Just wondering if there's anyone out there that shares a similar view, and forgive me for ranting, but I really need a moment to vent for a bit.

I'm not going to say what the actual subject of the argument is (it's extremely sensitive and I don't feel like arguing about it here; hint, it's not about religion), but so far, whenever this subject comes up, I'm usually met with the same old repetitive lines for their opposing views, repeatedly debunked myths, dogmatically adopted views/practice, and sometimes some ad hominems and strawman fallacies. It's as if we as humans are systematically trained to think that "this is how it is supposed to be" versus "what logical reasoning is there to continue on such a tradition/notion". Unlike my opposition, I use logic, facts, proof and evidence to back up my views. They normally go on and on with emotionally driven nonsense with no logical backing. It's kinda like this.

Them: Why don't you do/believe <insert dogma here>? You really should...

Me: Because I don't want to.

Them: Don't you want to have <insert whatever>? You would really like it.

Me: No. I've taken a logical perspective on reality. What incentive do I have to do/believe <insert dogma here>?

Them: You know, it will make you <insert whatever>.

Me: Quite frankly, the risk of doing/believing <insert dogma here> is a contradiction of logic and facts.

Them: That's not true!

Me: If it's not true, then tell me, what benefit is there for me to do/believe <insert dogma here>? Why should I?

Them: You know... because!

Me: No I don't; because what?! That's why I'm asking you!

Them: You know, our parents would want us to do/believe <insert dogma here>.

Me: You know what? My dad wanted me to be a pro basketball player! Guess what happened? I became a video game programmer. Worked out really nice, didn't it?

Them: You just need to learn to <insert whatever> because this says this and that.

Me: So I can end up like <insert the name of some poor bastard here>? No, I don't think so! Don't you know that there's a 50% chance of <insert tragedy here>, as well as a 70% chance of <insert tragedy here>, oh and let's not forget the 30% <insert pathetic trend here> rate too. Even if I did want to do/believe <insert dogma here>, it's like playing Russian roulette. Call it a good thing if you want. Even if it is, I'm not willing to do <insert dogmatic action here> because it is not of interest to me. I have more important things to worry about, and this is not one of those things. Lastly, if <insert dogma here> is feasible, then why is <insert real scenario here>, or <insert another real scenario here>? Hm?

Them: Well, you really need to change your views on <insert dogma here>, it's really sad. <Insert not so clever cop-out signifying defeat here>...

This is just a hypothetical conversation derived from both recent and past arguments/debates I've had with people. If there's one thing I've learned since I moved back to the north west coast, it's never blindly believe/accept just ANYTHING people say you should believe/accept just because humans have been doing it for 20, 50, 100 or even 1,000 years! I think living in the mid west set me back a few IQ points. But seriously, I do everything based upon logical reasoning where the risk and reward are feasible and/or worth it overall. If there is nothing for me to gain from it, if the losses outweigh the gains or if the end result is of no interest to me, I'm not going for it, plain and simple. Is it really THAT hard for people to accept that I choose a different path, and that I could possibly be... you know... HAPPY with that choice? Or that I chose to believe/conduct myself this way for a logical reason that has nothing to do with a past traumatic event?

I'm not angry or upset, but it is quite annoying to know that independent thought against the masses is so discouraged that they will turn against you not even knowing why they are doing so. And, as I stated, the worst part is that I always win this argument, no matter what. It's the same responses, same defense/attacks, same dogmatic belief system, and the same cop-outs when challenged for logical evidence. How can someone believe something so strongly without having the logic, facts, proof or evidence to back it up? Sometimes I just want to lose for the sake of hearing a decent counter argument with some substance... :(

Shogun.

The real issue is probably (in my current opinion, which can of course also be challenged) that different answers are "right" for different people. That said, if one has an answer that is right for oneself, and it brings happiness, then it's almost immoral to not share said answer. This leads to arguments, that occur for good reason.

An acceptance of people's ability to choose their own beliefs also leads to the fact that a disagreement at the end of an argument is not necessarily a bad thing, as quite possibly different answers feel right for different people.

The right way to end the argument is of course never "that's really sad, you should change", unless possibly if the argument is about ones behavior towards other people, where an agreed upon answer might be important for others than oneself apart from a purely psychological perspective, but rather something like "I hope you're happy with your choice, but don't hesitate to talk to me again if you want to further discuss my views of the issue".

