all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
nowhere.
in FYM and in many other places, we have different opinions, we put forth arguments and try to convince people with completely opposite opinions and mindsets. i was reading a bertrand russell book and he touched on the subject as well. its pointless. arguing against someone with different opinions and telling them they are wrong cause you are right never gets us anywhere. therefore its a waste of time for all involved. the only possible course of action open to the parties is to fight it out with their available resources (time, in our case, or armies and bombs on a larger scale) and see who wins.
for instance, the case with iran. if they want to make nukes that badly, you can not tell them it is wrong and convince them not to do it, because obviously theyve given thought to it and decided contrary. all you can do is to delay the process by giving certain incentives to increase the payoff for NOT building nukes (or reducing the payoff of building nukes) however it is impossible convey the message of nuclear arms being bad, because their opinion is just the opposite.
pelebs, a psychologist, argued that mind is first and foremost a device that helps us take sides on any certain issue.
so, is there any point in arguing people with completely different opinions? what can we really achieve by talking about iraq war or for that matter, any issue where 2 opposite camps are involved?
in FYM and in many other places, we have different opinions, we put forth arguments and try to convince people with completely opposite opinions and mindsets. i was reading a bertrand russell book and he touched on the subject as well. its pointless. arguing against someone with different opinions and telling them they are wrong cause you are right never gets us anywhere. therefore its a waste of time for all involved. the only possible course of action open to the parties is to fight it out with their available resources (time, in our case, or armies and bombs on a larger scale) and see who wins.
for instance, the case with iran. if they want to make nukes that badly, you can not tell them it is wrong and convince them not to do it, because obviously theyve given thought to it and decided contrary. all you can do is to delay the process by giving certain incentives to increase the payoff for NOT building nukes (or reducing the payoff of building nukes) however it is impossible convey the message of nuclear arms being bad, because their opinion is just the opposite.
pelebs, a psychologist, argued that mind is first and foremost a device that helps us take sides on any certain issue.
so, is there any point in arguing people with completely different opinions? what can we really achieve by talking about iraq war or for that matter, any issue where 2 opposite camps are involved?
