Debate Is Futile

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I realize that in a few posts recently I have been getting into political discussion...

It is hard to resist temptation to argue with people who have different political views than yourself.

Starting now, I plan to avoid talking about politics and religion...though that probably means I will just be reading LDS talk instead of contributing my unpopular point of view

I haven't made announcements about my decisions for a long time now, because I am trying to avoid my ego.

But I thought that my reasons for avoiding discussion of politics (and religion) should be shared for the benefit of those of you who are addicted to this self-destructive behavior...

It is unwise to talk about politics and religion. Is stirs up emotions and provokes debates, which no one can win...because political views and religious beliefs generate such strong feelings that people are rarely willing to change their minds...they will not be moved from their established beliefs. Debates like this always create the sense of being attacked, which inevitably leads to people being hurt.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share, before I retire from political debate.

[Setheus]

However, sharing your political and religious views can cause other's minds to expand and bring unity and understanding between different points of view.

"The more a man knows the more he forgives."

TS and I are both right...so that ends THAT debate

[Aristotle]

In my opinion, if we share our beliefs from our own personal perspective, in a spirit of love instead of contention, it frees up the other person to do the same. In discussing politics and religion, I think mutual respect is the key...as well as practicing the Golden Rule. The Church encourages us to get involved in the political process and to elect good leaders. Perhaps if more Christians would watchdog the legislature, many of the laws which are being passed to weaken our Christian nation would not be enacted, and some can still be reversed. We, who are the majority, should take back our power and not allow our Christian heritage to be voted into obscurity.

[Ray]

If none of us mortals ever talked about politics or religion, any communication of ideas concerning those two topics would only be between each mortal and the immortals, without any of the communication that comes as mortals hear from other mortals who share their thoughts and experiences with others.

Or in other words, there would be no mortal speakers, and no writings available from any mortal, nor any other source of information available from anybody other than immortals, with all mortals being as if on island by themselves, with no mortal sharing or hearing ideas from or with other mortals concerning politics or religion.

And while that may seem like a good thing, because it would mean that no mortal would be negatively influenced by hearing from other mortals who share only what they think is good, or true, without knowing any better, there would be no way to hear from mortals who have learned what is good or true from immortals without infringing upon the rights we now have allowing mortals to share what they think they know and experience with other mortals.

And even if we as a society were willing to infringe upon the rights of mortals to share what they think, or what they know, it would be exceedingly difficult to take away all methods of communication between mortals, even if only on one or two topics of conversation.

Or in other words, to be able to listen to any mortal, we must have the ability to listen to all mortals, the misguided and ill-informed as well as those who truly know the truth, possibly even knowing more than we can know by ourselves.

But if you’re only suggesting that you don’t want us to listen to you because you don’t want us to rely too much on anything you have to say, then I will applaud you for your willingness to clear the air and allow other people to learn from the other sources we have available to us on these two topics.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I never said we should not participate in the political process.

Of course, if we care about an issue, we should vote.

And of course, discussing ideas helps bring about new ideas, which can find their way to our politicians and, in theory, become laws.

So if you want to really influence politicians, go ahead and talk politics. If you want to convert people to your religion, go ahead and talk religion. I am not here to stop you.

I am just saying that I, personally, do not wish to convert anyone to my spiritual views...and when it comes to politics, I feel that I have nothing new to bring to the debate.

Topics that are being discussed today (abortion, gun control, terrorism) have been discussed to the point where there are no original ideas on either side.

If I find a new idea, I will share it

However, I do believe that those of you who are criticizing other people's "tribes" (nations, religions or cultures) would feel better if you just stopped...unless those other tribes are an actual threat to your own tribe, in which case you can share your concern with your government, who can decide if something should actually be done about it.

On the other hand, if you are just criticizing the other tribe for the purpose of making yourself feel better, or to make them feel offended....just stop it.

[BenRaines]

Well said TS and I do enjoy discussing politics. I find that many do not explore the issues and make their statements based on a sound bite or brief news item and not the facts or as many facts that are available to make an informed decision.

I heard the other day some saying that they voted for Bill Clinton because they thought he was cute.

[Ray]

Tao: I never said we should not participate in the political process.

Me: Sorry, when you said “It is unwise to talk about politics and religion”, I thought you were saying that you didn’t think anybody should participate in the political process by sharing their ideas about politics, because I think part of the process of being involved in the political process is being able to share and talk about those issues.

