Alright, been slacking on posting here, but I have had a thought sticking with me for quite a while I wanted to write about. I told my wife about it last night and in talking about it out loud I realized how intriguing it really is.
So, once again at work this environment is very dynamic, challenging, annoying, perplexing, frustrating and at times feels like I'm back in my High School days.
Everyone I work with is fairly good natured and they are nice people who mean well.
But, when you talk to someone about something whether it is sports, politics or religion a great portion of the room that holds 15 people tend to chime in with their opinion. Granted I am the minority in a lot of respects - Political views (Republican), Religious views (Christian) and as written about previously the Team/Person I'm rooting for in Tim Tebow (I think 1 other person may view him semi-favorable still).
There are the main culprits who like to chime in - (C), (MG), (R) and a few others but (JY) is reasonable and (JB) is fairly passe. There are others (RT) who gives her opinion quite a bit, and a few who occasionally chime in but they aren't as prideful as the main crew.
You see, when you talk about something, referring back to the topic of this post, it seems a fair number of people will chime in, either in agreement or slight opposition. This will go around for a bit, until it seems that the original question/argument/view comes to some sort of consensus/agreement/ or forfeiture of their stance.
So, someone may say they like the President but hate the previous President Bush. Well, consensus has it that most if not all the room agrees with this particular opinion. So for me to say otherwise is like committing conversational suicide. The slanted arguments come out, the strong wills arise and derogatory comments ensue. A topic like this is not something you can sway someone to change their mind about. Reason being, going against the "consensus" is hard to compete with. Because you may answer or argue one point to your cause, but there's always more sitting around the corner waiting for you.
Another example - Tebow is a great player/QB/person. I already know where people stand with this one and (MG) will say anything and everything he can whether it is true or not to deride him from any sort of respect. Now, he does hold a grudge over from college because Tebow beat his team for many years and cannot stand how good his character is.
I can provide all of his successes, but they don't measure up to others "standards", whether they are only measured against Tebow or not. You see, Tebow can win 5-6 games in a row as a QB but somehow he still sucks. Somehow he's still in-superior to anyone else even though he's on the verge of going to the playoffs. Consensus has it that Tebow is just a one show act, not able to maintain longevity in the NFL, not able to be a true QB, not the sole reason for the teams winning, etc. etc.
It's pretty much the mob mentality, so says the mob so goes the crowd. Have you ever tried to steer a mob from a mindset that's already running downhill to the slaughter? It's really quite annoying and frustrating. Even though you see the light, you are unable to direct others to it because of the few who do not want to go towards it.
Some other examples of these types of one directional, one sided conversations
- Existence of Aliens, I heard - You have to be ignorant to believe Aliens don't exist and that we're the only ones out there. I said - You have to be ignorant to believe they do exist. No evidence exists to prove otherwise. There's more evidence that points to God than that points to Aliens, but somehow it's easier to believe in Aliens than in an almighty God who's given us the Bible and Jesus to prove His existence. The one Book that has never been disproven. The one book that is Historically accurate and proves itself time and time again.
- The Lakers suck (team I like)
- George Bush was a horrible president (he wasn't perfect, but tried to do what was right)
- Obama is a good president (he's done some things alright)
- Sarah Palin is stupid (I don't agree here, she's done more than we ever will politically)
- Any company that doesn't have a lot of minorities is racist (not true, it's actually very racist thinking that in my opinion)
- The Bible isn't literal or should be left to interpretation, they say some stories are just stories (I take the Bible as utter and complete truth, to not believe some is to not believe all)
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Arguing ones point
So, what exactly is the point of arguing?
I've heard a lot of it lately, been a part of it a lot as well. I'm sitting at work and on a daily basis it seems there is plenty of it to go around. So I thought, what's the point of all of this in the end? Does anyone really genuinely change their mind? Do we really get anywhere doing it?
What are we trying to accomplish with such things really?
