There will be times (especially, it seems, on the internet community) when I pull back from an argument. When I say enough is enough, agree to disagree, and decide that I am done. This probably means I lost the argument.
There will be times (again... mostly on the internet community) when someone says something rude to me. At these times, it's easy for me to yell back, to call them names akin to the ones they've called me, and to start an argument that is, in essence, unnecessary. There are other times when I attempt to take the high road and tell them that what they said was inappropriate, to respond but to do so with what I've decided is respect, point out how what they said was wrong, and hopefully be the bigger person. However, more and more lately, I just don't respond at all. I probably lost this argument, too.
I don't get a lot of people calling me out on things. Maybe I avoid controversy lately. Maybe I avoid saying what I feel. I admit there have been times when speaking with people with whom I don't agree politically, socially, or philosophically, that I just hold my tongue. But that's usually only when the person is older and has such a deeply different foundation of belief that I do that arguing with them simply won't help anything at all.
The fact is, people, sometimes there's no need to fight. I think we all know that. But what I think we all forget sometimes, is that in the vast majority of occasions, there's no need to fight
back. People are going to be rude to you. People are going to judge your beliefs and your actions, no matter how wonderful you try to be. There will always be someone who thinks you're stupid, or obnoxious, or cruel, even if you don't deserve those names or words.
If you say something that offends another person, even if you think you're justified in saying it, it's okay to apologize. It's okay to be a little bit humble. It's okay to tell someone you're arguing with that you're simply not going to agree on this one. It's okay to ignore someone who's being rude to you. Sometimes you want to react to fire with fire, and sometimes you want to react to fire with water, but sometimes you just want to let the fire burn itself out. (Which is a really weird analogy, I don't know any scenario in which adding fire to fire somehow makes the fire go away, but I'm by no means an expert in such things.)
You're right, maybe sometimes I pull my punches and back off. But the fact is, most of the time, punching someone doesn't bring them along to your way of thinking anyway.
Comments (12)
"I don't know any scenario in which adding fire to fire somehow makes
the fire go away, but I'm by no means an expert in such things." that's it... people don't get that. they probably think, "hey, if i make my fire bigger and stronger, theirs will lose..." but as you said, adding fire to fire only makes it bigger and more dangerous...
i'm with you on this... just hold your tongue. debating about beliefs, to me, is useless for the most part... because if you are at the level and confidence in your belief to debate about it, then you're probably not gonna change your beliefs around anyways... so if you're debating with someone, they're probably at a stage where you're not gonna do much in the way of changing how they think. O__O
i guess people like to feel correct... funny, as i read a quote just this morning (it's evening, here, now) saying "you have a choice: either be right, or be happy." and at first i was like "huh? how does that work?" but the blogger further explained... like when he argued with his gf, if he won the argument, guilt overwhelmed him and he didn't feel good... but if he left it and let his gf have the final word... he felt better. :)
my comment is gonna exceed your entry in length if i don't stop here! LOL :P
thanks for this. recced!
"But the fact is, most of the time, punching someone doesn't bring them along to your way of thinking anyway." this only works on the playground in grade school. haha. i wonder why people dont know that anymore..
You can fight fire with fire by burning ahead of a fire so that when the fire reaches that spot, it has to go out because theirs nothing left to burn.
Man I wish I had the self control you have. The whole week I've been dealing with some nasty people on faith and religion and science and... ugh... it is really hard to just walk away. I finally had to do so... I just stopped saying anything but these arguments are so uncalled for.
I guess people know exactly the right buttons to push on me.
I guess though, being a geologist on Xanga is going to get me a fair amount of haters, solely for the fact that I believe in what I've learned about the subject.
I think I will let Lao Tzu speak for me on this one:
Tao Te Ching; Chapter 69:
"Strategists have a saying:
'I prefer to be able to move, rather than be in a fixed position
'I prefer to retreat a foot rather than advancing an inch.'
