This weeks Soapbox is....

[alecstilleyedye]

If people argued well, wouldn't minds inevitably be changed?

Two diametrically opposed points of view cannot both be right, can they?

bonj and mr paul both consider each other idiots…

 

[Chuffy]

If people argued well, wouldn't minds inevitably be changed?

Two diametrically opposed points of view cannot both be right, can they?

Yes they can, they're just points of view. You just have to learn to live without the idea that 'right' = 'true'. I think the Arctic feckin' Monkeys are crap. This is right and beyond dispute, in my opinion. You may feel differently. You are also right, in your opinion. Could you say that there was a definitive truth to that argument? Nope.

 

[Crackle]

Yes they can, they're just points of view. You just have to learn to live without the idea that 'right' = 'true'. I think the Arctic feckin' Monkeys are crap. This is right and beyond dispute, in my opinion. You may feel differently. You are also right, in your opinion. Could you say that there was a definitive truth to that argument? Nope.

That's personal taste though not opinion. If you said it's my opinion that the Arctic Monkeys have had more of an impact than Elvis then that's grounds for an exchange of views, you wouldn't need to be an Arctic Monkey devotee/non devotee to argue that one. You might need to be a muppet to suggest it though.

 

[Chuffy]

That's personal taste though not opinion. If you said it's my opinion that the Arctic Monkeys have had more of an impact than Elvis then that's grounds for an exchange of views, you wouldn't need to be an Arctic Monkey devotee/non devotee to argue that one. You might need to be a muppet to suggest it though.

I'd have lumped personal opinion in with personal taste. Both are just points of view and not governed by absolutes of right and wrong. Very little is (and a quick Google will clear up most factual issues) which is why you can start a scrap in Soapbox so easily. I have certain moral absolutes, but they are still mine and don't constitute a demonstrable truth in a simple black/white way.

 

[Crackle]

I'd have lumped personal opinion in with personal taste. Both are just points of view and not governed by absolutes of right and wrong. Very little is (and a quick Google will clear up most factual issues) which is why you can start a scrap in Soapbox so easily. I have certain moral absolutes, but they are still mine and don't constitute a demonstrable truth in a simple black/white way.

If you reduce that to two extremes ie. the colour red is better than the colour black or a privatised NHS is better than a nationalised one, then you have a personal debate which is meaningless and going nowhere and a politicised debate which is pretty meaningful to everyone and quite difficult to determine which facts are correct or not. On the latter, going back to what I said earlier, I might find I start off with one view only to be persuaded by an informed argument that another view might be better. On the former, well black is better, obviously.

 

[Chuffy]

If you reduce that to two extremes ie. the colour red is better than the colour black or a privatised NHS is better than a nationalised one, then you have a personal debate which is meaningless and going nowhere and a politicised debate which is pretty meaningful to everyone and quite difficult to determine which facts are correct or not. On the latter, going back to what I said earlier, I might find I start off with one view only to be persuaded by an informed argument that another view might be better. On the former, well black is better, obviously.

The NHS debate is still going to revolve around opinion. I'm sure you could be shifted by a persuasive argument, but NickM's point, that two opposing points of view can't both be right, is wrong.

 

[NickM]

Allow me to rephrase it, then (with acknowledgements to Crackle):

Two opposing points of view on a matter other than one of personal taste or sentiment cannot both be right.

Worthwhile discussions are those which find the truth; everything else is fluff.

 

[Chuffy]

Allow me to rephrase it, then (with acknowledgements to Crackle):

Two opposing points of view on a matter other than one of personal taste or sentiment cannot both be right.

Worthwhile discussions are those which find the truth; everything else is fluff.

Hmmmm. So a discussion such as the one that Crackle suggested on the merits of a privatised health service vs a nationalised one can be reduced to an absolute truth? I don't think so somehow, it's always going to be subjective, modulated by political persuasion, personal experience, sentiment, whatever.

Surely a worthwhile discussion is one where people test their ideas against each other. How do you decide when this elusive 'truth' has been reached and everyone can stop arguing and have a cuppa? I imagine you must find Soapbox very disappointing....

 

[User482]

I think the problem is that there are lots of matters for which the "right" answer depends on your objectives. The NHS is a good example - the right answer for ultimate patient care would be different to the right answer for patient care balanced with reasonable cost.
There's never going to be an absolute truth for such matters.

 

[GaryA]

Hmmmm. So a discussion such as the one that Crackle suggested on the merits of a privatised health service vs a nationalised one can be reduced to an absolute truth? I don't think so somehow, it's always going to be subjective, modulated by political persuasion, personal experience, sentiment, whatever.

....

Too many people believe that any kind of truth is unobtainable...without getting into soapbox mode too much i would say that thats a product of a erroronous post modern relativism, making all differences non-evaluative means a leveling downward of expectation of what can be achieved...by treating everything and everyone to have equal value it subverts criticism and supports the capitalist market ethos where value is solely determined by supply and demand, that people are mere producers and consumers




.

 

[Chuffy]

Too many people believe that any kind of truth is unobtainable...without getting into soapbox mode too much i would say that thats a product of a erroronous post modern relativism, making all differences non-evaluative means a leveling downward of expectation of what can be achieved...by treating everything and everyone to have equal value it subverts criticism and supports the capitalist market ethos where value is solely determined by supply and demand, that people are mere producers and consumers.

I understood all the words in that sentence....

I'm not saying it's impossible to reach a concensus at the end of any given discussion, but that's not the same as an absolute, unarguable truth.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Too many people believe that any kind of truth is unobtainable...without getting into soapbox mode too much i would say that thats a product of a erroronous post modern relativism, making all differences non-evaluative means a leveling downward of expectation of what can be achieved...by treating everything and everyone to have equal value it subverts criticism and supports the capitalist market ethos where value is solely determined by supply and demand, that people are mere producers and consumers




.

Seeing a lot of redcogs at the moment, Gaz?

 

[Smeggers]

Personally I find Soapbox a welcome repreive from the bunch of brain dead moron drones I have to work with on a daily basis.

Coupled with a real life god-like status of responsibility - Soapbox doubles as stress relief and a source of amusement in engaging in a spot of mud slinging.

(If you beleive that you beleive anything)

 

[Chuffy]

I often consider myself an idiot.

Do we have a consensus on that?

 

[Tetedelacourse]

bonj and mr paul both consider each other idiots…

Those are not two diametrically opposed points of view.