agree to disagree?

[swayside]

-black and white issue

abortion

side 1-

abortion is ok under some/all circumstances.

side two-

under no circumstances is abortion ok.

one of these has to be right. there is absolutely no way that both of these could be right. in a case of direct contradiction between the only two possible sides of an issue (abortion is ok vs. abortion is not ok) one has to be right.

-indirect contradiction

color of the sky (for all intents and purposes, the sky is blue)

sernario #1

side one-

the sky is red

side two-

the sky is blue

the truth does not lie somewhere inbetween. the correct side is blue. side one is absolutely wrong.

senario #2

side one-

the sky is brown

side two-

the sky is red

side three-

the sky is yellow

two indirectly opposing opinions cannot be correct. one is either correct, closer to the truth than the other, or just as wrong as the other. while both are wrong, both red and yellow are closer to the truth than brown (on a color wheel), but neither are correct.

that's why we all can't just get along.

[peaceplease]

found your problem...

black and white.

life and death.

you must have gotten confused.

[swayside]

At 6/16/03 10:32 PM, peaceplease wrote: found your problem...

black and white.

life and death.

you must have gotten confused.

found your problem...

conceptual point vs. pressing the example's hypothetical arguments.

you obviously got confused.

[YellowJacketofGT]

first of all, your logic is flawed. The sky is not one set color. The sky changes colors. If the different layers that make up the sky (i.e. stratosphere) were to drastically change, then so would the color of said sky. Point made, even our current sky is not blue always. Look at a sunset or two. You'll see changes. That's how abortion is. It's wrong in a lot of cases (i.e. the sky is blue usually). However, there are some circumstances where it is a justifiable procedure. It's the definition of those cases that we are caught up on. But that's just like killing people. It's NOT ok for someone to do it at random. It is ok for someone to do it under self defense.

[cavscout]

You make a very valid arguement, Swayside. There will never be Utopia or Nirvana as long as humans are alive. It is in DNA to seperate, lead, segregate, and disagree. Everybody has their own agendas in life, no matter how much they deny it.

I agree to disagree....

[swayside]

At 6/16/03 10:45 PM, YellowJacketofGT wrote: first of all, your logic is flawed. The sky is not one set color. The sky changes colors. If the different layers that make up the sky (i.e. stratosphere) were to drastically change, then so would the color of said sky. Point made, even our current sky is not blue always. Look at a sunset or two. You'll see changes. That's how abortion is. It's wrong in a lot of cases (i.e. the sky is blue usually). However, there are some circumstances where it is a justifiable procedure. It's the definition of those cases that we are caught up on. But that's just like killing people. It's NOT ok for someone to do it at random. It is ok for someone to do it under self defense.

YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT!

i know that the sky changes color. i'd have to a star wars fan or a vampire to not know that. that's why i said, "for all intents and puposes, the sky is blue" so morons like you wouldn't nit-pick at stupid points like that, but obviously it wasn't fool-proof. you're argument is evidence of that.

also, this is not an abortion debate. i used that issue because everyone has a stance on it and it can be easily related to.

pay attention to the concept, not the examples.

[TheShrike]

Well, I think it's not always black and white, so to speak.

Like with abortion. Perhaps abortion is neither right or wrong, but an unimportant issue. In that case, it is only important to the individual. So both sides can be right. And wrong.

[swayside]

At 6/16/03 10:46 PM, cavscout wrote: You make a very valid arguement, Swayside. There will never be Utopia or Nirvana as long as humans are alive. It is in DNA to seperate, lead, segregate, and disagree. Everybody has their own agendas in life, no matter how much they deny it.

I agree to disagree....

sorry, cavscout, but i think you've misinterpreted me. i never agree to disagree. i may hold off on my opinion to formulate my thoughts on a matter for a while, but i have a stance on every issue.

also, it's not in dna to disagree. people disagree because they have different stances, not because they feel compelled to disagree with someone.

[Slizor]

pay attention to the concept, not the examples.

But you are trying to illustrate your point with faulty examples.....if you were to bring us an example where there is a clear right and wrong then maybe we wouldn't have to "nitpick" (notice, that it's a pretty big fucking hole in your argument if the sky changes colour.)

PS: Your = possessive, as in "your car". You're = You are, as in "You're stupid".

[karasz]

two things... first never agree to disagree (its a sign of weakness)

second, your choice of sides is pretty good... abortion right or wrong??? and to that i say well done...

although another way to ask the question albeit slightly skewed... are you pro-choice or pro-coathanger???

honestly i dont know whats wrong with me...

