Discussion about discussion
Captain Tyro wrote:Not holding anything against you kyrin, but you need only open a history textbook to see MANY people come to harm over discussions over almost any issue. Heck with your military background you represented your entire country, as such you had to focus heavily on upholding one national perspective (even if you disagreed with it) within the international discussion, over multiple issues that can and will result in death and misery to people/groups with valid interpretations of the discussion.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: No I cant see how any discussion can ever harm.
Furthermore, it takes only one person/group to push their interpretation of the discussion forward and end up bringing much harm to others. For examples one may consider debates on global warming and the lack of focus by the superpowers like the US and PRC to fix the damage caused and how it has led to numerous individuals at risk of losing their livelihoods because of flooding, storms, etc. Or perhaps the valid (albeit extreme) interpretations on Islamic beliefs causing dozens of Terrorist groups to form and adopt lethal force as the discussion broke down and lead to the spreading of negative ideals that left 2,996 dead on 9/11 and hundreds of thousands more in a war on terror, which by definition was a "war on alternate opinions in a discussion".
Don't get me wrong, discussions are still arguably the best communication technique that help us provide and be provide with new knowledge like you said, but I for one cannot deny there are still negatives when talks break down, which happens at lot especially nowadays.
Other than that top notch answer
I understand what you are saying but really nothing you describe here has anything to do with discussion. Every example you cite has to do with action or lack of action. The discussion of national perspective brings understanding of each side. I see no way that can bring death and misery to people unless that discussion, possessing the potential to comprehend, ends. It is not the discussion that brings the misery it is false belief of one side or the other and and unwillingness to modify that belief.
As for global warming the discussion is not over whether it is happening or not, it is over what the cause of it is, natural or man made and no matter the case if we can do anything about it. Important things to discuss but that discussion also has no relation to the fact that natural disasters happen every day and we have no control over that. The world is a dangerous place and people die. But I see no reason to equate this to discussion of this fact itself as being harmful.
Terrorism is another example of this, it is actually lack of discussion and the holding of false belief that causes harm in this instance. Action in accordance with that belief is the killer of men, not the discussion of the philosophy in an honest attempt to understand, modify belief, and release old prejudices and bigotry and superstitions in favor of actual realistic truth.
JamesSand wrote: Discussion is often used as a front.
As often as not, one (or more) parties to a discussion have no interest in progress or negotiation or compromise - they either want to have the discussion to stand on a soap box (a one sided entry into what is supposed to be a multi-party discussion) or just so they can say "well I tried to have a discussion, but everyone else was unreasonable, and since unreasonable people are bad, I'm going to do what I want anyway, and now I have the moral high ground too"
I think you may be touching on some of the different types of discussion here. The end results of these types are going to be different but the goal here I think is to steer towards honest dialogue. But no matter the type employed is it still not the discussion that causes harm, it is the resultant action of belief.
Edit: Kobos , thank you for your cents - Because of that -I count myself rich !
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: There seems to be an obvious answer to this question. Of course there are various types of discussion. Discussions are undertaken for several reasons. To discuss dilemmas in which the participants explore a problem or situation of one or more moral or ethical concern. Discussions are undertaken to explore a present issue or problem. Ideas are discussed such as the root cause of a problem and how the issue or problem can be resolved. Philosophical differences between ideas can be discussed. New concepts or ideas can be explored and common misconceptions ferreted out as a form of research discussion. Exploring the individual meaning behind a topic is also very common.
These discussions take many forms. As a means of problem solving, a means to develop better arguments for either side, a way to define goals, find the effectiveness of methods, evolve thinking, self-reflection and evaluation and to develop critical thinking skills through welcomed critique. These sorts of investments build personal relationships with the subject matter and can take place in a multitude of forums including:
Kyrin, truly, you are a man's man. It is natural for a man's man to focus on fixing problems. With that said, if you have a lot of conversations with women at some point you'll find one (at least) who thinks your problem solving is stupid-or rather out of place in that particular conversation. This is an inevitable eventuality because women are complex emotional creatures and a woman's woman isn't necessarily going to have a discussion to solve a problem and you trying to problem solve in this case may be seeing a problem she already knows about and will be offended at your efforts to solve (hence the rise of "mansplaining"). Often, in conversations, people simply want to be heard. A discussion is simply an exchange of ideas. But those ideas don't need to be problems. It is not an exchange of problems or problems for solutions. They're not looking for help. They're not looking for tools or your ability to fix them. This isn't to say that there is something wrong with your thinking. Not at all. However, having successful relationships with the opposite sex means knowing when and more importantly when not to speak your mind because she just wants you to be present... to give her your attention... to be on her side... and to be heard. And I say this as someone who still gets in trouble for that quite a bit!
