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.

That is the perfect example of why I don't bother. There's a popular definition of 'insanity' (not a textbook definition): doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You may want to consider the possibility that you are a glutton for punishment as well since you continually engage in these arguments knowing full well that are going to be unproductive and futile.

dont think so if agricultural cycle is valid reason here. I asked why they do not get my argumentation of course, they just contradicted my rationale but did not hold their arguments,
so they just deny with no valid arguments - just something like you do here, you mention some vague contrarguments not giving real one as you dont get mine (this is some illustration of people taking no arguments, and it is maybe fun if oryginal asker writing that people do not get arguments himself do not get this argument ;/ )

Gee, with a condescending attitude like that, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to entertain your idea.

well imo it is not too much important if you find it condescending, i just give some thing (for me it is no doubt true and logical) and people deny it and disagree with that - as

for now here fouds not yet one person who will clearly as i see it agree with that - so this i find as a some good example

for oryginal asker (especially if he disagree with me too;/)

but its not to much matter for me ;/

Well im from some country in central europe, everyone here says beginning of the summer is about 21 june (it is always broadcasted in tv/radio etc) - i thought it is global terminology , though i see now in wiki some cultures - treat it more the way i argue it should be - if 21 june is the middle the beginning of summer should be 1.5 month before this is about 6th may)

This is a good example of how not only opinion but also truth is highly subjective.

First of all, the official beginning of summer and winter is defined, especially in certain countries in central europe, just like it is defined when daylight saving time starts and ends. If you say anything different, even if you are correct, you are wrong by dogma.

Second, there are at least 3 possible different definitions (probably more) of summer and winter: dogma, the orientation of Earth's rotational axis, and the "cold season before the re-awakening of nature" and the "warm season before harvest".

Third, none of these is set in stone. The latest definition is demonstrably changing over a very short, well-observable period of time. Winter happens about 2 months later now than it did when I was a child. Around 21 december, we used to have -5 to -10°C, nowadays it's more like +8 to +10°C mid-december. The stupefied greens call this "global warming", but it's not really about warming, on the contrary. It's about shifting, and larger extremes. Nowadays, we have -10 to -20°C, but we see them in early february. So "winter" is actually colder, and happens later. Similar is true for summer.

Earth's rotational axis is most likely changing as well (well, it is certainly changing, what I mean to say is that the wobble is likely changing, too) in a similar way as its angular momentum is changing too (so from some point of view, "time" changes, since our days and years get longer as Earth rotates more slowly), but all that happens too slowly so any of us will notice a difference during their lifetime.

So, depending how you look at it, either answer is correct or incorrect.

IMO, no, - but im not interested in disagreeing .I just wanted to check or show that agreeing is not obvious (it seemed to me oryginal asker has an attitude of expecting others to agree with him..but do not matter, for me not agreeing is just normal - )

Am I the only one who thinks knowing the actual topic of the argument would help this conversation?

Or would it mean a tasty flamewar we haven't seen here for to long now?

My guesses:

*buying a flat vs. renting a flat

*getting run over by a car on a crosswalk while you have green-light but could have avoided the run-over if you paid attention to the cars

*rape and insolent dresses

*UFOs

*vacuum energy

In general I don't find myself accosted that much, but when I do I usually politely decline to enter the debate, particularly if I sense that the accoster has no intent on rational debate or discussion. If they're insistent, I might take their pamphlet or whatever if it satisfies them enough for me to exit without further delay. Path of least resistance, its no skin off my back, and sometimes they make for a good laugh. But in general, I couldn't care less for winning a battle of wits against someone who refuses to arm themselves.

One particular tiny pamphlet I got once asked the question "Are you a good person?" -- So, I thought to myself, am I? After awhile I came to the conclusion that, mostly, yes I am a good person -- I don't lie, cheat, or steal, I don't take advantage of anyone, and I generally conduct myself on the up-and-up. I'm usually happy to lend anyone a hand if they need or ask, so surely those bonus points ought to cancel out some of the minor missteps I've had over the years--I'm sure I've probably stolen a candybar from a store at some time in my youth. So, you'll be as shocked as I was to find out that, in fact, No--I am not a good person. You'll be even more shocked, I'm sure, to learn that the reason I am not a good person is not because my past indiscretions, even cumulatively, were too great, nor was it because my personal standard of conduct was not high enough in general -- No, the sole reason, I read, was because I don't accept Jesus as my personal lord and savior.