I can not with certainty say what the problem is in your arguments, but the issue is likely, perhaps overwhelmingly so, that your argument challenges people's ability to believe in their answer. That is, either your argument is about why they are wrong, not only about your life but also about their own, or the issue is rather that they have the belief that there is only one answer that has to be right for everyone.

If it's the latter, then there's nothing to do really, as their acceptance of your answer as a possible "right", even for you, would take away their ability to retain their own beliefs. If that is so, then I would recommend rather arguing for the possibility of different beliefs on the issue coexisting, or if they actively engage in trying to change you to ask them to not do it anymore out of respect.

If it's the first, then I would attempt change your own argument to only matter in respect to your own life, rather than arguing for an absolute proof either way.

I somehow get the feeling from your description of the problem, when you say that you bring up "real" issues, that you argue in a way that makes your way seem like the only logical choice, for anyone. This directly forces them to go on the defensive, unless they not only allow you to feel differently, but also change their own beliefs in accordance. Such an argument is seldom if ever won with force. You can certainly prove them wrong, but they would probably live the rest of their life resenting your proof, rather than accepting it. I would recommend a diplomatic stance where you live your own way and hope that your example might inspire others to adopt or at least accept your views, rather than try to prove it right in an argument.

EDIT: It's also possible to arrive at a "circular proof" of an issue, where the opposing side might well believe they won the argument as strongly as you do. Something like, "if my view is true, this argument proves that my view is true, and I believe in my view, therefore my view is proven". This principle should also be applied to ones own arguments, both to attempt to avoid such mistakes, and also to obtain a better understanding of other people. Most of us can find something in our lives, past or present, that we believe(d) just because. Analyzing our own feelings on such a subject might give better understanding of other people's apparent defiance of logic.

You do realise that your own opinion is massively subjective, and the other person might have the exact same view i.e. your arguments are bad and they keep winning?

Just wondering if there's anyone out there that shares a similar view, and forgive me for ranting, but I really need a moment to vent for a bit.

I'm not going to say what the actual subject of the argument is (it's extremely sensitive and I don't feel like arguing about it here; hint, it's not about religion), but so far, whenever this subject comes up, I'm usually met with the same old repetitive lines for their opposing views, repeatedly debunked myths, dogmatically adopted views/practice, and sometimes some ad hominems and strawman fallacies. It's as if we as humans are systematically trained to think that "this is how it is supposed to be" versus "what logical reasoning is there to continue on such a tradition/notion". Unlike my opposition, I use logic, facts, proof and evidence to back up my views. They normally go on and on with emotionally driven nonsense with no logical backing. It's kinda like this.

I got some observation on this based only on one thing, I can write here, I am curious what you will say

I noticed few years ago and i am saying to people sometimes that 21 June (or about) should be really treated as a middle day of the summer not the beginning of the summer, same with 21 december (longest night day) should be treated as a middle day of the winter not the beginning of the winter

this is logical for me

I say this to more than 10 people matbe almost 20 (and give

explanation that summer should be 1/4 of a year with longest days, winter with shortest) and guess what, NOBODY agreed

with me - I do not encounter as to today not 1 person who

will be agreeing with me here,

could i maybe test some people here?;/ would you agree or

disagree?

There must be something wrong with how you engage other people in discussion. I've never had discussions like that where people kept pushing their opinions on me. Usually rational arguments start with someone suggesting an alternative to me, me evaluating the alternative and getting back with my experiences with it, and them iterating on this to find something that works well. Or the other way around, of course.

That might be it. If you immediately retort to their suggestion with "screw you, I don't want to use/believe in [popular dogma] because [insert logic proof here]" that is going to antagonize them because that is perceived as a direct challenge to their ability to evaluate a product or belief for themselves. Even if it is well-founded (and it usually isn't, because you do not know everything especially about such subjective matters) you are not creating an atmosphere conducive to effective transfer of ideas.

Independent thought against the masses is not discouraged. I think you're just not letting people interact with you in the right way, in other words, you're not adapting to the way they would like to communicate with you (which doesn't require immense effort in my opinion, but it might need you to stop thinking you always have the right answer for everyone) and that puts them on the defensive because it doesn't let them interact with you comfortably, and eventually they get annoyed and stop trying because from their perspective by the way you communicate with them, you are effectively incapable of taking in new ideas (despite you trying to be an "independent thinker"). YMMV of course.

