quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Aug 3, 2015 13:46:21 GMT -5
Fuck that, unless it is actually an opinion on chocolate vs. vanilla. That said, it is entirely possible that there is a way to see marriage equality as an attack on the rights of religious folk. There is an erosion of privilege. This is a loss. It is a loss of something I don't think people should have had in the first place, like men having the sole right to vote, (or hey, hold property.) The loss of being the only religious group to put holiday displays on state property, perhaps. It is definitely a loss of an (unjust) advantage. But "I'm no longer considered to be quite so high on the tippity top of the world" sounds like an asshole thing to say, because it is, so assholes find another way to say it.** **This is just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 13:50:05 GMT -5
Carl. I posted that on Facebook. I'm going to predict that the only thing people will comment on is that he suggests that it's fact that vaccines don't cause autism.
I do know them Tiny. They don't know me as well because I've generally let this stuff go in the past. And because my goal and method generally are to ask questions and try to get people to think/question.
Maybe im not as good at it anymore. Maybe I'm not as interested in being so any more. I just don't know. In my circle is it going to hurt me immediately if I let the notion of Christian/conservative persecution persist? Maybe not. But I have to think in the greater circle of things the idea could be dangerous.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 3, 2015 13:52:12 GMT -5
I did ask how gay marriage was taking away her rights. I was told I was challenging their beliefs and being intolerant of God's people. The polarization question was more the opinion that we need to 'go back' to a time when we were all Americans first and focused on common goals and I was challenging that idea of a golden age which I don't think is factually accurate... Can't think of a time when that was true representation. But as it was 'her opinion' I'm supposed to let it go. Actually I'm being told that the very act of me asking questions, or asking for evidence or verifificatoon is an attack. Everyone should be allowed to have their opinions,without being questioned. Ah, it basically boils down to "I'm right because I say I'm right" coupled with "If you dont' agree with me - you are against me!". Generally, when I get hit with the kinds of replies you got - I just let it go. I might say (and keep repeating endlessly if necessary) that we just need to agree to disagree (because there is NO WAY in the HELL I don't believe in that I'd agree with them). Sometimes you just need to smile and nod and change the conversation.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,031
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 3, 2015 13:53:21 GMT -5
When is it ok to agree to disagree. And when is it dangerous?
When is is it consequential/ inconsequential? What types of consquences are we talking about? I think DH is stupid for buying into Area 51 conspiracies. There really isn't anything dangerous about it and there aren't any real consequences besides I think he's stupid. If the consequences are my newborn daughter could contract whooping cough from your kid being unvaccinated then I'd say disagreeing with you is quite dangerous and matters quite a bit. So what is the scale we're talking about here as far as consequences and disagreeing?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 13:56:24 GMT -5
I am a more progressive, agnostic homeschooling in a conservative, religious area. I help run a VERY popular inclusive homeschholing group which is probably more popular because I hardly ever voice 'my side' and if I do it's in ways that search out common ground.
I feel like I need to constantly look at evidence and observe and those things can change "my side" ... But am I required to give "their side" equal consideration when it's mainly "opinion" statements with nothing else?
Am I just throwing a hissy fit? I don't think so...?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 13:57:52 GMT -5
Fuck that, unless it is actually an opinion on chocolate vs. vanilla. That said, it is entirely possible that there is a way to see marriage equality as an attack on the rights of religious folk. There is an erosion of privilege. This is a loss. It is a loss of something I don't think people should have had in the first place, like men having the sole right to vote, (or hey, hold property.) The loss of being the only religious group to put holiday displays on state property, perhaps. It is definitely a loss of an (unjust) advantage. But "I'm no longer considered to be quite so high on the tippity top of the world" sounds like an asshole thing to say, because it is, so assholes find another way to say it.** **This is just my opinion. Agree with this completely and where I was trying to go. But just asking "what rights are being taken away" was attacking her beliefs and opinions...
