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?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((HRE))) [Welcome!]
Truth is overrated.
Truth is unique to each person. My truth is different than your truth.
If you want to be nasty and crush someone, do so. Don't bring truth into it.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Usually, I don't have quite THAT much contempt for my opponent.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
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.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
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.
Hobbes
[ March 02, 2004, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Forget spell checker, I would pay for a Pooka checker.
Hobbes Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Snopes is good...I usually consider it mercy killing, and I most often point it out to the above-mentioned puppy-eyed people.
Perhaps I exaggerated my first paragraph...but you all seem to get the idea.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
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.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Geoff said:
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?"
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
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.
In my experience.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Slash,
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.
![[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)