[poxpower]

At 6/17/03 06:23 PM, karasz wrote: two things... first never agree to disagree (its a sign of weakness)

I guess you must concede quite a lot then.

Meh, I don't get why you made this topic so complicated. Of course people can agree to disagree on almost everything, it's been the humankind's way of dealing with things forever. Usually, the only way to "convince" someone as smart as you is to beat them up.

[karasz]

At 6/17/03 11:23 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 6/17/03 06:23 PM, karasz wrote: two things... first never agree to disagree (its a sign of weakness)

I guess you must concede quite a lot then.

HA the jokes on you, everyone i debate usually gives up... eventually

Meh, I don't get why you made this topic so complicated. Of course people can agree to disagree on almost everything, it's been the humankind's way of dealing with things forever. Usually, the only way to "convince" someone as smart as you is to beat them up.

wait a second... i made a topic bout America being great cuz we can kick anyones ass, and you got all pissy at me...

now your saying beating people up is the best way to get people to agree with you...

care to explain your contradictory ways POX??? if that is your real name...

[poxpower]

At 6/18/03 09:51 PM, karasz wrote:
now your saying beating people up is the best way to get people to agree with you...

Not the best way, the ONLY way. You see, because people like YOU promote violence and strenght instead of justice and equity, the only way to make people do what you want is to fight them. But that mostly applies at a planetary level, as in country vs country, not a person vs another. Though, in some cases, some people (who are stubborn and violent) will fight each other over some thing.
The best way to convince someone is actually to work something out with them, but since that's being a pussy ( so you say) then people are forced to violence and war even if they don't want to.

if that is your real name...

It's phrases like these that make me doubt your intelligence.

[nitroxide]

No to people are put in the same exact situation im sure that given the right circumstances anyone would chose abortion...now on the other hand there are those that believe it is wrong for religious reasons,fine thats great for that individual he/she should be content in knowing that they are saved from damnation...but they really should fucking mind their business simple as that.Those that chose to do it let the people live with the consequences ive known from personal experiences and it is just as hard for the person giving up their childs life.Some people don't see any other possible way for their child to make it in this world,that is whats sad.

Can you imagine a world were we showed the world to the unborn fetus,that he/she was able to see what was expecting him/her...i wonder how many would choose to live life.How many of you guys would.All they have to show me is a acid trip and im chosing life...lol.

[swayside]

this topic is NOT about abortion or the color of the sky!

those were two hypotheticall arguments. abortion is black and white because one side leads to a world in which abortion exists, the other to one in which it doesn't. there is no inbetween in that.

secondly, i know the sky changes color. for the second time: that's why i said 'for all itents and purposes, the sky is blue'.

also, i'm aware of the fact that people can agree to disagree. i'm using this topic to say that just because you can doesn't affect who's right and wrong.

[calculon000]

Values and morals very from person to person, and even if someone did convince everyone in exsistence to come over to their side of the arguement, someone, somewhere, would be born eventually who would disagree. Therefore, you can never win an argument. The only solution is agreeing to disagree.

[DarkCyrstal]

hhhhhhhhh

[bumcheekcity]

Right... I've read this topic three times through and I have absolutely no idea what anyone is on about. Is there some debate over the colour of the sky?

[swayside]

i know i spelled it out clear enough, but people like you NEVER stop.

this topic is not about people's opinions! it's about how there is only ONE correct argument to EVERY political or moral issue regardless of wether or not that argument is present. people can think whatever they fricking want to, but if they're wrong, THEY'RE WRONG!! if the whole world knows the right way of thinking, and one day one person comes along thinking differently, that one person is wrong. if the whole world is screwed up completely, and one person, JUST ONE, comes along with the right way of thinking, then that person is right.

read this very carefully: what you think means squat, whether you're right or wrong. you yourself are inconsequensial to truth. you have nothing to do with the FACT that immutable truth is precisely what it is. wether you're for it or against it, it remains just as true. STOP BEING SO SELF-IMPORTANT AS TO THINK YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!

[PsychoDoughboy]

Nicely done.

[swayside]

uh... thanks...

[Slizor]

this topic is not about people's opinions! it's about how there is only ONE correct argument to EVERY political or moral issue regardless of wether or not that argument is present.

Sorry, I missed the bit where you proved this.

people can think whatever they fricking want to, but if they're wrong, THEY'RE WRONG!!

