Small minds vs Open minds

dagmaraka wrote:

really? by whom? who is curbing your freedom?

there is a long record of substantive arguments being dismissed with out consideration at a2k because the tone of the post containing said argument does not conform to the a2k cultural standards.

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

I see what you mean..

And I wonder..

if someone is open minded, why are they required to accept another's beliefs if they dont fall in line with their own?

I like to think I am open minded too.
I HAVE a satanist that lives in the building behind me. Great kid actually.
But I dont agree with how he thinks. And to me it seems he is only looking for something to rebel against..

But.. why do I have to be completely accepting?
Isnt , NOT saying anything rude, and allowing someone space to speak their mind enough?

does my question make sense?

It makes great sense. If people are interested about what makes you tick they ask you. When they don't I try to shut my yapper. Though granted it is hard.

I know I don't know everything. And I know others believe every bit as strongly as I do about their convictions. I do not mind someone disagreeing with me. What bothers me is, as Pentacle Queen pointed out - the belittling of others for choices they made that they feel are right.

It is their choice. They are not forcing someone else to make that choice. Now...we do have to understand that they wouldn't have made that choice if they didn't believe it was right and that they probably think it is right for you too. The problem comes when they do try to force you to believe in what they believe, by fear, by hard sell...whatever tactic. It's annoying. And it doesn't really do any good, in the end anyway..people are going to believe what they want to believe.

The hard part is sharing your beliefs and then shutting your mouth. And knowing when it is prudent to speak your mind. Delivery and timing...

And yet we argue and try to win others over to our own point of view. People have already made up their mind about what they believe. Even the most open minded folks for the most part. So being open minded sometimes just means you are willing to let others speak their mind without trying to put the lid over what they are saying with your own beliefs.

That's what I think right now anyway. It could change. That's one problem with opinions and convictions...sometimes they change.
I might have just confused myself.

0 Replies

dismissed or deleted? if deleted, or if people are being banned for their opinions, then you might have a violation of freedom. if they are just verbally dismissed by other members, then you don't, as you're still free to say whatever you please.
what are some of the examples from that long list? i can't read your mind, you know.

0 Replies

mismi writes

Quote:

And yet we argue and try to win others over to our own point of view. People have already made up their mind about what they believe. Even the most open minded folks for the most part. So being open minded sometimes just means you are willing to let others speak their mind without trying to put the lid over what they are saying with your own beliefs.

I think we honestly do sometimes work hard to help other people see something as we see it especially if it is an issue that it important to us personally. It feels good when others agree but at the very least it helps to be heard and understood without malice.

Sometimes we--I anyway--want to discuss a topic to firm up and support my opinion or to help me arrive at a supportable opinion. I don't know how many times I've started typing out an opinion and realized that I couldn't come up with a reasonable argument to support it. I've probably deleted hundreds of those. I've posted a few too, sigh.

But in my opinion, for the most part, the closed mind responds:

1. with accusations that (the generic) you are partisan
2. with accusations that (the generic) you are brainwashed
3. with accusations that (the generic) you are narrowminded, mean spirited, bigoted, racist, etc. etc. etc.
4. with accusations that (the generic) you are stupid
5. with accusations that (the generic) you are closed minded. Smile

Pontificating or not, I suspect this is what Hawkeye10 has been expressing even as he is criticized for expressing it.

0 Replies

How does not providing evidence for his assertions fit in there?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

mismi writes

Quote:
And yet we argue and try to win others over to our own point of view. People have already made up their mind about what they believe. Even the most open minded folks for the most part. So being open minded sometimes just means you are willing to let others speak their mind without trying to put the lid over what they are saying with your own beliefs.

I think we honestly do sometimes work hard to help other people see something as we see it especially if it is an issue that it important to us personally. It feels good when others agree but at the very least it helps to be heard and understood without malice.

Sometimes we--I anyway--want to discuss a topic to firm up and support my opinion or to help me arrive at a supportable opinion. I don't know how many times I've started typing out an opinion and realized that I couldn't come up with a reasonable argument to support it. I've probably deleted hundreds of those. I've posted a few too, sigh.