Here's a list of ideas I have of why someone may argue (from my perspective)
1) To prove a point
2) To convince someone otherwise
3) To disagree
4) To pridefully not agree with someone
5) To not admit ones wrong actions, thoughts or words
6) To argue for arguments sake
1) Proving a point a lot of times is seemingly pointless. Unless done in a constructive, heartfelt manner this is a hard thing to do. This is especially detrimental in relationships. One must ask, is this point worth proving? Is it beneficial? What are my true motives for doing so?
2) Convincing someone other than what they already believe is very difficult. Especially in today's society, where everyone believes they are "entitled" to their own beliefs, thoughts, rights etc. I've found even with proof, conviction, examples this is not always possible.
3) Disagreement, a lot of times ends up with "agreeing to disagree". But does that really accomplish anything? Why bother embarking down the road if it leads to where you first started? Sure, people get to air out their differences of opinion, thoughts, beliefs etc which in the end seems to be all that happens a lot of times.
4) Pridefully not agreeing with someone. What I'm thinking of in reference to this is when someone knows they are wrong, but refuse to admit it because of pride. In this instance, a lot of "justifications" will be provided to try to prove ones "point". A guy may for instance not "pridefully agree" with his wife because she was right after all.
5) This one kind of ties in with my thoughts listed above, but without the pride involved. That is a difficult thing to do because Pride plays such a prominent role in so many arguments. But for this instance of arguing, not admitting ones wrong actions, thoughts or words could be more so internal than external. It may all boil down to pride in the end and have a lot of "justification" intertwined as well. Maybe this one is a more genuine aspect of simply believing what you know to be the truth and someone else believing the same and not being able to compromise either way.
6) Arguing for arguments sake. There are a lot of these out there. People like to argue just to argue. Maybe they know what they are talking about, but surprisingly I think most people don't when they simply argue for arguments sake. A lot of people do this I'm sure not realizing what they are doing. Someone may say - the sky is blue, and someone else may say - no it's not blue it's overcast. But does it truly matter if it's not exactly what they said?
Arguments in different aspects all tend to have a lot of similarities -
A belief one way or another held by one of the parties involved
A right/wrong aspect - You are either right or you are wrong
Pride (a lot of times)
Justification (reason for your belief)
Hopefully a conclusion (maybe even reached by compromise)
In the end, we are all different people with different upbringings, backgrounds, beliefs, morals, etc.
Not everyone sees eye to eye, not everyone cares to see eye to eye.
This is what I'm thinking of for myself when it comes to arguing.
The main point of arguing is to present another aspect or view on a subject.
I accept that the person may or may not change their mind based on this argument.
It is to be done in a non-confrontational/judgemental manner.
My hope is that the other person has some food for thought to take away from the conversation that may over time or eventually influence their way of thinking, either in general or about the subject in particular.
I don't care to really change people's minds as they are generally old enough to think for themselves, but I do care to get others thinking about the subject that is at hand.
God is almighty and all powerful, He is the only one who can truly change a person's heart.
I hope to leave them with "well, maybe there is something there" after arguing about something.
And hopefully for them to come to their own conclusions.
After all, people who are told or forced to do something generally do it in angst, not genuinely or begrudgingly. But, if someone can do it on their own accord, thinking that they came to the realization on their own, I believe they would be more inclined to genuinely change.
The truth is funny like that, no matter whether someone agrees to it or not, it does force you to think. The truth of Jesus permeates through to the marrow of the bones as the Bible clearly states in Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
I'm not confident other general truths have such an effect as the Bible does not state this, but I think it does something. Whether it is to anger someone, offend them or what not, I believe Truth in general has an affect on people whether they choose to believe it or deny it for themselves.
Consider this when faced with your next argument -
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
I've heard a lot of it lately, been a part of it a lot as well. I'm sitting at work and on a daily basis it seems there is plenty of it to go around. So I thought, what's the point of all of this in the end? Does anyone really genuinely change their mind? Do we really get anywhere doing it?