And how do you decide this? How do you know something is wrong?

[Shih]

This also fails to take into account that culture and upbringing change from place to place, what one culture finds wrong another may believe is right. Since moral judgements alter with time and place then their can't be only two sides to an issue, there is as many sides as their is people involved.

Oh, and Karasz agreeing to disagree is no sign of weakness but rather a sign of wisdom and understanding.

[swayside]

At 6/30/03 12:44 PM, Slizor wrote:

this topic is not about people's opinions! it's about how there is only ONE correct argument to EVERY political or moral issue regardless of wether or not that argument is present.

Sorry, I missed the bit where you proved this.

it goes without saying, you moron. are you just doing this to annoy me (this is a serious question, no sarchasm involved)?

assuming the answer to my question is 'no'...

let's say, for all intents and purposes, that the sky is blue all the time(did you get that? FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES! this means that the following situational example is hypothetical, and the situation illustrated is governed by the same laws and logic as the real world except for the part which is being altered {the sky's color} for sake of the argument. read it several times before you read on. you've shown no evidence that you grasp the concept of that phrase. say it in your mind a few times. no, seriously, you dolt. if you can't undersand that simple turn of phrase that is used for the purpose of hypothetical illustration, you have no place telling me that i have used "faulty examples" because you obviously either didn't read them well enough the first time, or you lack the logical standing to call me down for that. now, do you get it? if you still think my sky example is "faulty" then you obviously don't. keep reading it until you do. keep repeating to yourself or go ask your mom. look it up or something, just figure out that concept. when you do, read on...) and there is some dispute as to what color the sky is (i'm going to take a chance and let you come up with your own reason as to why there is some debate on this matter. mabey it's the mole people, photophobics, or whatever). some say yellow, some say brown, some say red, etc. regardless of the number of sides to this argument, the popularity of any side, or even any side's existance, the correct side is the side that says that the sky is blue. that is the truth. people on the 'red side' can pull massive publicity stunts to gain support, people on the 'yellow side' can be completely apathic to the argument, people on the 'blue side' can change their view to mimic the 'green side', and everyone can believe whole heartedly in and even die for their side, but only one side is correct, regardless of anything. it doesn't matter what people do, the truth remains, and they have nothing to do with it. until all incorrect sides to an argument

are proven wrong, the argument remains, as well.

assuming the aswer to my question is 'yes'...

you're an ass.

---

agreeing to disagree is a pretensious euphamism for holding your steam and avoiding an argument. if you believe something, but say that someone else can be just as right as you, i question your stance. or if you think that since there can be opposing sides to an argument with the same amount of faith in their

side that there can't be a right side, you are a self-important fool.

people can think whatever they fricking want to, but if they're wrong, THEY'RE WRONG!!

And how do you decide this? How do you know something is wrong?

it's not my place to decide what's right. what's right, already is right and doesn't need my help.

what i think is irrelevant in this topic. this isn't about my opinionations, or even yours. it's about how one of us (if even one of us) must be right. everything i think, along with everything you think, is, in this topic, hypothetical unless it addresses the topic itself (which you, so far, haven't done a very good job of). this topic is about the interaction and conceptual validity of sides to an argument, not the sides themselves, thus, once again, all sides to arguments, and even the arguments themselves, are hypothetical.

[Slizor]

Sorry, I missed the bit where you proved this.

it goes without saying, you moron. are you just doing this to annoy me

No, this is serious. Is there such a thing as truth? Can we know it if there is?

let's say, for all intents and purposes, that the sky is blue all the time(did you get that? FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES! and there is some dispute as to what color the sky is (i'm going to take a chance and let you come up with your own reason as to why there is some debate on this matter. mabey it's the mole people, photophobics, or whatever). some say yellow, some say brown, some say red, etc. regardless of the number of sides to this argument, the popularity of any side, or even any side's existance, the correct side is the side that says that the sky is blue. that is the truth. people on the 'red side' can pull massive publicity stunts to gain support, people on the 'yellow side' can be completely apathic to the argument, people on the 'blue side' can change their view to mimic the 'green side', and everyone can believe whole heartedly in and even die for their side, but only one side is correct, regardless of anything. it doesn't matter what people do, the truth remains, and they have nothing to do with it. until all incorrect sides to an argument

are proven wrong, the argument remains, as well.