Ok, this was confusing--luckily they had an analogy to explain: You see, the 'gift' of salvation is SO GREAT, and Jesus asks only SO LITTLE, a mere trifle of complete blind devotion and living as prescribed for all of your natural days, that apparently simply living to essentially the same standard (indeed, falling short in some arbitrary categories of conduct, and often exceeding in the ones I feel should matter most) is not good enough--apparently the part that's either pass or fail is the complete blind devotion part. For all his power, this Jesus fellow seems a little insecure, so he needs to know that you think he's a really cool guy before he lets you into his afterparty. Anyhow, not only is living a good life not enough -- the fact that you might be confused as to why its not is no mere faux pas, its apparently an insult and an affront to all that is good in the world and all to come after.

The analogy explained that your confusion is like this: A rich friend gifts you an expensive car, and feeling uncomfortable to accept such a gift, you say look friend, I can't accept this outright, but if you insist, please accept this $10000 (far less than the value of the car), I'm not a rich man, its all I can do and it will really help me sleep a little better. Now I get it, that in this story the 10 grand is basically a token gesture in light of the value of the car, and if I were the gifter or the recipient in the story I don't know how I'd feel, but its probably a matter of perspective. If on one hand I receive such a gift and I'm financially secure enough to afford my own car, even if not that one, and the 10K is not that big of a hit, and next week I go buy a fancy television to celebrate my winfall, and I treat that 10K as if it absolves me of being thankful or paying these good graces forward, I'm kind of a jerk. On the other hand, if that 10K was literally my life's savings and it was all I could ever do to hope to repay the gift--in addition to all the years of friendship I've offered and will offer until one of us dies--and I appreciate the gift, take great care of it, and always do whatever little extra I can for you as a sign of appreciation, and a heartfelt thank you, I think that's an entirely different story. Whether or not the 10K actually matters is irrelevant, 10K probably isn't a big deal to you if you're in the habit of gifting expensive cars to friends, its still the thought and respect shown, I think.

But imagine, now, that the gift comes with strings -- You have to let everyone know what a cool guy he is, never miss one of his parties, and do whatever he says -- perhaps he's not such a cool guy afterall. And keep in mind, he and his friends are telling you all along that the alternative is Hell -- in this story, driving an 82 Ford Pinto with no exhaust and rusted-out panels for the rest of your life, and beyond. So, really, its almost like being held hostage at this point.

Now, maybe hostage is too harsh a term -- lets say, instead, that you're just damned to destitution if you don't play along -- that no matter what you try, nothing will ever be good enough unless and until you're ready to join the Jesus club and live by all its provisions. That despite all possible efforts, no matter what a great friend you are or how much your lifestyle overlaps with the lifestyle Jesus would ask you to lead, he'll never let you into his party. That Jesus would be a jerk, right?

If I were Jesus, with keys to the greatest after-party of all time, and my great friend--my good friend--came to my door in his final hour, and said to me "Look, Jesus, I know you say I can't come in, but I'd really like to. We've gotten along all this time, and I've never done anything to spite you. Some of my friends and family are inside and I'd really like to party with them. I've scrimped and saved, and led the kind of life you'd want me to, and these 3 shiny pennies are literally all the more I have left of value to offer you. Would you please let me in? I think I'll get along with everyone." I think I'd be so much more moved by this act than the stream of yes-men I take into my party every day, that I couldn't turn this man away.

But, according to the so-called experts on this earth, Jesus is not like me, and in fact, actually is the jerk from two paragraphs ago.

If that's the case, I don't want to party with that Jesus. Where's cool Jesus? I think I'll just go pass out in my Pinto.

[Disclaimer] Although I'm pretty pointed in this story, I don't actually begrudge anyone the faith they choose to follow, or disbelieve in the power they might feel at work in their own lives. However it works, I think there probably is a certain power in faith, whether its an almighty, the collective unconsciousness of like-minded followers, or simply the power of positive thought. I'm all for however you choose to tap into that power and to make it a positive force in your life. I don't think you're a fool, or stupid, or silly to beleive and do and be as you are. Ok, maybe just a little when it comes to the literalists, biblical or otherwise, but that's okay too! We can agree to disagree, and I'm still happy to accept you as a friend if you'll do the same in kind. We can even debate it if you'll do so honestly (I'll try to do the same), and can simply delimit the articles of your argument that stand on faith alone. That's all I ask; WWCJD -- What Would Cool Jesus Do.