What are we trying to accomplish with such things really?
Here's a list of ideas I have of why someone may argue (from my perspective)
1) To prove a point
2) To convince someone otherwise
3) To disagree
4) To pridefully not agree with someone
5) To not admit ones wrong actions, thoughts or words
6) To argue for arguments sake
1) Proving a point a lot of times is seemingly pointless. Unless done in a constructive, heartfelt manner this is a hard thing to do. This is especially detrimental in relationships. One must ask, is this point worth proving? Is it beneficial? What are my true motives for doing so?
2) Convincing someone other than what they already believe is very difficult. Especially in today's society, where everyone believes they are "entitled" to their own beliefs, thoughts, rights etc. I've found even with proof, conviction, examples this is not always possible.
3) Disagreement, a lot of times ends up with "agreeing to disagree". But does that really accomplish anything? Why bother embarking down the road if it leads to where you first started? Sure, people get to air out their differences of opinion, thoughts, beliefs etc which in the end seems to be all that happens a lot of times.
4) Pridefully not agreeing with someone. What I'm thinking of in reference to this is when someone knows they are wrong, but refuse to admit it because of pride. In this instance, a lot of "justifications" will be provided to try to prove ones "point". A guy may for instance not "pridefully agree" with his wife because she was right after all.
5) This one kind of ties in with my thoughts listed above, but without the pride involved. That is a difficult thing to do because Pride plays such a prominent role in so many arguments. But for this instance of arguing, not admitting ones wrong actions, thoughts or words could be more so internal than external. It may all boil down to pride in the end and have a lot of "justification" intertwined as well. Maybe this one is a more genuine aspect of simply believing what you know to be the truth and someone else believing the same and not being able to compromise either way.
6) Arguing for arguments sake. There are a lot of these out there. People like to argue just to argue. Maybe they know what they are talking about, but surprisingly I think most people don't when they simply argue for arguments sake. A lot of people do this I'm sure not realizing what they are doing. Someone may say - the sky is blue, and someone else may say - no it's not blue it's overcast. But does it truly matter if it's not exactly what they said?
Arguments in different aspects all tend to have a lot of similarities -
A belief one way or another held by one of the parties involved
A right/wrong aspect - You are either right or you are wrong
Pride (a lot of times)
Justification (reason for your belief)
Hopefully a conclusion (maybe even reached by compromise)
In the end, we are all different people with different upbringings, backgrounds, beliefs, morals, etc.
Not everyone sees eye to eye, not everyone cares to see eye to eye.
This is what I'm thinking of for myself when it comes to arguing.
The main point of arguing is to present another aspect or view on a subject.
I accept that the person may or may not change their mind based on this argument.
It is to be done in a non-confrontational/judgemental manner.
My hope is that the other person has some food for thought to take away from the conversation that may over time or eventually influence their way of thinking, either in general or about the subject in particular.
I don't care to really change people's minds as they are generally old enough to think for themselves, but I do care to get others thinking about the subject that is at hand.
God is almighty and all powerful, He is the only one who can truly change a person's heart.
I hope to leave them with "well, maybe there is something there" after arguing about something.
And hopefully for them to come to their own conclusions.
After all, people who are told or forced to do something generally do it in angst, not genuinely or begrudgingly. But, if someone can do it on their own accord, thinking that they came to the realization on their own, I believe they would be more inclined to genuinely change.
The truth is funny like that, no matter whether someone agrees to it or not, it does force you to think. The truth of Jesus permeates through to the marrow of the bones as the Bible clearly states in Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
I'm not confident other general truths have such an effect as the Bible does not state this, but I think it does something. Whether it is to anger someone, offend them or what not, I believe Truth in general has an affect on people whether they choose to believe it or deny it for themselves.
Consider this when faced with your next argument -
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)