It's funny you should use an example where all sides are in fact correct (or incorrect, depends on the way you look at it). The sky is red, the sky is blue, the sky is purple, it depends on what time of the day and where you look at it from. Then of course we could pull someone who is colour blind into the fray. What would they say? You would probably try to discount their views due to the fact they are colour blind, yet how do you know that they are no infact seeing correctly?

And how do you decide this? How do you know something is wrong?

it's not my place to decide what's right. what's right, already is right and doesn't need my help.

So how does an argument ever come to a conclusion?

what i think is irrelevant in this topic. this isn't about my opinionations, or even yours. it's about how one of us (if even one of us) must be right.

Or we could both be wrong, in fact we could both be right. Say we both support different political systems. And I say mine works best and you say yours works best. It is possible for either them to be better, the same, or worse. It depends on what you value more. If you value equality more, you would view my system as the best. If you value urm....some good point about your system, then you would go for your system.

PS: I cut out all that pointless crap.

[swayside]

At 7/1/03 12:36 PM, Slizor wrote:

Sorry, I missed the bit where you proved this.

it goes without saying, you moron. are you just doing this to annoy me

No, this is serious. Is there such a thing as truth? Can we know it if there is?

you can't be seriously asking me this. the answer to both questions is 'yes'. if you want another

example, just ask...

let's say, for all intents and purposes, that the sky is blue all the time(did you get that?

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES! and there is some dispute as to what color the sky is (i'm going to

take a chance and let you come up with your own reason as to why there is some debate on this

matter. mabey it's the mole people, photophobics, or whatever). some say yellow, some say brown,

some say red, etc. regardless of the number of sides to this argument, the popularity of any

side, or even any side's existance, the correct side is the side that says that the sky is blue.

that is the truth. people on the 'red side' can pull massive publicity stunts to gain support,

people on the 'yellow side' can be completely apathic to the argument, people on the 'blue side'

can change their view to mimic the 'green side', and everyone can believe whole heartedly in and

even die for their side, but only one side is correct, regardless of anything. it doesn't matter

what people do, the truth remains, and they have nothing to do with it. until all incorrect sides

to an argument

are proven wrong, the argument remains, as well.

It's funny you should use an example where all sides are in fact correct (or incorrect, depends

on the way you look at it). The sky is red, the sky is blue, the sky is purple, it depends on

what time of the day and where you look at it from. Then of course we could pull someone who is

colour blind into the fray. What would they say? You would probably try to discount their views

due to the fact they are colour blind, yet how do you know that they are no infact seeing

correctly?

have you just not read my posts? honestly, you've once again failed to recognize the fact that i

said 'for all intents and purposes'. not only that, but you're trying to get me on a technicality

with the color blind guy. it's a good thing that that doesn't work. as i've said, it doesn't matter what people believe. the truth is the only correct side regardless of what people see as truth.

reach down into the cold pit of your socialist soul and find any working part of your

imagination. i'm going to reword my example keeping the same points (that you blatently missed

the first, second and third times) and try to get you to understand it. ready?

once upon a time there was a magical place where the sky never changed color. it was always the

same brilliant blue color, and all the little bunnies of the land were happy to see it every day.

one day, to the dismay of the little bunnies, while they were all playing a game in a field,

three of the bunnies fell down an abandoned borrough and were sealed in by a large rock that

rolled onto the exit. the bunnies inside the hole could barely hear the other bunnies outside

the hole trying to get the boulder off the exit. the trapped bunnies grew frantic and started to

jump around in their nervousness and all three bumped their heads on the ceiling of the hole and lost conciousness. a little while later, when the trapped bunnies awoke, they missed the unchanging sky that they loved so much. one bunny said that he missed the white sky. the other two looked at him in utter bewilderment. one of the others said that sky had always been yellow. the other said that he was sure that sky was most certainly grey. they argued for hours, each with just as much faith in their side as the other two.

to be continued...

that as far as i need to go with that. now, mabey you see my point. the correct side to that argument was 'blue' even though that side didn't exist. regardless of what tactics any of those rabbits used, the correct side would have always been blue. none of them were correct, nor would they ever have been because the sky was blue.

[swayside]

(continued from previous post)

And how do you decide this? How do you know something is wrong?

it's not my place to decide what's right. what's right, already is right and doesn't need my

help.

So how does an argument ever come to a conclusion?

you apparently missed the part of my last post when i said:

until all incorrect sides to an argument are proven wrong, the argument remains, as well.

read more diligently in the future.

what i think is irrelevant in this topic. this isn't about my opinionations, or even yours.

it's about how one of us (if even one of us) must be right.

