Plane haven't you figured it out by now that you can't reason, debate, discuss or converse with left-wing loons like XO? They just aren't equipped. You end up going in circles. Morons like that believe in their minds that Fox isn't balanced news and NPR is balanced news even though logic & facts prove them wrong.
No I have not!
Being tolerant is a tough virtue to cultivate, it is nothing like being nice to the people you are like and agree with, tolerance is being decent to people you have little in common with and /or disagree with.
What would be the point of my "debating " anything with you? It is too likely that we agree basicly and a chorus of "yes me too" doesn't fit the definition of "debate" at all.
WE might enjoy discussing something , but we would not be in opposition so there would not be much honing of skill in diplomacy and debate.
I genuinely hate the thought thatt the world will not be at peace before we are all in agreement on everything. Humanity should include a lot of diffrent types and styles.Diffrent people need to develop the ability to live at peace with their near and far neighbors who think diffrently.
The alternative?
In fact I do run into very intolerant liberals here and there, but XO seems willing to return tolerance in the measure I am able to show him.
This doesn't mean that I have converted him , nor he I, that isn't the point(and it is kinda unlikely).
It means that he and I can exchange ideas and learn how the other half thinks , rather than have to imagine what he "must" be thinking.
[/quote]
I knew you would say that!
This is exactly the kind of attitude that has just about ruined the Republican Party. They, the Dems, can't be reasoned with, they never will like you or me, they cheat, they lie, and they will say or do anything to push their agenda along.
This depends on what the point of reasoning with him is.
If satisfying my courosity about his thinking , or polishing my own thinking skill is the point then we are having a lot of success.
I think it pointless to use supposition to determine for myself what he is thinking , I would rather read his explanation which is a better clue to his mind .
I am like everyone elese, prone to stop searching when I have found what I am looking for whether it is my car key or a satisfactory explanation for the way things are. What if I accept a sloppy logic or an incomplete explanation ? In debate I get my thinking challenged and in defense of my thinking I must examine my thoughts for holes I would not notice otherwise, then my opponent is liable to point at the holes I have still missed.
It is a kind of a favor done, or a generosity expressed. good friends can spar without fighting.
As for making important decisions , it isn't for the debaetor to be the jury, rather the votors of the Jury of those who observe the debate. A really good debate is good for the vote, even if none of the debators are converted , the audience is handed much good food for thought.
Why don't you rejoice in a debate opponent whose falicys serve as foils for your cogent counterarguments? You would look silly making counterarguements to yourself, but the more the opponent is definately off the mark the easyer it is to present the better arguement.
Your opponent is not any more likely to change his mind than you are yourself, the best benefit is to the third person who reads or hears the arguement before he makes up his own mind.