But in my opinion, for the most part, the closed mind responds:

1. with accusations that (the generic) you are partisan
2. with accusations that (the generic) you are brainwashed
3. with accusations that (the generic) you are narrowminded, mean spirited, bigoted, racist, etc. etc. etc.
4. with accusations that (the generic) you are stupid
5. with accusations that (the generic) you are closed minded.

Pontificating or not, I suspect this is what Hawkeye10 has been expressing even as he is criticized for expressing it.

I like this foxfyre - I agree.

0 Replies

mismi wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
mismi writes

Quote:
And yet we argue and try to win others over to our own point of view. People have already made up their mind about what they believe. Even the most open minded folks for the most part. So being open minded sometimes just means you are willing to let others speak their mind without trying to put the lid over what they are saying with your own beliefs.

I think we honestly do sometimes work hard to help other people see something as we see it especially if it is an issue that it important to us personally. It feels good when others agree but at the very least it helps to be heard and understood without malice.

Sometimes we--I anyway--want to discuss a topic to firm up and support my opinion or to help me arrive at a supportable opinion. I don't know how many times I've started typing out an opinion and realized that I couldn't come up with a reasonable argument to support it. I've probably deleted hundreds of those. I've posted a few too, sigh.

But in my opinion, for the most part, the closed mind responds:

1. with accusations that (the generic) you are partisan
2. with accusations that (the generic) you are brainwashed
3. with accusations that (the generic) you are narrowminded, mean spirited, bigoted, racist, etc. etc. etc.
4. with accusations that (the generic) you are stupid
5. with accusations that (the generic) you are closed minded.

Pontificating or not, I suspect this is what Hawkeye10 has been expressing even as he is criticized for expressing it.

I like this foxfyre - I agree.

Thank you. I agreed with you too. So there's two. Smile

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

How does not providing evidence for his assertions fit in there?

That's a different thing that sort of fits into the same category as ignoring or ducking reasonable questions requesting clarification of one's position. Neither necessarily ASSUMES the other person is talking through his/her hat nor is evidence of a closed mine. At least the door is left open for the other person to clarify.

0 Replies

I have said this before and I will say it again: I investigate and make up my mind about something, and from that point on I argue for my conclusions as if i believe in them because I do. I might be wrong, I sometimes am very wrong, but I find this out when somebody has a better argument than I have, or when they know more about the subject than I do.

This I believe: Debate is advisarial, we put up the best we have and we act like we believe in our conclusion. If we can't do that then we should keep our mouth shut and listen until we think that we are right. The vast majority of the threads I don't post on either because I don't care or I don't think that I know enough to speak.

0 Replies

debate is adversarial, discussion needs not be. sometimes sharing ideas and opinions is just that, and not a competition to win.

0 Replies

...i think you'll find both on a2k, as well as just plain stubborn arguing. such is life.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

debate is adversarial, discussion needs not be. sometimes sharing ideas and opinions is just that, and not a competition to win.

perhaps one side or individual is decided to be right, and thus they win, but that is the small win. The real win is the result of the process, informed and expanded minds, and a general agreement as to what must be done.

I agree about conversation, and I do think that it is important. However, at the moment I personally am more interested in debate than conversation. That this would put some people off is completely understandable.

0 Replies

Gosh. This is rather a lot for me to come back at, but I'm thrilled this thread grew so much so quickly.
Thank you, participants.

Firstly:

ossobuco wrote:

I think Pentacle is talking about us all not liking agrote's thread, closed as we are as a group. Not sure, but think so.

So, ok, I agree, I do have my own views that are not open to his.

Sorry, it is to laugh. Many of us here have contemplated views some others of us here haven't thought of yet. And so what? Sometimes some of those views are plain stupid. Lapping the stupid ones up is not a good route. And listening to the sharper ones can be instructive.

Tell us more re what is going on with you, Pentacle, not to push but if you're so inclined.