Or we could both be wrong,

that's what i said, you idiot. when i said 'if even one of us', that meant both of us could be wrong. perhaps we should put that phrase with "for all intents and purposes" in the catagory of 'slizor doesn't get it'...

in fact we could both be right.

no we couldn't.

Say we both support different political systems. And I say mine works best and you say yours works best. It is possible for either them to be better, the same, or worse.

as for the 'better or worse part', that would show that one of us would be wrong. as for the 'the same' part, both of us would be wrong in saying that our own side is better than the other.

It depends on what you value more. If you value equality more, you would view my system as the best. If you value urm....some good point about your system, then you would go for your system.

i'm not going to get into a politcal systems debate here however tempting it is. that's not the point of this topic, and i'm hoping you can be mature enough to see that, too.

we cannot both be right. that's impossible. either one of us is right, one of us is more wrong than the other, or we're both just as wrong.

you're putting stipulations into the argument. if someone said 'what color does the sky appear to be?' and you look up and say whatever color the sky is, you'd be right. then that person puts a pair of color altering sunglasses (let's say that they make everything green) on you and asks you what color the sky apears to be, you'd say 'green' and you'd be correct. then this person, leaving the glasses on you, asks you what color the sky currently is, even thought the sky appears green, you'd restate your first answer. if you put stipulations on a question, then, sure, people will give you different answers, but ask them a simple, direct question, and the will give you their true, unaltered opinion. stop asking 'what would be the best system if...' and ask 'what's the best system'.

PS: I cut out all that pointless crap.

whatever makes you feel like a big man. i didn't expect you to keep it in your post. it had no pertainance to anything you could have replied with. it was just me talking to you, not making a point.

when, exactly, did you cut it out, before you read it? you still didn't get it.

---

by the way, the bunnies were successfully rescued and subsequently proven wrong.

[lite-james]

I disagree abortion...coz they kill innocent babies..

[swayside]

At 7/1/03 10:45 PM, lite_james wrote: I disagree abortion...coz they kill innocent babies..

...you... idiot...

have you read nothing in this topic?! WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ABORTION HERE!!! while i agree with you, that's not the point of this topic.

what happened?! did you read the first post and just think that you didn't need continuity?! READ THE TOPIC BEFORE SPOUTING OFF SOMETHING ASSININE!

[Slizor]

swayside, it seems to me that you are offended that I should even ask whether you can know the truth or not.

once upon a time there was a magical place where the sky never changed color. it was always the same brilliant blue color, and all the little bunnies of the land were happy to see it every day.

Okay, so I'm meant to imagine a world which doesn't exist to prove your point. The problem you are having with your example is that you are saying "for all intents and purposes" as if it changes the fact that the sky can be any colour. You could say "for the majority of the time the colour of the sky is blue when viewed from earth" and you may be right (it could be black, or brown) although you would have to go in to what defines something as blue and you also wouldn't have accurate records to support your view (who has measured the colour of the sky...since the world began?) Clearly this argument can't be resolved, we can not find the truth.

one bunny said that he missed the white sky. the other two looked at him in utter bewilderment. one of the others said that sky had always been yellow. the other said that he was sure that sky was most certainly grey. they argued for hours, each with just as much faith in their side as the other two.

to be continued...

that as far as i need to go with that. now, mabey you see my point. the correct side to that argument was 'blue' even though that side didn't exist. regardless of what tactics any of those rabbits used, the correct side would have always been blue.

Yet if we place it in this world, they are all correct.

until all incorrect sides to an argument are proven wrong, the argument remains, as well.

And this is based upon the idea that we can know the truth, which is probably not true for most things.

as for the 'the same' part, both of us would be wrong in saying that our own side is better than the other.

I said "best" not "better". If two systems draw at the top, they are both the best.

we cannot both be right. that's impossible. either one of us is right, one of us is more wrong than the other, or we're both just as wrong.

Again, you just state this.

but ask them a simple, direct question, and the will give you their true, unaltered opinion. stop asking 'what would be the best system if...' and ask 'what's the best system'.

And they will give you different answers due to their different value systems. Which is my point. The "colour altering sunglasses" could infact be "colour correcting sunglasses" which makes you see reality the "correct" way there is (I would of course argue that there is no such thing as "correct" reality, that reality is defined by the person who percieves it.)