Belief and conviction - a n00b question

[Jenne]

religion makes any argument somewhat predictable in discursive viewpoints--you believe or you don't...though the AIDS thing is perhaps a bit on the extreme side.

[LMNO]

Ok, less harsh.


"The Beatles fucking suck."


Same argument applies.  They're not wrong, but you also don't want to appear to agree, either.

[Jenne]

...unless you're ECH.

[LMNO]

Heh.


Srsly,
Address the issue.

[fomenter]

the "is AIDS a punishment from god"  in a more meta perspective is not so much an opinion as it is a reality tunnel "reality sphincter" true in some sense meaningless in some sense etc, if you live amongst Fundy's and using this map greases the skids of your  social interaction with them it is a working map and serves a purpose if it keeps you from engaging in risk behaviors it serves a purpose or is a working map , if you live amongst liberals it throws sand in the gears of your socialising with your neighbors it is a bad or non functioning map. the idea it self is valuable "or not" based on its use and ability work in the circumstance  where it is being used.

Fundy's and those that would say that aids is not a punishment are both confusing map with territory "maybe"

[Jenne]

Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.

For example:  "AIDS is a punishment by God."

What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well.  Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong".  But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.

Yes, you say, that's your opinion.  But, do you say, "That's not a fact, therefore you can't argue that"?  Or do you say, "Sorry, but that's indefensible simply because I don't hold that opinion myself"?

[Jenne]

Ok, less harsh.


"The Beatles fucking suck."


Same argument applies.  They're not wrong, but you also don't want to appear to agree, either.

Ok, so you say, that's a pretty strong opinion to have.  You realize millions disagree, and have done so enough to make those jokers very rich.  Got anything to back that up?

Give some meat to the opposite, and see if they can chew it.

The only time an extreme opinion is indefensible seems to be like the religious one (because of what FME described above) or when the person is just incapable of it because they lack the communication skills (like saying the Beatles suck because they have a feeling rather than an opinion about it--they find it distasteful but can't describe why).

[fomenter]

Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.

For example:  "AIDS is a punishment by God."

What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well.  Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong".  But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.

Yes, you say, that's your opinion.  But, do you say, "That's not a fact, therefore you can't argue that"?  Or do you say, "Sorry, but that's indefensible simply because I don't hold that opinion myself"?

having lived in Fundy country where statements like this get thrown around on a regular basis i will do one of two things, #1 "let it slide" making a mental note to my self about it being a map applicable in some cases. or #2 when its possible and the audience is potentially receptive i will try to explain my view of maps and territory or use the language of meta views to convey how this map does apply in this case but not in that. 

[Jenne]

Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.

For example:  "AIDS is a punishment by God."

What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well.  Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong".  But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.

Yes, you say, that's your opinion.  But, do you say, "That's not a fact, therefore you can't argue that"?  Or do you say, "Sorry, but that's indefensible simply because I don't hold that opinion myself"?

having lived in Fundy country where statements like this get thrown around on a regular basis i will do one of two things, #1 "let it slide" making a mental note to my self about it being a map applicable in some cases. or #2 when its possible and the audience is potentially receptive i will try to explain my view of maps and territory or use the language of meta views to convey how this map does apply in this case but not in that. 

Dude, you are brave for doing even that.  I've learned to just smile and nod while saying, "Well, I disagree."

[indifferent betty]

Cheers guys, some great feedback here.

And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.

The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds. Unfortunatley, the world has made me weary of my fellow man, more specifically, in his reaction to new data and I have found him to become quite irate sometimes when presented with a new idea. Sometimes the rejection of the new data is punctuated physically (or at least the threat of such action), yet despite this I still feel compelled to try and share. I guess I just wanted to know whether I was going about it the right way, but it seems the underlying questions really are "Should I even bother?" and "Is it really worth the risk?"

Thanks.

[fomenter]

Dude, you are brave for doing even that.  I've learned to just smile and nod while saying, "Well, I disagree."

i would be viewed as a heretic even if i said nothing so in most cases nothing lost.

if you invite some Mormons or jw's into your house  you can learn some cool tricks for presenting people with information they might otherwise be non receptive to, start with a point of agreement posed as a question and then lead them to your conclusions/ideas with a series of questions that are structured in a way that most people will answer in the affirmative..   

[fomenter]

the study/practice Eprime removing "is" from your language eliminates many of the arguments caused by my is IS different from your is.

the use of questions mentioned above also "when done well" creates a "we are seeking wisdom  pursuing truth together feel to the conversation".

and having the respect of those you speak to, my Fundy friends acquaintances view me as being a good/moral/responsible adult, they would trust me to have a key to their house watch their kids and my weird philosophical religious ideas don't cost me their respect.

[Jenne]

Dude, you are brave for doing even that.  I've learned to just smile and nod while saying, "Well, I disagree."

i would be viewed as a heretic even if i said nothing so in most cases nothing lost.

if you invite some Mormons or jw's into your house  you can learn some cool tricks for presenting people with information they might otherwise be non receptive to, start with a point of agreement posed as a question and then lead them to your conclusions/ideas with a series of questions that are structured in a way that most people will answer in the affirmative..  

Oh, I guess I do a form of that with my fundie relatives and in-laws.  My husband's a fucking proverbial bull in the china shop, so while I soften what he says, we both send out a message of "let's remove the religion from your stance and see if it still holds water."

[fomenter]

i kinda envy those capable of a bull in the china shop  "enjoy the sound of shattering glass" approach. But for to have a productive discussion, having a few soft style verbal jujitsu skills gets you further and is probably better for making your ideas heard and hearing the ideas of others.

in some circumstances  it would feel good to just shit on others stupid with no regard for anything. the Internet is a great place to be on those days

[Kai]

Ok, less harsh.


"The Beatles fucking suck."


Same argument applies.  They're not wrong, but you also don't want to appear to agree, either.

Walk away or change the subject.

Or give some quaint answer like "theres no accounting for taste".