Tao: Of course, if we care about an issue, we should vote.

Me: I believe it sometimes helps to talk about an issue before we actually vote on it.

Tao: And of course, discussing ideas helps bring about new ideas, which can find their way to our politicians and, in theory, become laws.

Me: Not only can talking about politics help to bring about “new” ideas, but it can also help to bring people together on “old” ideas, as long as people can agree on what should be done. Or in other words, I don’t think an idea needs to be “new” to be beneficial.

Tao: So if you want to really influence politicians, go ahead and talk politics. If you want to convert people to your religion, go ahead and talk religion. I am not here to stop you.

Me: But from what you said you do not seem to believe it is wise to talk about politics, and that is why I was offering my input, with hope that you would be able to see why I think discussing politics, and religion, can be beneficial.

Tao: I am just saying that I, personally, do not wish to convert anyone to my spiritual views...and when it comes to politics, I feel that I have nothing new to bring to the debate.

Me: I think that if you felt sure that your spiritual views were good or beneficial to yourself, you would also feel sure that your spiritual views would be good or beneficial to others. And if you felt that way, why wouldn’t you want other people to accept your ideas?

Or imagine this. Suppose that while sharing your spiritual views with others, you found that the spiritual views of someone else were even more beneficial to you than your own spiritual views at that time. Wouldn’t you want to embrace those other spiritual views if you saw that they were more beneficial than your own?

If people have different spiritual views on the same issue, and one view is in conflict with another view, one view must be more beneficial than another, and I think we should simply and quickly embrace the spiritual views that we can see as the most beneficial of all.

Tao: Topics that are being discussed today (abortion, gun control, terrorism) have been discussed to the point where there are no original ideas on either side.

Me: As I said before, I don’t think we necessarily need to come up with any new or original ideas. I think we simply need to find the best ideas that will be the most beneficial to all of us who are facing the same issues.

Tao: If I find a new idea, I will share it

Me: I hope you will also continue to share the best ideas you have, while being willing to embrace the ideas of others when you can see that they are even better than your own.

And btw, there should be no shame involved in admitting that you don’t know something, because none of us know anything about what we don’t know.

Tao: However, I do believe that those of you who are criticizing other people's "tribes" (nations, religions or cultures) would feel better if you just stopped...unless those other tribes are an actual threat to your own tribe, in which case you can share your concern with your government, who can decide if something should actually be done about it.

Me: If by criticizing other people’s “tribes” you are referring to condemning other people for believing in things which are not beneficial to them, or which are not as beneficial as other beliefs, then I agree. There is no good reason to condemn people for having beliefs which are not beneficial to them and I think we should stop that if we find ourselves doing it.

But I do not see anything wrong with pointing out the fact that we can not see the benefits of certain beliefs, or what we see as a flaw in the reasoning someone is using, as long as we are trying to help them understand a better way to understand things, because by trying to help others remove the flaws in their view we are trying to help them have the benefits of a better understanding.

Tao: On the other hand, if you are just criticizing the other tribe for the purpose of making yourself feel better, or to make them feel offended....just stop it.

Me: The only reason I sometimes point out what I do not see as a benefit in a belief, or what I see as a flaw in someone’s reasoning, is because I am trying to help other people to enjoy the benefits I can see from my beliefs, and my reasoning, which I acknowledge to have been inspired by God. And when and if I have ever found someone who benefits more from their beliefs than I am benefiting from my beliefs, or someone who benefits from better reasoning, I have been and continue to be willing to change my views in order to accept what I know to a be better way to see things.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Ray,

When I said "you", my comments were aimed at everyone here...not "you" specifically.

Sorry if you thought I was criticizing you.

[Setheus]

pretty sure I ended this debate moments before it started....

[Aristotle]

It is my belief that the majority of LDS conservatives are united politically...especially in regard to abortion. Our First Amendment rights guarantee our right of freedom of speech, and the Church views the Constitution as a divinely-inspired document. I believe that we must protect and defend our rights through the political process.

[Justlooking]

Taos Saint,

I hope you continue to contribute your ideas, opinions, and thoughts to this site. Its good to see the different angles of a situation. Discussion is a great tool.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Maybe, but I am going to try to not to give strong opinions.

