posted
Have you ever been in an argument when you realize that the other person's entire existence is based on an intangible thought or moral base that could be shattered with just a few words, leaving the person in total ruin?
And you say them anyways?
Or, when someone offers up a glurge, and finds so much happiness in it, but you know its nothing more than an Urban Legend. How do you look into those naive puppy-dog eyes and say it?
Do you say it?
At what moral cost is the truth unrevealable?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have you ever been in an argument when you realize that the other person's entire existence is based on an intangible thought or moral base that could be shattered with just a few words, leaving the person in total ruin?
I don't believe this is possible (I think people are by nature more than their beliefs), and if it were, I would believe a person would be better off not basing their entire existence on a falsity.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never had the opportunity to destroy someone's worldview with a single phrase. If I ever get this opportunity, I sincerely hope to be able to take pictures first.
As to the second part of your question, though: I ALWAYS point people to Snopes. Always. It's like doing the world a favor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said in another thread recently, debating with someone whom you don't care about is a waste of time.
There's that LDS scripture about "Reproving betimes with sharpness...and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love..."
You have to stick around "afterwards." Don't mess with the person if you intend to leave him in ruins.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
have been in a position where one sentence would destroy someone's complete argument, but I have to say, never in a case where it would destroy their entire existence or belief system or what not. And I took it, because people's beliefs and arguments are a lot like object, when you drive them around long enough they've got enough inertia that taking out the engine isn't going to bring them to a crashing halt. Besides which, the longer they hold onto beliefs that do not work, the worse the crash will be when (and excuse the corny metaphor here) they hit the wall of truth.
posted
HRE, haven't you heard of the Prime Directive Hobbes, I can't help but point out that that Well, it's just especially funny that you spelled sentence, sentance and woman, women. And it just happens that that was the last post I read by you. But I totally don't think spelling is emanent to the quality of your argument. And I don't know if I used emanent right there, or if it has an a or an e in the second syllable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
in most instances, it is QUITE possible to balance truth with intangible values that people value.
In the others, I'd make DAMN sure I knew without even a shadow of a doubt that it was TRUTH beforeI even cosidered shattering.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Usually, I don't have quite THAT much contempt for my opponent.
I do. Sometimes. Some of my opponents in my work-related life are deserving of contempt. Others are not. I also know if I show contempt, I better make the reasons easily understandable to an audience.
But I do debate, confrontation and advocacy for a living. So, having said that, it's not something I expect to do in this forum. I try not to engage in a "take no prisoners" approach in my personal relations. Sometimes, it's required when I'm on the job.
I've really destroyed some illusions when I've addressed the following myth:
"We care enough for our pets to give them euthanasia; why can't we do the same thing for our loved ones?"
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who believe that they can crush another person's worldview with a single phrase often have either a complete misunderstanding of their opponents actual worldview, or a grossly over inflated opinion of their own.
I totally agree with the idea about "crushing a worldview."
But one can expose certain "cherished" beliefs. IF the beliefs are assumed to have a factual basis and IF you can demonstrate the lack of the factual basis. Or at least gross inconsistency.
Core beliefs are pretty dang impervious. Gotta look at the support struts.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Well, it's just especially funny that you spelled sentence, sentance and woman, women. And it just happens that that was the last post I read by you. But I totally don't think spelling is emanent to the quality of your argument. And I don't know if I used emanent right there, or if it has an a or an e in the second syllable.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
