Talking past each other!

Quote:

Is there a way in which we can resolve this?

Is there such a polarisation in political/societal/moral/religious perspectives that we can't stand in each other's shoes for a moment and see the world from there?

What can't you understand in others' arguments?

What can't others understand in yours?

Methinks I did not make myself clear. (Perhaps this is the reason some are misunderstood- not enough explanation and clarification on their part....re: my part).
The reason I raised the "points" as you call them--- was to show the sadness of "some facts"- and that some posters will try to "explain away" terrible consequences-- which causes consternation in many of us.
In other words, to give an example of why "I" in particular cannot accept certain arguments.
So I say, "Yes" to your question above. There are differences too monumental (for me) to conquer.

I hope I have not encouraged others to come into your topic and turn it into a 'rant' on policies.
Good Day

[size=7]I fixed it Scrat[/size]

0 Replies

Quite simply, many posters don't understand because they don't want to....nothing you can do about that......

0 Replies

jackie wrote:

So I say... There are differences too monumental to conquer.

Too monumental for some, no doubt. But perhaps some others would like to explore this question in earnest and really try to find a better way to communicate here that is at least less likely to end in conflict.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

the best way for me to zone out on a thread is the time that begins when everyone spends half their space by quoting an earlier post. Once this begins , it becomes a "he said ,- she said" post, in which everyone takes offense. then the thread spends half its time between 2 or more people who are there just to insult the other party. the entire title of the thread gets lost and gradually, what could have been an interesting thread, just dies.

Sometimes this happens and sometimes it doesn't. I recently had just such an exchange with CDK, with dozens of quotes in a single reply. Much time was spent debating the validity of opinions but very little spent "insulting the other party". I took from the thread a better understanding of CDK's politics, the UN and a deeper understanding of others opinions who chipped in along the way. Now it may have been boring to others; but I enjoyed the exchange very much. When quotes are used as the tool of clarification they are intended for; they add, rather than take away from a discussion.

I would say the best way to improve on this title's problem; would be an honest attempt by all to adhere to the TOS.

0 Replies

The fastest over talkers are IMHO IT folks. With the advent of the PC, news crawl etc every and everybody is over talking everything and everyone.

Often I cannot keep up or misunderstand.

My most recent experience has been in college classes that I have been taking to get an ABA Certificate as a paralegal. I am by far the oldest person in the class. They talk and eat all the time and that distracts me.

In addition, I have been asked by a number of students not to ask question!!!! Because they say it slows things down, sheesh.

These kids just want to go to class, take notes or record the lecture, memorize for the upcoming tests, and leave. I do not think they care if they actually learn anything they just want to get jobs. And then I guess they think they will catch up later.

For me since I have 20 years at a support person in a legal office at the federal level, and two state court systems - California and Virginia - I have questions because we are only learning the Texas Rules. It is so confusing to me.

So what do I do shut up or ask questions?

0 Replies

Nothing you learn in college regarding IT will matter for more than 1 year. That's why jobs requiring a dgree in IT seems pointless in my opinion as anything I learned getting a degree in 1992 would be completely useless now. So, take notes, pass the tests and get the peice of paper you need.

But, stay on top of things and take the real learning upon your self.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I would say the best way to improve on this title's problem; would be an honest attempt by all to adhere to the TOS.

I'd take it a step further and suggest trying to adhere to the spirit of the TOS rather than dancing around the letter of the TOS.

The difference?

If I call you "stupid", that runs afoul of the letter of the TOS. If I call your comments "stupid", I have skirted the letter of the TOS, but I've really knowingly done what the spirit of the TOS asks us to not do, and the likely result--that the other party takes insult--is the result the TOS exists to try to avoid.

0 Replies

I am not studying IT McG, but most of the people in the class are from that industry. They just do not want to talk at all, seems weird for law where talking and writing are the keys to the kingdom.

0 Replies

I find it frustrating that anyone who discourages premarital sex is considered a religious fanatic. I think I can see where that view can come from, but it is so far from accurate.

0 Replies

IMO it's not about not "understanding" each other but about not "agreeing" with each other.

It'd be easy to get people to understand each other more often but if the issue is subjective (like all our favorite topics) then agreement may well be elusive.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

farmerman wrote:
the best way for me to zone out on a thread is the time that begins when everyone spends half their space by quoting an earlier post. Once this begins , it becomes a "he said ,- she said" post, in which everyone takes offense. then the thread spends half its time between 2 or more people who are there just to insult the other party. the entire title of the thread gets lost and gradually, what could have been an interesting thread, just dies.

Sometimes this happens and sometimes it doesn't. I recently had just such an exchange with CDK, with dozens of quotes in a single reply. Much time was spent debating the validity of opinions but very little spent "insulting the other party". I took from the thread a better understanding of CDK's politics, the UN and a deeper understanding of others opinions who chipped in along the way. Now it may have been boring to others; but I enjoyed the exchange very much. When quotes are used as the tool of clarification they are intended for; they add, rather than take away from a discussion.

I would say the best way to improve on this title's problem; would be an honest attempt by all to adhere to the TOS.

I agree that these "quotey' postings are often examples of the best debate here - because they take on another's argument bit by bit in a very clear way - and allow for very thoughtful and precise discussion.

Of course, they CAN be used for witless nit-picking - but I would not be turning off them without reading them, Farmerman.

Of course, they can be quite frustrating because someone else has said all the things you wanted to say, and more - only better - before you get there, so one can be reduced to impotent "I wanted to say that!!!"

0 Replies

When I clash with someone else's opinion, and we obviously aren't going to agree with each other, I usually feel that I understand their point of view, and that they do not understand mine. So I ask "Even though you disagree with it, do you understand my point of view?" Usually they will say no. Well, I understand their point of view, so I can safely feel that overall I have more understanding on the subject. I mean, lack of understanding is not a virtue. I realize of course that logic can be flawed, but it is sufficient for me.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I agree that these "quotey' postings are often examples of the best debate here - because they take on another's argument bit by bit in a very clear way - and allow for very thoughtful and precise discussion.

Of course, they CAN be used for witless nit-picking...

Unfortunately, sometimes when someone has gone to the trouble to "take on another's argument bit by bit in a very clear way" the other party will casually dismiss this as "witless nit-picking", which derails the discussion.

0 Replies

The quotes confuse me, but that's just me. Plus I hate to be quoted when I have typed something stupid or a post with awful typos.

But I guess it is good to know who is talking to who by using the quote dealy.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I agree that these "quotey' postings are often examples of the best debate here - because they take on another's argument bit by bit in a very clear way - and allow for very thoughtful and precise discussion.

Of course, they CAN be used for witless nit-picking...

Unfortunately, sometimes when someone has gone to the trouble to "take on another's argument bit by bit in a very clear way" the other party will casually dismiss this as "witless nit-picking", which derails the discussion.

I have fallen victim to this in the past and complained that the nit-picker was arguing for the sake of argument. Craven usually sets an excellent example by separating points, rather than sentences to quibble. That is the key difference.

0 Replies

Talking past each other!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know