[Ray]

Does that mean you will share your opinions with others only when you really aren’t sure about whether or not you know the truth, keeping your opinions to yourself when you are really sure that you know the truth?

Come on, Tao.

I can understand how it can be frustrating to see that certain people will not accept what you tell them, even when you tell them you are really really sure about something, but at least you can walk away from the discussion knowing that you did all you could to share what you thought and felt sure about with those people.

And like I said, if you give someone your best thoughts, and someone else gives you their best thoughts, you might find someone else who will give you some thoughts that you really hadn’t thought about before, which you might find to be even more beneficial than the thoughts you had, in which case you would then have more good thoughts to think about in less time than it would have taken you to come to those thoughts on your own.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I can listen to other people's opinions without sharing my own. Then I will have the opportunity to change my beliefs, if I choose to do so.

The reason I am trying (unsuccessfully so far) to avoid giving my opinions, is that people do not listen.

My observation from reading the news and message boards is that people don't want to have their minds changed. They are comfortable with the beliefs they hold. You will rarely find someone who chooses to change their belief system because of a discussion. Discussion only leads them to defend their position.

It is best to leave people alone, knowing that facts are out there...people will find the facts that support a new belief, and POSSIBLY change their own beliefs.

So discussion is pointless...the facts will be available to everyone sooner or later, especially with the growth of the Internet.

My choice to not discuss religion or politics is for my own sanity. If I feel a desire to convert someone to my point of view, I need to recognize that for what it is...a bad habit...a compulsion...and ultimately something that only causes hurt feelings on both sides.

I am pro-truth, and I hope the Internet and other media will continue to provide facts to people and that people will be more skilled at distingishing the truth from propaganda.

But I am also pro-compassion, so I refuse to contribute to discussions that cause suffering.

http://www.e-sangha.com

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 5 2006, 01:56 PM

Starting now, I plan to avoid talking about politics and religion...

I guess if we aren't going to talk about politics or religion, we'll have to talk about women. Me thinks the contentiousness of politics and religion will seem like the proverbial Sunday School picnic compared to starting down that dark, dangerous rode.

[BenRaines]

Agree. Lets stick to religion and politics. Much safer.

[pushka]

LOL PC and Ben...

Tao...I respect your right to remain silent on whatever issues you like, whenever you like...please don't feel pressured to join in discussions by anybody!

Stay cool and enjoy yourself dude! :)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Thank you, Pushka.

I am getting into Psychology here, which should be a safe area...I was just thinking about what I said...that people rarely change their minds about their established beliefs. Now that I think of it, people DO change their views. Otherwise we would not have the phenomenon of ex-Mormons...and the opposite phenomenon of people who convert to the LDS Church. I wonder if change of political views is as rare or as common as change of religion...but it must happen.

I should revise my theory...

People do not change their established political or religious beliefs as a result of discussion. Instead, they tend to become defensive and strengthen their established beliefs. Neither side can win in such a discussion, and nothing usually changes.

The best that can happen is a compromise, but I am not in a religious or political position to make a compromise with anyone that would make a "real-life" change. If I was a politician, I would be open to discussion and compromise....but I'm just a regular guy.

But people do change religious or political affiliation as a result of personal experience. This can be subtle, slow shifts in their beliefs over time, or the result of a single dramatic experience (near-death experience for example).

So, to summarize, I believe that discussion RARELY can change someone's beliefs...only personal experience.

Exposure to new facts might also play a role, but when introduced in discussion, facts can be "spinned" to suit the opinions of each side, unless they are overwhelmingly in favor of one belief.

[pushka]

I agree with you Tao...

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Thanks again...maybe I will stick to psychology.

[Ray]

Tao: I can listen to other people's opinions without sharing my own. Then I will have the opportunity to change my beliefs, if I choose to do so.

Me: But if other people adopted the same philosophy you are now representing, you would not be able to hear opinions from other people because they too would only be listening, without sharing their own.

Tao: The reason I am trying (unsuccessfully so far) to avoid giving my opinions, is that people do not listen.

Me: How do you know they aren’t listening? Do you judge that only by the people who are responding to your comments? Don’t you know that other people read these posts besides the people who say something.