This is called progress without advancing;
Preparing without showing off;
Smashing where there is no defense;
Taking him without a fight.
"There is no greater danger than under-estimating your opponent.
If I under-estimate my opponent
I will lose that which is most dear.
Therefore
"When opponents clash
"The one who is sorry about it will be the winner."
yes it does! if you punch your way to their brain!
@OhItWontBeForever - I agree with you. I think if you want to discuss your beliefs with someone, even debate them a little bit, it has to be done respectfully. If not, there's no point, and it's better to just back off when you see a situation that's going sour that way. At least, for me. I like that quote, too, I've never heard it before. It's pretty correct, the way I see things. You can be right, but if being right is more important than anything else, you're certainly not going to be happy. Thanks for the rec, lovely! =) <3
@x_Quadrophenia - I think they conveniently forget, because punching is rather satisfying for the moment. =P
@x_Butterflies_and_Hurricanes_x - If a discussion about beliefs turns into an argument, there's no point. Once something's an argument, people become so closed-minded that there can be no growth, and when there's no growth, such discussions can't do anybody any good. It's hard sometimes, but lately it's gotten easier and easier to pull back. I'm just hoping I'm not doing it because I'm lazy or afraid of the argument. Some things deserve conflict, after all, and I will always admire someone who fights for what they believe in. I just don't think there always has to be a fight in order for something to be believed.
@StarvingArtist_13 - Beautiful. Military strategy is rather poetic, isn't it? At least when written like that.
@LetheOfHeaven - That might not bring them around to your way of thinking though. It might just make them think they're King Arthur and that it's socially acceptable to wear fish on your feet like shoes, or something equally ridiculous. Punching all the way to someone's brain is tricky business.
@AibellFaeire - Ayuh, but the Tao Te Ching (do'ee ken Lao Tzu) is not simply military strategy (as is The Art of War, can ya gimme Sun Tzu?), though debate and argument is every inch a military engagement, and may be every bit as destructive: It was the philosophy of the rulers of China, and governs an entire way of life, not the military alone.
My point though, was that it is often better to concede a loss when the alternative consists of fighting back and causing greater conflict than either party could alone. To sidestep an attack, to act as water and flow around, often causes the aggressor to run headlong into objects far solider than he is
("When opponents clash / The one who is sorry about it will be the winner.")
("I give to you a new teaching: Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you, for in so doing you will heap coals of living fire on their heads.")
@StarvingArtist_13 - That's really cool. I've never heard of the book before, but if the rest of it is written anything like that quote (which I must assume it is), then it's definitely something I'll want to get my hands on. That kind of inclusive philosophy is fascinating to me. Thanks for the info. =)
@AibellFaeire - Aye. Essentially the Tao Te Ching (read Way of Heaven) is the basis of Taoism, one of several of the leading religions of China. I find that it, like the OBOD* version of Druidry, is more of a mindset than a religion, and can be applied to any particular set of beliefs as a sort of filter, or medium, do ya kennit.
I highly recommend the Tao. I picked it up recently (the book, not the faith--I find it rather difficult to say exactly what my religion is in light of a specific label, though I know what my beliefs are very well), and have been utterly fascinated by it.
*Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids.
@StarvingArtist_13 - I've heard about the Tao, mostly from friends who were experimenting in different religious beliefs, but it's one of those religions I haven't yet read directly about. It's seemed like something that would be pretty agreeable to most belief systems, like you said, and it was definitely something I wanted to look into. Now I'll HAVE to get this book. =P It's hard for me to pinpoint a religion (or lack there-of) as well, and have decidedly set myself in the agnostic camp for now, but the study of different belief structures will always be fascinating to me.
I totally agree with you, I will discuss but to argue and yell back and forth, it is just pointless really, especially when the differences are so very vast.
@StarvingArtist_13 - great quote!
@Doubledb - Exactly! Discussion leans to learning, but arguing when the differences are so great will never lead to such a thing. Some people aren't really up for learning though...