, and maybe it's just me, is that there are folk that aren't just anti-science...they're anti-intellectual. Knowledge & "book learnin'" be over-rated. But, that's not new... What is new, & more troubling to me, is that the decline in education, overall, makes many more susceptible to the disease...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
I started this thread not to go after Lauren but to have a discussion on just WTF science is.
|
2. So, you say. I, for one, choose to believe that. If that makes me naive, so be it. But, I would posit for your consideration...and your private reflection...that many here who have interacted with you for quite some period of time...find that hard to believe.
My experience, and it's just that - mine, is that if you can make a point AND take a jab at the view of one you disagree with at the same time...well, so much the better! Sometimes it's funny...sometimes it's annoying. Again, both are in the perception of the beholder. Their perception IS their reality...until enacted upon in some way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
nina was personally offended by Lauren's blanket personal jab at science.
I am not sure if that is the personal jab of which you speak but I kinda doubt it. Do you see how nina can only scratch her head at how you pick and choose on what is offensive?
She responded in kind.
It appears Lauren pm'd her that her views on science were not where her jab was directed. I can only assume they were directed at me, even though nina and my view on science were almot exactly the same.
Anyway this is not what the thread was about....it was about people having a hard time understanding exactly just what science is or isn't.
I hope any further discussion of a personal nature can be done by pm's.
|
2 (cont). Unless Nina is a reincarnation of someone know here before...of course she would find ALL of this puzzling...if not downright disturbing! She's a newcomer to battles some of us have been fighting...literally, for years.
If I didn't say so before...shame on me! Where be my manners? Welcome to the madness, Nina!