Actually, this thread is something I've been thinking and meaning to post for ages, but yes, it was agrote's thread that finally made me write it. I don't mean for this thread to directly correlate to that one, because although that thread is an example of what I'm talking about here, it isn't what originally got me thinking about it.
I'm slightly reluctant to tell you the background as to what I was thinking because I know lots of you will automatically dismiss my opinions, but since you ask I will tell lets see what difference it makes.
My post was sparked from the general attitude of certain people at my university, a rather arty left-wing university where open mindedness is worn as a fashion statement. ?'Oh look how open minded we are! And look! We're all wearing skinny jeans and radiohead T-shirts and massive glasses without lenses in, and we take so much ket because we're so cool, and art is the future, man, and if you disagree then you're just a conservative wanker and you can't be part of our open minded club. Vote Left List! Go Vegan!'
Haha. Watch Nathan Barley if you don't get that reference.
Obviously not everyone's like that, and I love my university, but it just got me thinking about how people use open mindedness, and how open mindedness quite often conforms, just as it did on the agrote thread.

hawkeye10 wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:
really? by whom? who is curbing your freedom?

there is a long record of substantive arguments being dismissed with out consideration at a2k because the tone of the post containing said argument does not conform to the a2k cultural standards.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Yeah, Hawkeye always posts in a pompous manner, which can be annoying, but seasoned A2Kers spot the difference immediately and therefore dismiss him immediately, and that struck a chord with me. Lots of people on here pride themselves on being open minded, and it's precisely the reason I use the site- I love debating with you all, most of you are brilliant.
Which is why the agrote thread got me slightly- I just felt perhaps you were homeing in on the fact that his style of posting wasn't very ?'A2K.' If we were open to the style of posting, maybe we would learn more.

Thalion wrote:

The problem is when "open mindedness" turns into a kind of dogma of refusing to make anyone responsible for what they do. One can be "open minded" to different forms of religious expression, for example, but the egalitarian movement has gone way too far in suggesting that any and every way that a person chooses to express themself is equivalent. For example: Being open to forms of sexual expression is one thing, but calling pure hedonism "expression" is quite another.

I haven't gotten around to reading Shibumi by Trevanian, but I was reminded of this quote I've come across:

"It was not their irritating assumption of equality that annoyed Nicholai so much as their cultural confusions. The Americans seemed to confuse standard of living with quality of life, equal opportunity with institutionalized mediocrity, bravery with courage, machismo with manhood, liberty with freedom, wordiness with articulation, fun with pleasure - in short, all of the misconceptions common to those who assume that justice implies equality for all, rather than equality for equals."

This was an interesting post.
I don't see why open mindedness in it's pure form should oppose being open to stupid ideas.
How do you even judge an idea as stupid?
Surely open mindedness as has been said, should listen to all opinions, and then intelligence or common sense should filter the wheat from the chaff so to speak - but that isn't really a premise I agree with.
Do some ideas have more validity than others? I really don't think we can judge.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

perhaps one side or individual is decided to be right, and thus they win, but that is the small win. The real win is the result of the process, informed and expanded minds, and a general agreement as to what must be done.

I agree about conversation, and I do think that it is important. However, at the moment I personally am more interested in debate than conversation. That this would put some people off is completely understandable.

I suppose my evaluation of the latter proposition would depend on just what you mean by "debate". Do you refer to the schoolboy exercise in high school or undergraduate college in which each side is firmly committed to a predetermined point of view and conclusion, or to something else?

If the participants in a "debate" are firmly and a priori committed to a particular outcome, then the benefits to which you alluded in your first paragraph cannot possibly be achieved. So, assuming consistency between the two paragraphs, I conclude that you mean "debate" as to imply that the participants are (or should be) amenable to changing their views in the course of the "debate". This also dilutes your point about the distinction between conversation and debate.

This, of course, takes us right back to Pentacle's original question - to what degree are they open or close minded? (And this may be a critical point, because the states are NOT usually binary - people vary by degree.)

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

debate is adversarial, discussion needs not be. sometimes sharing ideas and opinions is just that, and not a competition to win.