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 3, 2015 14:03:22 GMT -5
Carl. I posted that on Facebook. I'm going to predict that the only thing people will comment on is that he suggests that it's fact that vaccines don't cause autism. I do do know them Tiny. They don't know me as well because I've generally let this stuff go in the past. And because my goal and method generally are to ask questions and try to get people to think/question. Maybe im not as good at it anymore. Maybe I'm not as interested in being so any more. I just don't know. In my circle is it going to hurt me immediately if I let the notion of Christian/conservative persecution persist? Maybe not. But I have to think in the greater circle of things the idea could be dangerous. I hoping the people espousing this view are older (like over the age of 50) OR live somewhere without alot of diversity - cause that would explain their views. I think <-- hee hee hee, from my experience living in an area with 6 million other people that their view is a tiny minority. I think the religous ARE aware that their numbers are falling - but I think the 'clergy' knows it's because the youngsters aren't finding 'religion' teachings/services to be relevant to their lives - not necessarily that they do not feel a pull towards religion or spirituality... I guess (an opinion again!!) maybe some Christians could feel 'persecuted' when told they are their religious view (their interpretation)/religious practices are "irrelavant" to modern life. - NOT that the belief in God is irrelavant.... If you are worried they will commit an act of terrorism then I have no idea what you should do.... tell someone? but who?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,031
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 3, 2015 14:05:19 GMT -5
I feel like I need to constantly look at evidence and observe and those things can change "my side" ... But am I required to give "their side" equal consideration when it's mainly "opinion" statements with nothing else
Depends. I tend not to b/c it's not in my nature. I am trained to accept certain criteria when it comes to evidence for or against. "Dr. X posting it on his blog and by the way his personal line of supplements will do the trick" instead I am not going to consider a valid source of information/evidence for your position.
If these are people I need to keep the peace with and it's not going to harm me/mine in any way I keep my mouth shut. If it's in a scientific forum or I don't really give a crap what that person thinks then I'll let loose.
You don't HAVE to give their side equal consideration, but you may not want to pound it into the sand either. B/c odds are high that you will not change this person's mind and will only succeed in pissing them off and wanting to kill yourself. Sometimes it's worth it and other times it's not. Only you can decide if you want to entire that minefield or not.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Aug 3, 2015 14:06:05 GMT -5
This seems like it should be an easy one. What is the difference? Specifically, does adding I think or I feel before a statement make it an opinion rather than a fact. You can add "I think or I feel" to any opinion you have. However, it may make your opinion wrong. For example, "I think I can kill and rob someone without going to jail". Sure this is your opionion, but it's a wrong one. Facts can be checked and verified...they are either true or not, right or wrong. Opinions, well, everyone has them...thank God. They are a subjective take on the world: seeing things through your eyes and sensibilities. People also have opinions about facts. It gets complicated, but it is simple.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:10:07 GMT -5
I guess the point I must be at is deciding if these are people who I need to keep peace with/ care what they think... they wont commit mm it acts of terrorism They aren't 50+ set though. Again, I'm sure area is an issue. I should have moved a few years ago... Sigh.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 3, 2015 14:18:34 GMT -5
When is it ok to agree to disagree. And when is it dangerous? When is is it consequential/ inconsequential? I don't think I need people to come to my side. Some times I wish they would question their own. I think it really depends on the issue, and how big a deal it is, and that is going to vary from person to person. Regarding the racially charged opinion - I don't know that this can be "proven" one way or another - so as long as the discussion and debate was civil - disagreement would not bother me. If the other person is of the opinion that opinions must NEVER be questioned and debate and conversation is off the table....yeah...I would probably either avoid them, or just stop talking about anything of any importance.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 3, 2015 14:20:41 GMT -5
I feel like I need to constantly look at evidence and observe and those things can change "my side" ... But am I required to give "their side" equal consideration when it's mainly "opinion" statements with nothing else
Depends. I tend not to b/c it's not in my nature. I am trained to accept certain criteria when it comes to evidence for or against. "Dr. X posting it on his blog and by the way his personal line of supplements will do the trick" instead I am not going to consider a valid source of information/evidence for your position. If these are people I need to keep the peace with and it's not going to harm me/mine in any way I keep my mouth shut. If it's in a scientific forum or I don't really give a crap what that person thinks then I'll let loose. You don't HAVE to give their side equal consideration, but you may not want to pound it into the sand either. B/c odds are high that you will not change this person's mind and will only succeed in pissing them off and wanting to kill yourself. Sometimes it's worth it and other times it's not. Only you can decide if you want to entire that minefield or not. seriously. Choose your battles.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Aug 3, 2015 14:21:41 GMT -5
People who are deeply religious are primitive....that's my opinion, and for what it's worth.