You know, I will face it as it is really religion your talking about, cause it fits, and give a reason why ppl are so close headed when come to the absurds religion claims. Take it as an example.

Religious ppl expend a HUGE amount of their lives with their religion, Im not talking about how much this change a person`s mind, Im talking that accepting arguments against it would be the same as accepting that your entire life youve been wasting your time praying and going to church. Have you idea how hard is this? Admitting a huge part of your life is bullshit. Its like waking from a entire life coma, or throwing away your past, how many ppl can really do that?

Thats why early education is so important, ppl should be raised learning to question EVERYTHING, ALWAYS, never put a close on any line of though. First thing fanatic religious learn is to never question religion/bible/god/whatever, its the pure essence of alienation. Why the hell ppl thing faith is a virtue? Believing hard in something for no logic reason : faith. Faith is like a bad thing made good by the church.

Discussions rarely go in the way of "lets learn together, gather or experiences and share knowledge, so we can maybe evolve together, learn something new", they generally just go "Im way superior than you, let me proof".

I dont agree with like the "the way you approach" opinion, logic is logic, it doesnt matter if it comes from someone trying to humiliate you or someone who loves you and are trying to help. Ppl should be able to learn even from enemies. (so in this case, proud is a problem). If the way of approaching is already in matter, to me seems like a brainwash/manipulation try, rather than a discussion..though it may work.

To go further, ppl are unable to see beyond culture.. Using the knowledge humans store on culture is good, but being part of the culture is bad, cause it comes with all society shit too. Humans barely stand in 2 foot if not raised by other humans, think how much of what you are or do are only cultural and have no real logic to back it (as it can be deleted without negative impacts and possibly lots of improvements). Humans brain are sponges, this is as much good as bad, depending on what kind of content youre exposed to.

I don't waste my time arguing with other people. I always have a fairly long list of better things to do.

That's not so say I'm not up for the occasional healthy debate, but as soon as it's clear to me one party (and yes, that party may on occasion be me) isn't being rational, logic, reasonable, etc, I end the discussion and move on.

You do realise that your own opinion is massively subjective, and the other person might have the exact same view i.e. your arguments are bad and they keep winning?

Abruptly ending an argument without having the material to address my alternative viewpoint doesn't really count as winning, does it? If that's their idea of winning,nthen they need some schooling.

Just wondering if there's anyone out there that shares a similar view, and forgive me for ranting, but I really need a moment to vent for a bit.

I'm not going to say what the actual subject of the argument is (it's extremely sensitive and I don't feel like arguing about it here; hint, it's not about religion), but so far, whenever this subject comes up, I'm usually met with the same old repetitive lines for their opposing views, repeatedly debunked myths, dogmatically adopted views/practice, and sometimes some ad hominems and strawman fallacies. It's as if we as humans are systematically trained to think that "this is how it is supposed to be" versus "what logical reasoning is there to continue on such a tradition/notion". Unlike my opposition, I use logic, facts, proof and evidence to back up my views. They normally go on and on with emotionally driven nonsense with no logical backing. It's kinda like this.

I got some observation on this based only on one thing, I can write here, I am curious what you will say

I noticed few years ago and i am saying to people sometimes that 21 June (or about) should be really treated as a middle day of the summer not the beginning of the summer, same with 21 december (longest night day) should be treated as a middle day of the winter not the beginning of the winter

this is logical for me

I say this to more than 10 people matbe almost 20 (and give
explanation that summer should be 1/4 of a year with longest days, winter with shortest) and guess what, NOBODY agreed
with me - I do not encounter as to today not 1 person who
will be agreeing with me here,

could i maybe test some people here?;/ would you agree or
disagree?

Would I agree or disagree? Depends on the evidence you bring to the table. Using that is how I weigh a opinion's/hypothesis's validity.

There must be something wrong with how you engage other people in discussion. I've never had discussions like that where people kept pushing their opinions on me. Usually rational arguments start with someone suggesting an alternative to me, me evaluating the alternative and getting back with my experiences with it, and them iterating on this to find something that works well. Or the other way around, of course.

That might be it. If you immediately retort to their suggestion with "screw you, I don't want to use/believe in [popular dogma] because [insert logic proof here]" that is going to antagonize them because that is perceived as a direct challenge to their ability to evaluate a product or belief for themselves. Even if it is well-founded (and it usually isn't, because you do not know everything especially about such subjective matters) you are not creating an atmosphere conducive to effective transfer of ideas.

