Community Chat

[dex]

I don't have many strong opinions so I am difficult to argue with.I am usually interested in the ideas and thoughts of others during any discussion.i don't feel offended if someone doesn't agree with me and I can form a new opinion based on their ideas presented or not. I just listen,try to learn and leave it at that when someone is passionate about their belief.

[house_cat]

My DH is a wonderful man, but he's quite opinionated. I learned LONG ago that it's better to be happy than right.  I let him get the last word and then I proceed to do whatever I want.  He doesn't seem to have noticed yet, lol.

[RainCityWoman]

---

@maestra wrote:

---

@Teddie wrote:

I think a person is being open minded when they “give” something to the person they’re speaking with, acknowledging what they said is worth considering. We all want to feel heard, even if there is disagreement. 

---

---

---

I prefer to say that we will have to agree to disagree.

---

Me too!!!!!

[excpa]

There seems to be a question of the definition of OPINION.  

I once , briefly, went to  a doctor who, when I reported that a certain topical preparation stings me, replied "No it doesn't".    I think his self-applied halo was cutting off his oxygen.   Seems to be a fairly common problem.

[ScarletDove]

---

@Mominohio wrote:

The 'agree to disagree' comment usually leaves me not wishing to carry on any future discussions with the person, as I see it more as a way of pouting and being dismissive.

---

Isn't it interesting how different people interpret a statement, for I do not see "agree to disagree" anything akin to pouting or being dismissive.  When my son and I have a discussion and it reaches a wall, the way to avoid ill will, attitude and/or argument that goes nowhere but south, "agree to disagree" ends the impass, it keeps both of us civil with each other, and we remain respectful, moving on to a different discussion! Neither of us needs the last word!

So if mominohio and I reached a stalemate in conversation and I said "agree to disagree", would she view me as pouty and dismissive and I view ending the topic with respect for each other's differing opinion?

[Cakers3]

I often see that people are entitled to their opinions but not their own facts.

I do agree to a point but opinions can be based on facts.  We are products of our environment so sometimes there is a grey area between fact and opinion.

I have opinions on environmental issues, e.g., but I TRY very hard to base those opinions on facts.

I also present facts on such issues and of course my opinion on a situation, such as using disposable items, would be factual in terms of environmental harm but my opinion disliking them would also be factural.

Clear as mud.  And that's a fact. LOL

[suzyQ3]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

I often see that people are entitled to their opinions but not their own facts.

I do agree to a point but opinions can be based on facts.  We are products of our environment so sometimes there is a grey area between fact and opinion.

I have opinions on environmental issues, e.g., but I TRY very hard to base those opinions on facts.

I also present facts on such issues and of course my opinion on a situation, such as using disposable items, would be factual in terms of environmental harm but my opinion disliking them would also be factural.

Clear as mud.  And that's a fact. LOL

---

@Cakers3, consider me in the muck, then, because I understand exactly what you are trying diplomatically to say.

[Financialgrl]

---

@QVCkitty1 wrote:

How about you've given me something to think about ?

---

I recently told a friend that.  He usually presents a side of an issue I've never thought much about.  He once asked if I pay attention when he speaks cuz I'm so quiet. 

I told him absolutely not - that truthfully more times than not he gives me a perspective I've not taken into consideration.  I also told him that when that happens, I'm just processing something he said but sometimes while I'm thinking about that he's moved on to other subjects and by the time I catch up it makes it seem like I've been ignoring him. 

[Oostende]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@Oostende wrote:

I will absolutely push if there is a tangible benefit to a person I love.  I will win when I feel strongly that my course of action will provide a benefit.  Examples would be pushing doctors for better care or pushing teachers for better results for a child.

I don't have any interest in arguing with ideologues.  Perhaps that is why our society used to admonish us to stay away from topics like politics and religion.  In such discussions, particularly on the internet, respondents frequently just want to inflame a discussion rather than learn from another person.  Those exchanges are useless to me.

I will generally drop a discussion where the other participant isn't educated to a level high enough to form a reasoned opinion.  Politics and religion are fine examples there as well.  The issues are too complex to discuss without a firm understanding of underlying causal effects.  It is astonishing how many people argue with memes or buzz words or soundbites.  At that point, all discourse degrades into sound and fury signifying nothing, as Shakespeare so eloquently put it.  

---

The highlighted statement truly comes off as supercilious.

People can have opinions based on experience, intuition, and reasoning, regardless of the level of their education. 

I've often found the most educated people pay less attention to reason, and more to emotion in forming opinions. 

---

@Mominohio, oh, I was so right there with you until...the sentence that I bolded. I think that you ended up in the same boat with @Oostende (who later posted that she didn't mean it the way it sounded).

Not only is your statement a blanket indictment; I would say that, at least in my experience, it's not at all an astute observation. In fact, it somewhat expresses the current lack of appreciation and respect for those who are most educated.

As an aside, I at times have used most of the phrases recommended on this thread, when I think we have have reached the point of no return.

But frankly, they are passive-aggressive and rather smarmy. I think that just letting the other person have the last word is probably for the best as long as it's not considered a weakness in one's argument but rather an acknowledgment that we're at an impasse and that further discussion could become too volatile.

---

@suzyQ3  and @Mominohio  My original statement is truly what I stand by in matters where empirical evidence is required.  Mominohio pointed out that there are many other realms of discussion where common sense and personal experience are enough.  I hope my second post acknowledged that I sounded supercilious, to use Mominohio's excellent phrasing.

To clarify though, many times common sense isn't enough.  If we were having a disagreement about the Battle of Thermopylae, you would actually have to have some hard facts at your disposal.  Your intuition would tell you nothing useful. 

That goes for many of the political arguments, religious arguments, etc.  Hopefully that clarifies what I mean by "educated to a high enough level to form a reasoned opinion."

I hadn't realized that my statement could be taken in a different fashion than the one I intended.  I appreciate the feedback.  I truly strive to post precisely what I mean, because otherwise, what's the point?      

[Rockycoast]

I'm with the "agree to disagree" group.  I have listened to your(using your/you in the general sense) end of the discussion/debate. Nothing you have said has changed my mind or the facts that be, so there is nothing for you to be right about imo. It ends the conversasion in a draw, equal footing to both sides.