People Ever Been Stuck In A "I'm Right, You're Wrong" Conversation?

  On 7/3/2012 at 7:27 PM, umop_apisdn said:

Being an animal lover (the non-PETA type), especially so with reptiles, I get in arguments (not to the point of belligerance) about snakes. I am wholeheartedly convinced that there is no vertebrate in this world that is as universally accepted as "better off dead."

 

Best argument I had was waking up one morning on a camping trip in south Florida. A curious man who was at the camping site started to inquire what we were searching around the site for that morning. We told him frogs, turtles, snakes, etc. He then made it a point to go on a rant about how snakes are embodiments of the devil. Each and every one of them. They all deserve to die and he has always gone out of his way to kill every snake he sees. Because he felt it was his duty as a Christian to rid the world of evil. As my friends and I had a very peaceful (but ignorant on his part) conversation trying to argue that snakes are just another animal with a place in this world, the man kept reiterating how no snake will let you go by without attacking, most are "poisonous", yadda yadda yadda. There was seemingly no way we could convince him otherwise. Til a racer came out into the open (it had been one of those abnormally cold nights for December in south Florida) and we picked it up off the ground to show the man. Surprisingly, the snake did not make a single attempt to bite (honestly, surprising because racers, while harmless, are eager to bite in defense and not always the best ambassadors for their kind). The guy kept arguing that we were "in for it" and whatever for about 15 minutes as we took photos right beside him, posed the snake as we wished, and then ushered it back into the brush. The guy was amazed and seemed like his opinion might have changed a little.

 

However, being the pessimist I am, I can't help but think that he just returned to his old ways after we left.

thats just another case with one of those crazy extremest religious nut jobs. reasoning with them is practically impossible. To them, everything they say is right, your always wrong, and literally nothing you do (even providing facts) will ever change their opinions. so yes, he hasn't changed and still rants about snakes being the embodiment of evil.

  On 7/3/2012 at 4:47 PM, Danny O Flannagin said:

Sometimes I disagree with something that I support just for the sake of argument. I helps me find flaws in my own arguments

 

I think I drive my girlfriend crazy doing this.

  On 7/3/2012 at 3:17 PM, Gary C said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 3:12 PM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

I never get stuck in that kind of conversation because I don't really care about people being wrong. I know I'm right, I know you're wrong, this conversation is not going anywhere, let's talk about something else

When I say that to my girlfriend things only get worse.

 

tell her if you'd agree she\s right then you would both be wrong.. :D

Edited July 4, 2012 by yek

tell her for at least 5 minutes that you disagree, then tell her you agree!

 

 

 

make-up sex

 

 

hi-5's himself

Edited July 4, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

i tend to not correct people if it doesn't really matter...

  On 7/3/2012 at 3:06 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 2:57 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

ive noticed that that particularly manifests itself when dealing with incredibly subjective topics (music and film tastes, etc.)

I don't really think that's true.

 

lol

 

I know people who converse in this manner sometimes. I don't find it to be very annoying and I think some contradiction in small doses is a good thing.

  On 7/3/2012 at 3:42 PM, schlucharski said:

often I agree out of sympathy, even if my guts are turning and vice versa..

 

yeah

infp and doormat wooo

 

not an issue on the internet but irl totally the opposite of oppositional unless you are being REALLY fucked up and push me too far. at which point, god save us both.

what usually helps me is to try to understand the other side. but, if that doesn't help, it's an all out nuclear war!

ahahaha

 

 

that's brilliant.

Ever been stuck in an "A B" conversation?

oh yeah, i'm also a good arguer, thanks to my mom ;)

The main difference for me is in the intention of either pointing out the bigger picture (in this way you can easily switch sides if you feel you co-debater lost something in his statements) OR just opposing for the sake of it. I hate it when people just oppose for the sake of it.

Joyrex can probably sympathise.

Edited July 6, 2012 by chassis

  On 7/5/2012 at 10:03 PM, gaarg said:

The main difference for me is in the intention of either pointing out the bigger picture (in this way you can easily switch sides if you feel you co-debater lost something in his statements) OR just opposing for the sake of it. I hate it when people just oppose for the sake of it.

 

But its always fun to pit these people against their own beliefs, no?

^ that's partly why I do it. Often times people will present an opinion as if their belief has already proven the fact (ex: "The government has no idea what they're doing when it comes to ____________. They should just ________."), and the easiest way to get them to simultaneously hate you and re-think their belief is to poke holes in it right in front of their eyes. If they can give reasonable explanations for their belief as the holes are poked, then maybe their belief is solid, and they can pass by the gates of the logically inclined. Otherwise fuck off back to narnia with your unfounded bullshit, assholes.

sergeantk: it is, but it's not that simple, because usually those people can't understand they've been beaten lol

So many thoughtful things said ITT... I'm just going to speak from experience without going point for point!

 

I have a skeptic and a free will mind (I don't know how to say it better in english, in french it's 'libre arbitre' and it's not exactly the meaning of free will)

So I tend to push every conversation/argument to the max for the intelectual value of it, but that is with people I know/think are in the same kinf of spirit.

When I'm out and about I don't really try that kind of conversation style, I'm more about letting people speak, and listening to them, saying the less I can so that I'm more like an observer. *

I do that all the time because it's like watching an experiment: the less you interfere the more it is true.

But I wouldn't do that when I'm with friends lol

 

*It works really well with women (to a certain extent)

It's incredibly annoying, but I just move on. I am a type of person who doesn't care about always having the right answer. When I'm right, I'll tell the other person to look it up if there's internet around. I also will sometimes just ignore the other person because I don't need that in my life lol.

  On 7/7/2012 at 3:13 AM, johnoise said:

So many thoughtful things said ITT... I'm just going to speak from experience without going point for point!

 

I have a skeptic and a free will mind (I don't know how to say it better in english, in french it's 'libre arbitre' and it's not exactly the meaning of free will)

So I tend to push every conversation/argument to the max for the intelectual value of it, but that is with people I know/think are in the same kinf of spirit.

When I'm out and about I don't really try that kind of conversation style, I'm more about letting people speak, and listening to them, saying the less I can so that I'm more like an observer. *

I do that all the time because it's like watching an experiment: the less you interfere the more it is true.

But I wouldn't do that when I'm with friends lol

 

*It works really well with women (to a certain extent)

 

being a good listener is better than being a good speaker, especially when you're able to link something from your life/experiences into what the other person is saying

 

i have no idea why im saying this, stream of consciousness i guess

  On 7/3/2012 at 2:52 PM, Joyrex said:

I think many here are afflicted with this condition:

 

http://happiness-pro...g-conversation/

 

duznt kilk on link for fir ovf ...

 

ala don't get an argument started when the premise is to remove me from the argument altogether.