Independent thought against the masses is not discouraged. I think you're just not letting people interact with you in the right way, in other words, you're not adapting to the way they would like to communicate with you (which doesn't require immense effort in my opinion, but it might need you to stop thinking you always have the right answer for everyone) and that puts them on the defensive because it doesn't let them interact with you comfortably, and eventually they get annoyed and stop trying because from their perspective by the way you communicate with them, you are effectively incapable of taking in new ideas (despite you trying to be an "independent thinker"). YMMV of course.

1. That's the thing, I don't engage them, they engage me. I haven't forced my views upon anyone. In fact, I tend to avoid talking about this subject as much as possible. But when !y views get out in the open somehow, I attract challengers. There was one person where I actually did have a good argument, but he eventually gave up, and we respected each others viewpoints. With common people, this does not happen.

2. Also, take note of my hypothetical conversation, which is how it generally starts, flows and ends. Since I always have the upper hand, I don't have to resort to the "screw you" tone,at all. Even of they take it to that level, I do not stoop to theirs. If they lack the capacity to argue properly, you can't blame that on me. :/

3. Depending on the topic, I disagree. If it's a popular or widely accepted belief, there are less likely to be challenges against it (similar to religion/cults). If they cannot fathom, interact, comprehend or even consider logic, facts, proof, or evidence, that is their problem, not mine. When I am in their shoes, I listen to logic. Remember that argument we had about using GLUT the other day? I lost that argument and had to concede because my views on it were either illogical, impractical or incorrect. Now that I have been proven wrong, I adjusted my viewpoints accordingly.

Also, its not always about being right or wrong, its about having the right to think independently for your own reasons. Opinions are subjective, yes, but you can't argue with facts. If someone wants to have differing beliefs, then that isn't an issue to me. It becomes an issue when I am told to believe or accept <insert dogma here> "just because". That doesn't work with me.

I'll respond to the rest of the responses in a few. I'm on a tablet right now, and I need an actual keyboard to type efficiently.

Shogun.

EDIT:

You know, I will face it as it is really religion your talking about, cause it fits, and give a reason why ppl are so close headed when come to the absurds religion claims. Take it as an example.

Religious ppl expend a HUGE amount of their lives with their religion, Im not talking about how much this change a person`s mind, Im talking that accepting arguments against it would be the same as accepting that your entire life youve been wasting your time praying and going to church. Have you idea how hard is this? Admitting a huge part of your life is bullshit. Its like waking from a entire life coma, or throwing away your past, how many ppl can really do that?

Thats why early education is so important, ppl should be raised learning to question EVERYTHING, ALWAYS, never put a close on any line of though. First thing fanatic religious learn is to never question religion/bible/god/whatever, its the pure essence of alienation. Why the hell ppl thing faith is a virtue? Believing hard in something for no logic reason : faith. Faith is like a bad thing made good by the church.

Discussions rarely go in the way of "lets learn together, gather or experiences and share knowledge, so we can maybe evolve together, learn something new", they generally just go "Im way superior than you, let me proof".

I dont agree with like the "the way you approach" opinion, logic is logic, it doesnt matter if it comes from someone trying to humiliate you or someone who loves you and are trying to help. Ppl should be able to learn even from enemies. (so in this case, proud is a problem). If the way of approaching is already in matter, to me seems like a brainwash/manipulation try, rather than a discussion..though it may work.

To go further, ppl are unable to see beyond culture.. Using the knowledge humans store on culture is good, but being part of the culture is bad, cause it comes with all society shit too. Humans barely stand in 2 foot if not raised by other humans, think how much of what you are or do are only cultural and have no real logic to back it (as it can be deleted without negative impacts and possibly lots of improvements). Humans brain are sponges, this is as much good as bad, depending on what kind of content youre exposed to.

Religion is a decent example, but not the exact subject I'm talking about. It is something that is believed religiously, even by those who are able to question the validity and existence of everything/anything they are supposedly taught by parents, school, the media, society, whatever. There is nothing wrong with believing in God, of course, but religion should not make you turn a blind eye or deaf ear towards facts. This is essentially what I was thinking (especially about something being believed your entire life simply because you are taught or even forced to believe it). I know it sounds hard to believe, but I'm not talking about religion! :)

If a belief has never been challenged and is widely accepted, then there is going to be some opposition in accepting an alternative viewpoint.