Ultimately, if I'm sharing something with you or anyone else... especially if it's personal. I'm going to signal some type of clue whether I'm "asking" or "telling". And if I'm "telling" that doesn't mean I'm asking. And asking isn't telling. People can be more direct with you because that's the kind of guy you are. I don't think you dish out anything that you cannot take. I don't think you're hypocritical one bit. I prefer the kind of guy you are, honestly. But I also know everyone isn't like that and if we treat them like they are (or should be) we're just going to rub all those people (who aren't like us) the wrong way. There are different personality types and none are wrong. Each simply has its own style with its own pros and cons.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Terrorism is another example of this, it is actually lack of discussion and the holding of false belief that causes harm in this instance. Action in accordance with that belief is the killer of men, not the discussion of the philosophy in an honest attempt to understand, modify belief, and release old prejudices and bigotry and superstitions in favor of actual realistic truth.
But why is there a lack of discussion? Is it possible the discussion cannot be had because the two parties have already clashed? "Terrorist", not that terrorists don't exist, are a brand... a label that we put on people who are so antithetical to our view point that we don't want to engage them in meaningful intellectual discussion. While I can agree that anyone trying to incite fear could be labeled as such there are many who incite fear who aren't and at least one who is even called POTUS. But because we aren't enemies (and because I like you even if you don't like me) we can debate that point and others. But when people have no love between them then they aren't trying to have a meeting of the minds because there's no relationship they're trying to build or save. Therefore, the more we treat others as foes, label them terrorists, etc. the less we'll be able to talk to them about anything they hold dear.
As well, it is most likely, they believe they're being oppressed and/or terrorized by us. And therefore they commit horrific murders, sacrificing their own lives, to send a message that they would rather die than to be conquered and have to give up their religion.
but wait! who ever said that's what we wanted to do?
Unfortunately, this is the same reason why some republicans believe democrats want them to give up their guns even though no one ever says that. These are beliefs based on opposition. They don't know what we all believe. They just know that we drop bombs on them and kill innocent people and call it "collateral damage". Love is the only way we'll ever get to a position where we can truly talk and see that those who oppose us are just like us.
ZealotX wrote: While I can agree that anyone trying to incite fear could be labeled as such there are many who incite fear who aren't and at least one who is even called POTUS.
LOL, this was not a discussion about the philosophy behind conflict. It was a discussion on the nature of discussion and whether discussion itself is ever harmful. We can get into the details of conflict if you like but I don't think its a proper rabbit hole for this particular thread. Maybe start one on why you feel the President is a terrorist. I would love to see you try and pull that argument off!
But no matter the type employed is it still not the discussion that causes harm, it is the resultant action of belief.
Is that a bit like saying knives don't kill people, trauma and blood loss kills people? What's the difference between the discussion and what happens after it (or during)?
If I call you a weaboo, and that hurts you and makes you cancel you manga subscription - was it the discussion that harmed? can you separate the harm from the discussion? If discussions can't harm, can they help?
If we can separate any given event from the discussion and prove that discussions have no effect of meaning on anything - why have them?
The difference between the discussion and whats happening after it is a matter of choice. Even if one diatribes to others as a form of discussion the resultant action of those others becomes a matter of choice. The discussion itself does not cause this choice, the individual does. It is not the discussion that harms, it is the action afterwards. Say you get in a fight with your spouse over something that has gotten them upset. They diatribe to you about the issue. At that point your choice is rejection or receptiveness. Do you tell your spouse they are being stupid or do you sympathize with them and hug them? The diatribe did not cause the action, you did. you have the choice to cause harm or be helpful. That is the difference and that is why we have the discussions.
As for calling someone a name like weaboo, well that is not a discussion is it. That is just an insult.