Thread: Why Argue?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Well, what makes you right and the other person wrong? it's all based on point of views. People word things differently and it sounds wrong but what they are saying is what you say except your view is said a different way then theirs. It's just arguing on what way sounds better.

When we're talking about science, there is only one right answer. You can't put interpretation into solid facts.

Just look at one of the other threads in R/S, where someone said that animals seem to get a higher level of emotional awareness and consciousness just by "being around humans". This is - just - plain - wrong. It's not a point of view - it's just flat wrong.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

When we're talking about science, there is only one right answer. You can't put interpretation into solid facts.

Just look at one of the other threads in R/S, where someone said that animals seem to get a higher level of emotional awareness and consciousness just by "being around humans". This is - just - plain - wrong. It's not a point of view - it's just flat wrong.

I agree with you for the most part. You can't have an argument that a single water molecule has 10 hydrogen atoms in it because it simply doesn't. There's nothing to argue about, since it has hard, objective scientific evidence backing it up. But not everything scientific has one definite, truthful answer. There are things (like that example you gave about whether animals have feelings) that just hasn't and probably can never be proven scientifically. And how can it? We can't ask the animal, or dissect it for the answer, and observing it and how it responds to situations is subjective depending on the person observing them. Thus from a scientific perspective, to say that animals do not feel emotions is a theory, not a fact and can be fairly argued about.

Arguementation is to figure out who is wrong, and who is right.

I try to avoid arguing whenever I can. I find it's a lot more interesting to have a normal discussion about something. Although when someone says something I consider to be untrue, I try help them see why I find their statement to be untrue, or to see why a different view is more accurate. [son of a bitch I just dropped a coal on my night stand. Typing and fiddling with a hookah is a bad combo]. I think arguments definitely help people tie up any loose ends in their beliefs that they may have been previously unaware of. But you can do the same without arguing.

I think arguments are the result of people being too attached to their thoughts. This attachment can make someone feel personally attacked, when it was just an idea that was being challenged. I like to think that you are not your beliefs and ideas, they just come and go.

Just like the tango, it takes two to argue. You don't have to get sucked into the negativity trap. Just be ready for it and it'll be easier to avoid.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

You don't have to get sucked into the negativity trap.

That's true. My method of avoiding the negativity traps is being the one that sets them.

Originally Posted by Mark75

That's true. My method of avoiding the negativity traps is being the one that sets them.

lol that's awesome. You can't club someone with the only club.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

When we're talking about science, there is only one right answer. You can't put interpretation into solid facts.

Just look at one of the other threads in R/S, where someone said that animals seem to get a higher level of emotional awareness and consciousness just by "being around humans". This is - just - plain - wrong. It's not a point of view - it's just flat wrong.

Well, i was just commenting on the bolded part. But you're right about the animal thing.