I don't waste my time arguing with other people. I always have a fairly long list of better things to do.

That's not so say I'm not up for the occasional healthy debate, but as soon as it's clear to me one party (and yes, that party may on occasion be me) isn't being rational, logic, reasonable, etc, I end the discussion and move on.

I also prefer to avoid needless arguments, but they continue to surface for those who are gluttons for punishment. My cousin, for example, I've been explaining this to him for years and he still doesn't understand my viewpoint. His responses are the same, in spite of what I say, so I know it's not going to be productive.

@Everyone, now, I have been evaluating myself, and I have been taught to do so for years. I've learned to argue/debating things properly during my time out of the lower IQ states (I don't claim to be smarter than anyone else, but my ability to comprehend complex statements, facts, ideologies, logic and what not have increased since I've moved to a high IQ state). Before, I would simply just butt heads until I ran out of steam or ammo, now I've learned to evaluate things by asking why I'm perceived as wrong, or as a pariah for my viewpoint, then responding accordingly with true or logical statements. If they disagree with that, or have no other facts to counter that fact, then I gain the upper hand by continuing to use facts and logic to defend my views. If they accept it, fine, if not, so be it. It doesn't become an issue until the ad-hominems, strawmen, logical fallacies and what not are presented, and they attempt to force me to believe them by making the same and repeatedly debunked statement over and over again, as if they are trained to believe it simply because it's more convenient to believe it.

Lastly, I won't say that I haven't given their belief system a try. I have, and have done so many times, but primarily because I basically felt obligated to do so. And now, I've decided no more. It's quite sad how disagreeing with a particular subject gets you so much flak.

Shogun.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.


It is often a good idea to develop a repertoire of argument-neutralizing statements and a thick skin.

Personally I have had good luck with a series of non-committal, neutral, disinterested statements like: "Oh", "Okay", "That's nice", "Perhaps I'll consider it", or "Thank you for your views". Follow it up with unemotional responses and the others quickly lose interest in the fight.

If you offer positive information they may want to push it on you further. If you attempt to delay they may return later with a stronger attack. If you offer negative information, a counter argument, or contradicting views they may dig in further. Stating your own views in comparison can engage them in many different ways. Yet a combination of apathetic indifference to their statements will usually de-escalate that kind of argument pretty quickly.


Imagine the original argument with that type of statements:

Them: Why don't you do/believe <insert dogma here>? You really should...
Me: Thank you for sharing your views.
Them: Don't you want to have <insert whatever>? You would really like it.
Me: Perhaps I'll consider it at another time.
Them: You know, it will make you <insert whatever>.
Me: Okay.


By neither agreeing or disagreeing with them, never providing fodder for further discussion, and generally showing apathy toward the subject, most people will quickly lose interest in the discussion even when they were fully engaged and emotional about it moments before.

If they persist, you can drop the apathetic portion and show a bit of emotion: "Look, I can appreciate that you want to share your views on this matter, but I really don't want to discuss it. Thank you."

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.


It is often a good idea to develop a repertoire of argument-neutralizing statements and a thick skin.

Personally I have had good luck with a series of non-committal, statements like: "Oh", "Okay", "That's nice", "Perhaps I'll consider it", or "Thank you for your views". Follow it up with unemotional responses and the others quickly lose interest in the fight.


Imagine the original argument with that type of statements:

Them: Why don't you do/believe <insert dogma here>? You really should...
Me: Thank you for sharing your views.
Them: Don't you want to have <insert whatever>? You would really like it.
Me: Perhaps I'll consider it at another time.
Them: You know, it will make you <insert whatever>.
Me: Okay.


By neither agreeing or disagreeing with them, never providing fodder for further discussion, and generally showing apathy toward the subject, most people will quickly lose interest in the discussion even when they were fully engaged and emotional about it moments before.

Your initial statement is gold, and I live by that when it comes to many subjects. However, I cannot resist shutting down an illogical argument!

I also learned that if you are too dismissive, then they will often continue to hunt you down. If a particular subject is not worth debating at all, then I will use a variation of the above, and flee. This subject, however, is not something I'm going to run away from because my patience with people who deploy such tactics is growing thin. So I'd rather stomp it into the ground, and prevent them from getting back up.

Shogun.