But I would never want to take that away from them: whatever the religion.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 3, 2015 14:22:08 GMT -5
I am a more progressive, agnostic homeschooling in a conservative, religious area. I help run a VERY popular inclusive homeschholing group which is probably more popular because I hardly ever voice 'my side' and if I do it's in ways that search out common ground. I feel like I need to constantly look at evidence and observe and those things can change "my side" ... But am I required to give "their side" equal consideration when it's mainly "opinion" statements with nothing else?
Am I just throwing a hissy fit? I don't think so...? Well, sometimes someone's "opinion" statements have some nugget of truth (wheather the person with the opinion realizes it or not). Sometimes "opinion" statements are just "code words" used to represent something else. I'd suggest, just for fun, considering what's behind their 'opinion' statements... what's really driving them? That's a way to productively give "their side" some consideration. People often don't literally mean what the words they say mean. Some people just repeat scripts - because that's what they've heard or have always said...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:23:03 GMT -5
And the thing is, I would be open to opposite facts, entertaining new information, or even different interpretation, but it doesn't feel like that is what I'm getting. It's, well. That's my opinion, so you can't question it. It's just it.
So so I need to decide if I'm ok with that I guess.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 3, 2015 14:26:43 GMT -5
I have a very hard time dealing with the personality type you have described. If I wasn't forced to be civil (i.e. I'm related to them) I would not go out of my way to engage. I would remain civil, but would definitely stop trying to engage in conversations with them. They appear to be quite happy with their opinion, and have no interest in seeing an alternate view; no amount of talk is going to over come that type of close minded intransigence.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 3, 2015 14:27:26 GMT -5
And the thing is, I would be open to opposite facts, entertaining ne information, or even different interpretation, but it doesn't feel like that is what I'm getting. It's, well. That's my opinion, so you can't question it. It's just it. So so I need to decide if I'm ok with that I guess. Save your religious arguing for Virgil.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:28:16 GMT -5
People who are deeply religious are primitive....that's my opinion, and for what it's worth. But I would never want to take that away from them: whatever the religion. Neither would I. I don't challenge their religious beliefs. I don't think the idea that they are losing rights through gay marriage is a religious belief though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:29:09 GMT -5
"It's funny you feel that way when the data proves the opposite. Why do you think your perception is so far off?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:31:31 GMT -5
I am a more progressive, agnostic homeschooling in a conservative, religious area. I help run a VERY popular inclusive homeschholing group which is probably more popular because I hardly ever voice 'my side' and if I do it's in ways that search out common ground. I feel like I need to constantly look at evidence and observe and those things can change "my side" ... But am I required to give "their side" equal consideration when it's mainly "opinion" statements with nothing else?
