I was thinking today, if people are simply waiting to have their own ideas or beliefs brought into question, or do they just want to be agreed with?
I personally think that most people in this present time would rather discuss their own beliefs, and find personal joy in that fact alone, than rather have them accepted or discredited. It's hard to find a place and time to openly discuss religion and politics, but why do you think someone wouldn't want to be open about this particular topic? These topics have to relate to everyone, and seem of interest to a vast majority, and yet they go unmentioned as an underlying taboo situation.
I'd like to know your opinions on this topic, also on a general concensus.
Personal opinion
Moderator: Moderators
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #2
Personally I hold out the hope that someone might come to agree with me, but more importantly I really want people to agree with me as to what counts as a valid argument. What counts as a measured argument. What counts as waffle. What counts as plain incoherent. What counts as evasion. And what counts as incisive and accurate use of language.
I think the problem - if it can be called a problem - is that too many hold some belief and will deploy any argument, and even any old rubbish to parry criticisms away so long as the core belief remains intact.
I’ve got a book somewhere on my book shelf called Straight and Crooked Thinking. What I would like to see is not everyone having the same opinion, but recognising and adhering to some common standards of straight and crooked thinking. And where I fall below those standards, it might be painful, but I’ll accept criticism where and when it comes.
Outside of these forums I don’t get into conversations about science, evolution and creationism that often because out there in the real world it is a non subject. Not taboo. Just a non subject in the same way people don’t sit around the work mess discussing quantum physics or the predicate calculus.
Politics comes up more often. But usually the debate is at the level of “That bloke’s a W--ker!”
However I have sat in work mess more than once where there has been half a dozen guys discussing religion. However I’d say the quality of the debate is not high. That’s probably because the average Joe doesn’t spend two to three hours a night on the internet fine tuning their arguments, and researching the subject.
And I suppose that’s the nub of the issue. These subjects are not taboo. They just take effort.
I think the problem - if it can be called a problem - is that too many hold some belief and will deploy any argument, and even any old rubbish to parry criticisms away so long as the core belief remains intact.
I’ve got a book somewhere on my book shelf called Straight and Crooked Thinking. What I would like to see is not everyone having the same opinion, but recognising and adhering to some common standards of straight and crooked thinking. And where I fall below those standards, it might be painful, but I’ll accept criticism where and when it comes.
Outside of these forums I don’t get into conversations about science, evolution and creationism that often because out there in the real world it is a non subject. Not taboo. Just a non subject in the same way people don’t sit around the work mess discussing quantum physics or the predicate calculus.
Politics comes up more often. But usually the debate is at the level of “That bloke’s a W--ker!”
However I have sat in work mess more than once where there has been half a dozen guys discussing religion. However I’d say the quality of the debate is not high. That’s probably because the average Joe doesn’t spend two to three hours a night on the internet fine tuning their arguments, and researching the subject.
And I suppose that’s the nub of the issue. These subjects are not taboo. They just take effort.
Post #3
I would only consider them taboo because of the current advice I've acquired: Don't discuss religion or politics in bars. Pubs, bars, might be a difference there in location, but regardless, at my work it's along the same lines.
I think everyone thinks they may want exactly what you stated. Agreed with, but with a slant. But what if a lot more people are actually thinking what they need to hear? Maybe what they want to hear is a conversation, more than what might be being said?
I think everyone thinks they may want exactly what you stated. Agreed with, but with a slant. But what if a lot more people are actually thinking what they need to hear? Maybe what they want to hear is a conversation, more than what might be being said?
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #4
Ahh!!...I've just remembered I was employed as a civil servant (here in the UK) for a few months and they have strict rules about what you can and not talk about with work colleagues. At the top of the list being religion and politics and soccer. Caught talking about these and in theory you faced a disciplinary.
Post #5
lol, damn that's harsh.Furrowed Brow wrote:Ahh!!...I've just remembered I was employed as a civil servant (here in the UK) for a few months and they have strict rules about what you can and not talk about with work colleagues. At the top of the list being religion and politics and soccer. Caught talking about these and in theory you faced a disciplinary.
