Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Dec 4, 2007 1:48:32 GMT -5
A good thought of the day I saved: "If you ever find yourself defending a position, explaining why, or justifying anything, it means you have been defeated. It means you have not been able to accept the others point of view, or the fact that you may be wrong. Fear has conquered your mind and your heart. Your defenses are up and you are running scared. It's not that the other person has conquered you, it's the self-created fear that is in control. Until you can accept the other (you don't have to agree) and you are not threatened by the other, your victories will be delayed. It's a funny old world when true winning is accepting not resisting, when victory is found in the wisdom to stop fighting and to begin engaging." Source: www.thoughtfortoday.org.uk-------------------- I really like this. However, I think it needs clarification: to engage, you have to explain why you think the way you do; the key thing to watch for is your feelings behind your explanations and defenses. This makes me think of the stories of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Dec 4, 2007 17:02:55 GMT -5
Well, this applies largely to when conversations have turned into a metaphor for a battle, with two sides. It's not necessarily a waging war... it could be a friendly duel. In any case, I think this is mostly right, except for the fact that when you have been backed into a corner, often times you must use your last means of defense. That involves, well, defense. At this point in the battle, you're not trying to convince others of anything, but just trying to survive. You're stuck just trying to fend off the blows, which may be coming from someone with a weaker arguement, but stronger tactics.
Real defeat, I think, is shutting the person out entirely. That is tantamount to admitting defeat. The one exception is when you leave in a "I am better than this" attitude... IF appropriate. But simply defending your position against a relentless attacker is not bad, for it is the attacker who should, if they're friendly enough, allow for the battle to resume by allowing the attacked to stand up again.
Someone who makes up their own enemies, or amplifies attacks through their own will, is only defeating themselves. Sheesh, conversation sure is brutal these days ^_-
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Dec 4, 2007 18:36:20 GMT -5
In that case, you've lost. It shouldn't be a fight.
"I have my views, and you have yours." =) Just like in explaining my position here: I'm engaging with your ideas by listening, evaluating, and comparing them to my own. No matter your tactics, I'm simply trying to engage you, understand you, and assist you in doing the same. If I were defensive, I might start throwing a tantrum. Tantrum = lose
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Dec 5, 2007 17:56:35 GMT -5
Well, if you're arguing that a strong argument comes from strong tactics (argumentation skills), I disagree. One is dependent on the person, the other on the idea. However, it is true that someone with terrible tactics could make the idea seem weak, but I believe that to only be a false perception.
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Dec 5, 2007 19:59:54 GMT -5
I have no idea where you derived that O.o I'm not talking about the strength of your argument... this has nothing to do with that. You can argue whatever you want as well or as poorly as you like, as kindly or as vindictively as you want, as helpful to my views or as hurtful as they may be...
...and I'll still be open and engage you, because I'm not afraid to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Dec 15, 2007 4:44:01 GMT -5
I was only addressing the idea of "losing" in a discussion. We lose when we run away or shut out, not when we defend or justify ourselves. Sometimes, the other has made us have to resort to this. It is not uncommon, nor as offensive as you make it out to be. All about context, though.
In general I agree with you
|
|
Kyle
Full Member
~~~~~ Trust Beyond See ~~~~~ "One light will tear apart the night"
Posts: 204
|
Post by Kyle on Dec 15, 2007 8:30:54 GMT -5
*tries to approach this four different ways, deleting them all when it sounds like he's only going to repeat himself*
I think you've missed the point and only "heard" what resonates with what you already think. I base this on these queries:
* Where did I say that defending yourself was uncommon? * Where did I say that doing so was offensive? * How can you "generally agree" with me when you disagree with the key tenets of my statement, that we lose when we defend or justify ourselves?
I believe this is near the whole point of the matter. If I may, I'll attempt to put this idea into practice by engaging you further.
* How can someone make you do anything? (you said they make you resort to that) * Why do you need the other person to agree with you? Why defend your position?
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Dec 19, 2007 5:18:52 GMT -5
Ah I see your point now - you hold that the person should never defend their beliefs, just state them resolutely. I disagree... but mainly I'm thinking of a situation in which someone personally attacks someone else's opinion maliciously. Though I think there are multiple ways of handling the situation (shutting the person out or telling them to shove it), defending your position in a mature fashion is not losing.
It is not a matter of making someone agree with you, as it is to fend off the foul blows of a most unreasonable sort of person. That is, if they really are unreasonable.
In most civilized conversations, though, you are right.
|
|