Every now and then I see an exchange on A2K reflecting opposing views that is of such high quality that it does constitute true debate. These are a pure pleasure to read and I invariably learn something.

Too often the intent seems to be to 'show up', ridicule, or embarrass another member and this can range from quite cruel cuts to direct insults to adolescent schoolyard taunts. Sometimes you'll see a whole page of somebody's quotes with what are probably intended to be pithy responses after each one, and this goes on for page after page, and for me these are usually confusing. At best they distort the overall intent of one or both members. At worst they are tedious and usually boring. (That is not to be construed that I have not participated in these.)

But for me the best times on A2K are when members are not attempting oneupmanship or playing the gotcha game but are actually discussing an issue or problem or event or whatever as we might talk to one another over coffee or at lunch. I think it is fine for people to share what they know and the conclusions they draw from it during these discussions.

And I'll shut up now lest I still again be guilty of excessive pontificating. Smile

0 Replies

The trouble with debate--the attempt and need to "win"--is that one can win and still be wrong, or lose and still be right. Most likely one is usually partially right and partially wrong. I just want to share my thoughts and those of others.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But for me the best times on A2K are when members are not attempting oneupmanship or playing the gotcha game but are actually discussing an issue or problem or event or whatever as we might talk to one another over coffee or at lunch. I think it is fine for people to share what they know and the conclusions they draw from it during these discussions.

I presume you mean that a2k is best when people are open minded. AKA when if the other person has better evidence or a better argument then the one who comes up short is open to changing their mind. We do have people here who only seem to want to win the argument, will stoop to any level of itellectual dishonesty to gain an advantage, and have no interest in learning anything new, for whom civility is optional or even nonoperational....I am not one of those people.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

We do have people here who only seem to want to win the argument, will stoop to any level of itellectual dishonesty to gain an advantage, and have no interest in learning anything new, for whom civility is optional or even nonoperational.

I agree, far too many, and far too often. It is one of the main defects of an otherwise very interesting site. However, it is probably just a reflection of human nature.

hawkeye10 wrote:

...I am not one of those people.

"What never?? Well hardly ever...." in the words of the Captain of the Pinafore.

Can we take a secret ballot? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
dagmaraka wrote:
really? by whom? who is curbing your freedom?

there is a long record of substantive arguments being dismissed with out consideration at a2k because the tone of the post containing said argument does not conform to the a2k cultural standards.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Yeah, Hawkeye always posts in a pompous manner, which can be annoying, but seasoned A2Kers spot the difference immediately and therefore dismiss him immediately, and that struck a chord with me. Lots of people on here pride themselves on being open minded, and it's precisely the reason I use the site- I love debating with you all, most of you are brilliant.
Which is why the agrote thread got me slightly- I just felt perhaps you were homeing in on the fact that his style of posting wasn't very ?'A2K.' If we were open to the style of posting, maybe we would learn more.

First, you completely avoid the burden of Dashenka's question. How is Hawkeye's freedom allegedly harmed by the justifiable contempt with which so many of his posts are greeted? Being treated with contempt certainly has not deterred him from continuing to post what he wants to post.

With regard to Agrote's thread, as incredible as it seems to me, you apparently continue to be ignorant of the fact that Agrote is a self-described paedophile, and that this is not the first (and likely won't be the last) time that he has started a thread attempting to elicit sympathy for how "terribly" poor, harmless paedophiles such as he is are treated.

0 Replies

My 2c worth :

Quote:

What annoys me is when people pressurize other people into being open minded. Am I right in diagnosing this as another form of small mindedness?

Observations :
- Most people who accuse others of not being open minded are not particularly open minded in many areas of their life
- When Person A accuses Person B that he/she is not open minded -read in full it goes something like "you are wrong because you are not open minded" which shows that Person A lacks the empathy of an open mind.
- The accusation itself shows a lack of acceptance of others views
- The accusation is usually used as an attempt at manipulation
- The accusation is a cry for acceptance (but self defeating because of the above)

0 Replies

Small minds vs Open minds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know