Tao: My observation from reading the news and message boards is that people don't want to have their minds changed. They are comfortable with the beliefs they hold. You will rarely find someone who chooses to change their belief system because of a discussion. Discussion only leads them to defend their position.

Me: People “modify” their “thoughts” all the time while listening to others, whether you ever hear about it or not. And if you are only willing to learn from people who say that they are only sharing the “facts”, either verbally or through print on some type of book or pamphlet or electronic message board, you will be depriving others of hearing from you when you see something that may not get mentioned unless say something about it.

Tao: It is best to leave people alone, knowing that facts are out there...people will find the facts that support a new belief, and POSSIBLY change their own beliefs.

Me: What some people say are “facts”, other people say are “opinions”, and some people will also say that some opinions or facts are tainted with subjecting and prejudicial viewpoints.

For instance, I say it is a fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and as one evidence of that fact I offer the Book of Mormon, which is something that people can actually pick up and handle, and study. But some people say that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a book that proves nothing, because “anybody” could have written that book despite the facts within the book which state how that book came to be written.

Tao: So discussion is pointless...the facts will be available to everyone sooner or later, especially with the growth of the Internet.

Me: Heh, what facts do you think will be proven simply by virtue of the internet? The internet only makes more “information” more easily attainable, and information is nothing more than what certain people think or say that they have seen and experienced.

Tao: My choice to not discuss religion or politics is for my own sanity. If I feel a desire to convert someone to my point of view, I need to recognize that for what it is...a bad habit...a compulsion...and ultimately something that only causes hurt feelings on both sides.

Me: If you have any kind of a feeling which makes you feel like you “must make other people believe what you believe”, then I would tend to agree that that is a bad feeling, and not a proper motive for sharing information.

My goal is simply to share what I know and think and feel about the things which I think other people might be able to benefit by from knowing. And I will now say that we should be careful when offering information which could compromise personal safety.

Tao: I am pro-truth, and I hope the Internet and other media will continue to provide facts to people and that people will be more skilled at distinguishing the truth from propaganda.

Me: I think wisdom is the only thing that can distinguish truth from propanganda, and if any of us lack wisdom, we should simply ask God for more.

Tao: But I am also pro-compassion, so I refuse to contribute to discussions that cause suffering.

Me: Me too, and I don’t believe anybody should suffer from learning only what we can know on our own.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

To demonstrate my argument, I will ask a simple question.

In the history of LDS Talk, which has been around for several years and seen hundreds if not thousands of discussions and debates...

...can you give me the names of anyone here who has actually changed their religious or political beliefs as a result of a discussion or debate?

If you can, lets compare the number of people who changed with the number of people who held on to their established beliefs.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Ray:

As you can see in my more recent posts, I have reconsidered my original position.

Maybe that will make more sense to you.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 6 2006, 02:02 PM

I wonder if change of political views is as rare or as common as change of religion...but it must happen.

So, to summarize, I believe that discussion RARELY can change someone's beliefs...only personal experience.

←

My political views have actually moderated with age. There's a common political proverb: If you are conservative as a young person, you have no heart. If you are liberal as an older person, you have no brain.

Ironically, from my teen years through my early thirties I considered myself a conservative Moral Majority Christian Coalition Better Dead than Red type Republican (sorry to my evangelical brother at this site ). Though I am still on the right side of the aisle, my views on taxes, 'proactive wars,' etc. have become much more nuanced.

Tao Saint, while I agree with your analysis as far as it goes, you might want to consider that today's conversations/debates become tomorrow's past experiences. I might not instantly convert to another party of denomination, but if I change down the road, I might trace my change back to discussions I had this week.

It might be too, that some of the most 'heated' discussion would be considerably less so if we allowed for evolutionary changes in opinion, rather than looking for intelligently designed big bang conversions. B)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Jan 6 2006, 02:17 PM

It might be too, that some of the most 'heated' discussion would be considerably less so if we allowed for evolutionary changes in opinion, rather than looking for intelligently designed big bang conversions. B)

←

Good point.

Maybe I need to rephrase again...

Perhaps sharing information...facts...is something that should be encouraged. People can learn from them, and might slowly change their beliefs.

But discussion and debate (which are just soft words for "arguments") are pointless, because they are trying to create "big bang" conversions.

Perhaps politicians could learn from this distinction between "sharing" and "debating". But that would go against their Machiavellian ambitions, wouldn't it?