One particular tiny pamphlet I got once asked the question "Are you a good person?" -- So, I thought to myself, am I? After awhile I came to the conclusion that, mostly, yes I am a good person -- I don't lie,

I dont think you are good person, probably you are in average zone (maybe bit lover maybe bit higher) but most people are only average

well imo it is not too much important if you find it condescending, i just give some thing (for me it is no doubt true and logical) and people deny it and disagree with that - as
for now here fouds not yet one person who will clearly as i see it agree with that - so this i find as a some good example
for oryginal asker (especially if he disagree with me too;/)

but its not to much matter for me ;/

That's the point. You're so sure of your position, you haven't even considered the possibility that you might be wrong. Samoth has already done a good job of explaining why the answer is ambiguous. Outside of mathematics, nothing is absolutely right or wrong.

Take some time to consider the other side. From what I've seen of you posts on this site, your ignorant attitude frequently prevents you from actually learning something.

It's funny that those who seem to have these conversations over and over with people who are unwilling to see from their point of view are just as guilty of being unwilling to see someone else's point of view. Maybe if you're more open to outside ideas, you'll be more capable of influencing other's ideas.

well imo it is not too much important if you find it condescending, i just give some thing (for me it is no doubt true and logical) and people deny it and disagree with that - as
for now here fouds not yet one person who will clearly as i see it agree with that - so this i find as a some good example
for oryginal asker (especially if he disagree with me too;/)

but its not to much matter for me ;/

That's the point. You're so sure of your position, you haven't even considered the possibility that you might be wrong. Samoth has already done a good job of explaining why the answer is ambiguous. Outside of mathematics, nothing is absolutely right or wrong.

Take some time to consider the other side. From what I've seen of you posts on this site, your ignorant attitude frequently prevents you from actually learning something.

IMO it even do not matter if I might be wrong - this is abut people not taking the argumentation - some example - And as i said I consider this state of not taking the argumentation as a more good thing than bad

The other side, it Is people INSISTING on other to take their position as you do in last sentence - i consider worse thing,

give me a freedom to disagree ;-)

Good in this case would mean "morally upstanding", not "better than average". Whether I'm more morally upstanding than the average person, or so much so to be considered as one of the upper echelon I don't know and don't really care, and its hard to quantify a collective social standard of good anyhow. Some people would say I'm complacent because I don't hate gays, Jews, Muslims, or non-Christians, for example, but I don't hold their opinion in any particular regard--none-the-less, they might judge me as less moral than their bigot friends. Likewise, a completely secular hippie-type who has cast off material possessions in order to travel the world digging wells and building mud-brick schoolhouses in remote 3rd-world villages might judge me less moral than themselves because I don't do enough active good for the world at large. I'm sure I do plenty of things other equally-or-more-so moral people (or not) would look down on. At the end of the day though, I'm happy with how I behave and live and treat people, and that's all I need to tell me I'm a good person.

Otherwise who among us is absolutely, irreproachably good? Mother Theresa? Gandhi?

Mother Theresa did a lot of work with the poor and destitute who were otherwise dying on the streets. I guess its better than not that they died with a roof over their heads. But she also did her work because she thought it brought her closer to God, not in the sense of doing his work and feeling fulfilled by that, but literally that Gods presence was strongest around those who were dying and suffering, and she wanted that extra-strong Godly aura around her. She did feed the hungry at times, mostly early in her career, but it was the "care" for the sick and dying that she grew most famous for. I put "care" in quotes because she didn't actually give them any medically-accepted standard of care, mostly she just gave them a place to die off the streets. To be taken into this care you had to agree that you couldn't leave the compound (even if you were able to) and would take no visitors, so you were denied any opportunity to see your family in your last days. She administered no medicine to those who could have been made well, and offered no medical relief of pain to those who were suffering -- you see, less suffering would have meant less of that God stuff floating around for her to breath in all day.

Gandhi, undeniably, did a lot of great work, and peaceably for the most part. He also occasionally spent time in bed with teenage virgins, himself and they naked, in order to test his piety. Whether he was anything less than pious I haven't heard any reports to that effect, but undeniably, most people would view this with some skepticism and perhaps hold him in less regard if this practice of his was more widely known. Whether he passed his own test isn't terribly important I think -- that is, if he did pass, I don't think he should be held in any higher regard for having such great power of will over what was a questionable practice at best.

So, were Mother Theresa and Ghandi good? They probably weren't as good as they could have been. Were they evil? No, I don't think so. Probably they were just average too, if absolute good is the only good that counts, I think.