Am I just throwing a hissy fit? I don't think so...? Well, sometimes someone's "opinion" statements have some nugget of truth (wheather the person with the opinion realizes it or not). Sometimes "opinion" statements are just "code words" used to represent something else. I'd suggest, just for fun, considering what's behind their 'opinion' statements... what's really driving them? That's a way to productively give "their side" some consideration. People often don't literally mean what the words they say mean. Some people just repeat scripts - because that's what they've heard or have always said... I do. I think. Like someone said earlier, I think when the person said "I'm losing my rights' what she actually was doing was "mourning her loss of privledge'. I completely understand how that could happen. I guess I just wanted her to maybe get to that place herself and by asking questions was hoping to get her to think about it. But I was not supposed to ask her what rights were being taken away from her.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 3, 2015 14:32:08 GMT -5
And the thing is, I would be open to opposite facts, entertaining ne information, or even different interpretation, but it doesn't feel like that is what I'm getting. It's, well. That's my opinion, so you can't question it. It's just it. So so I need to decide if I'm ok with that I guess. Is it a case of Doublethink? You know: From the Wikipedia (because you know it's an Authority!!!) I just love Orwell... It can be entertaining (like rolling a 20 in a RPG or finally seeing the Yellow Bellied Sap Sucker ) when you come across people who seem to have managed and are comfortable with their ability to Doublethink....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:32:36 GMT -5
"It's funny you feel that way when the data proves the opposite. Why do you think your perception is so far off?" Perceptions about what's? Could you clarify for me? Thanks I'm not sure exactly what this is in reference to..?
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Aug 3, 2015 14:34:24 GMT -5
"It's funny you feel that way when the data proves the opposite. Why do you think your perception is so far off?" My perception is bang on...most of the time I can't be right always...I have some mediocre days.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 3, 2015 14:34:15 GMT -5
"It's funny you feel that way when the data proves the opposite. Why do you think your perception is so far off?" Perceptions about what's? Could you clarify for me? Thanks I'm not sure exactly what this is in reference to..? fact is, you do know what this is in reference to.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 3, 2015 14:36:28 GMT -5
People who are deeply religious are primitive....that's my opinion, and for what it's worth. But I would never want to take that away from them: whatever the religion. Hmmm, my personal experience is that some of the deeply religious are quite enlightened and far from primative. They've questioned their beliefs and found satisfactory answers and for their questions and the questions they are still working on -- they are comfortable with the continous search for 'answers' to their doubts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 14:36:59 GMT -5
What I meant was, it is my assumption from evidence that her rights are not in fact being curtailed by gay marriage. So yes, when I asked the question I assumed that she would not be able to give me evidence. However, if when I asked the question she gave me some evidence that her rights were in fact being taken away, I would consider that evidence. I wouldn't just dismiss it inherently as false.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,483
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 3, 2015 14:45:34 GMT -5
What I meant was, it is my assumption from evidence that her rights are not in fact being curtailed by gay marriage. So yes, when I asked the question I assumed that she would not be able to give me evidence. However, if when I asked the question she gave me some evidence that her rights were in fact being taken away, I would consider that evidence. I wouldn't just dismiss it inherently as false. you could have just offered sympathy... about how bad you feel that she'll feel awkward and uncomfortable (when her Christian rights are curtailed) when she has to witness 'gay marriage' in everyday life... My gosh! I was just buying a gift card and a Wedding Shower greeting card at Target - and there were Shower and Wedding Greeting cards for Same Sex couples! I can only imagine the horror someone might feel coming across something like that while innocently looking for a traditional wedding shower card. Their 'right' to shop without being offended might be violated.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Aug 3, 2015 14:57:45 GMT -5
Hmmm, my personal experience is that some of the deeply religious are quite enlightened and far from primative.
They've questioned their beliefs and found satisfactory answers and for their questions and the questions they are still working on -- they are comfortable with the continous search for 'answers' to their doubts.
I hope they find their answers.
You know, the universe is not that complicated: we are born, we live and we die...we are biological creatures.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:37:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 15:09:34 GMT -5
Perceptions about what's? Could you clarify for me? Thanks I'm not sure exactly what this is in reference to..? fact is, you do know what this is in reference to. I'm guessing it is that I have said something that is not accurate? And evidence would prove it inaccurate. But I'm not sure what original statement it is referring to. I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Some times I do. Can you point me to the original, erroneous statement? Thanks.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 3, 2015 15:10:41 GMT -5
fact is, you do know what this is in reference to. I'm guessing it is that I have said something that is not accurate? And evidence would prove it inaccurate. But I'm not sure what original statement it is referring to. I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Some times I do. Can you point me to the original, erroneous statement? Thanks. later was just presenting a sentence that you should say to your friend.
|
|