Seems like debate and people changing their minds when presented with new information is something that died around 9/11, if it ever even existed. Even the most mild vocal disagreement just further entrenches people in their feelings.
There’s just no point.
Both sides are right. Every argument comes from a true emotional desire. Every exchange of arguments can be ‘won’ by recognizing the need of the other person and finding common ground.
Default male identity surpresses pain and desire to be reliable. (roughly, please don’t get lost in the details.)
Gay culture is about accepting and expressing deep desires. It’s just coincidentally sexuality because that desire is so strong that it drives the change to accept desires. It’s in the name, gays are gay.
If you are on a diet and you are hungry and you have to sit next to somebody who eats cake, it brings the will for self-control to its limit.
The middle ground is protection of the self. The haters hate to not be vulnerable, to be able to fight and endure pain and suffering.
Show them how they can protect without suffering. Remove the need for them to hide their emotions. Make the world safe. Remove the need to hate.
Or accept that we need to fight and surpressing sexuality is a price to pay to win against the enemy.
Or have both sides look at it together and discover social norms for coexistence together.
If people are rational you can convince them with arguments. But if they are not then they don’t care about what they say and walk back on their words. What good is winning those arguments?
It happens, it just never comes to a satisfying synthesis. I changed my opinion a few times after one of those big 25 reply arguments, though I never admitted to it in the moment.
It’s always been a thing to not really want to admit you’re wrong. Half of debate is just realizing you’re not ever going to change your opponent’s mind real-time. Ego gets in the way way too hard, particularly on a public platform. Debating on a public platform is more to try to convince people in the audience that are more moderate.
Sometimes, your good argument can also actually change the other person’s mind, even slightly, but you’ll probably never SEE it. That doesn’t mean it’s pointless, just that if you’re expecting to get something out of the act of debating, it has to be something other than changing your oppo mind.
Seems like debate and people changing their minds when presented with new information is something that died around 9/11, if it ever even existed. Even the most mild vocal disagreement just further entrenches people in their feelings.
There’s just no point.
deleted by creator
Both sides are right. Every argument comes from a true emotional desire. Every exchange of arguments can be ‘won’ by recognizing the need of the other person and finding common ground.
Ok so “Gay people deserve the right to live and be happy” and “Gay people are abominations who deserve death”
Tell me exactly where the middleground is please.
Default male identity surpresses pain and desire to be reliable. (roughly, please don’t get lost in the details.)
Gay culture is about accepting and expressing deep desires. It’s just coincidentally sexuality because that desire is so strong that it drives the change to accept desires. It’s in the name, gays are gay.
If you are on a diet and you are hungry and you have to sit next to somebody who eats cake, it brings the will for self-control to its limit.
The middle ground is protection of the self. The haters hate to not be vulnerable, to be able to fight and endure pain and suffering.
Show them how they can protect without suffering. Remove the need for them to hide their emotions. Make the world safe. Remove the need to hate.
Or accept that we need to fight and surpressing sexuality is a price to pay to win against the enemy.
Or have both sides look at it together and discover social norms for coexistence together.
What I’m seeing is that I should murder people who eat cake?
It worked for France, hasn’t it?
There is often no common ground depending on the argument
You have to look at the underlying desires.
If people are rational you can convince them with arguments. But if they are not then they don’t care about what they say and walk back on their words. What good is winning those arguments?
It happens, it just never comes to a satisfying synthesis. I changed my opinion a few times after one of those big 25 reply arguments, though I never admitted to it in the moment.
It’s always been a thing to not really want to admit you’re wrong. Half of debate is just realizing you’re not ever going to change your opponent’s mind real-time. Ego gets in the way way too hard, particularly on a public platform. Debating on a public platform is more to try to convince people in the audience that are more moderate.
Sometimes, your good argument can also actually change the other person’s mind, even slightly, but you’ll probably never SEE it. That doesn’t mean it’s pointless, just that if you’re expecting to get something out of the act of debating, it has to be something other than changing your oppo mind.