It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do you think? Should everyone listen to opposing sides or not?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
It used to drive me crazy when I was growing up that every time someone came on (the news, on interviews, or on a talk-show) that she didn't agree with, my mother would growl and change the channel.

Do you do this too or do you make a point to listen to the other side? I try to listen to both sides of an issue (or campaign) then decide what I think. It can be hard if you know you dislike the person that is speaking but do you make the effort?

Just wondering.




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 



You shouldn't listen to anyone who disagree's with you, they are wrong after all? Why would you want to listen to them!!

Seriously though, if you can't listen opposing views to and sucessfully debate them with your own views then I think you have to question your own beliefs on the matter. Otherwise it justs becomes this:




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It is imperative to listen to other viewpoints in order to have the upper hand in debates and daily life discussion. One might even learn that one's position is not the correct one if the evidence points to the other side.

Also, it is important to see other points of view to gain a better understanding of people, check for logical fallacies in their arguments, if propaganda is being used, etc. the same should apply to your own point of view. You should check if your point of view is based on logic, if it makes sense, if it is based purely on emotion or if you fell victim to propaganda and you don't know it, etc.

Basically, you MUST listen to other viewpoints, you might learn something new, change your mind about a position, and get more information for future debates and conversations.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Now the real question...
Why do so many people refuse to listen to other view-points?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


Because most who put forth their view points refuse to accept the fact that they could be wrong. After a while it gets frustrating trying to listen to them without them listening to yours.

Check out the 911 forums and you will see my point.

We are all guilty at one time or another of doing it.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Is listening to both sides not a prerequisite to making an informed decision.

I always like to hear both side so I can laugh at the fool who doesn't agree with me cause I know I'm right.


Seriously though, listening to both sides can sometimes change your mind on a certain point of view, or perhaps help you to refine your view into a broader understanding than you had before.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I would never listen to anyone giving an opinion that was wrong about my life. Your wrong, so all the other rubbish you spew is wrong.

Thats the way i look at it. Most people are wrong about everything, and i would not listen to them period.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
Now the real question...
Why do so many people refuse to listen to other view-points?


People refuse to listen to other viewpoints because different viewpoints could potentially destroy a person's whole life if proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

for example, there are people who believe the 9/11 official story, and trust the government and it's power. If they listen to the other point of view and are convinced, their whole reality would crash- they would find out the government does not care about them, they have been lied to, etc.

Same thing for the "truthers", if their viewpoint is proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and terrorists in fact destroyed the towers, then it would mean their whole efforts toward finding out what really happen in 9/11 would have been in vain.

More extreme examples come when we are dealing with religion. Imagine a 40 year old catholic who spend her entire time in church serving her god, and suddenly being shown evidence that the catholic religion is in fact based on paganism and that her god might not exist. This would mean her ENTIRE LIFE would have been a waste.

An atheist who somehow finds proof of the existence of any deity might be dumbfounded, not knowing what to believe anymore.

It is extremely difficult to listen to other viewpoints, especially the really good ones backed up by evidence, because there is the chance that everything one believes to be true is a lie.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by newworld
 


Great post. Starred.

But doesn't having to listen to other view-points require you to really find out exactly what it is you believe in? Doesn't it also, as a result strengthen your faith in whatever it is that is being debated?

Doesn't it make you think? I know that just in the small amount of time that I've been on this site my brain has had to work harder to keep up with all the debate. Isn't it good when others are around to keep you on your toes and to keep you sharp?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I usually begin with listening to what is being said by both sides.
Then I go do the research. Now, when I hear someone saying anything I think they have Not researched for themselves, I advise them to do so. Being ignorant of something is way different than being stupid, if you have to get your beliefs from someone elses view on something, now that makes me very sad. I don't like to fight about topics, but it irkes the hell out of me when I hear someone spouting off BS they Hear on the News, or Read in the papers, as the Truth. Always do the Research before you take a stand!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
There is a certain cut-off beyond which I'm not willing to listen. If a lady in one of the townhall meetings becomes upset because "Obama is trying to convert the United States into some kind of a Soviet Union", I'm not going listen to this retard. I am a proud American and I was born in the Soviet Union, and the irony and sheer idiocy of this statement is all too painfully obvious to me. And don't get me started on another one, "keep the government out of my Medicare".

Here's my point: too many people in the States aren't informed or educated or both. This defines the nature of public discourse as that based on faith, not on fact and reason. If you argue for listening to the other party (which is fine in principle) imagine arguing against Islam to the Saudi family.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


I think it depends on the relevance and intelligence of an opinion.

I didn't agree with our involvement in Iraq when that started, but I listened to both sides of the argument to learn more about the motivations. I respected the fact that our military believed that they were doing something for the Iraqi people.
So I listened to both sides.
Ultimately, I gained the opinion that we were following America into a war for profit, oil, and strategy against a future attack against Iran.

However, when it comes to a discussion regarding something like racism, our beloved "English Defence League" for example, I hear the first line of bull and I switch off.
Most intelligent people know a BS story when they hear it, they know propaganda and they recognise when a person with lesser intelligence and lower credibility is feeding them a line. Sure, they might believe it themselves, but that just shows even more how irrelevant their opinion is to me.

In the Israel/Gaza war, I was prepared to listen to both sides in the beginning. I didn't have much more than a cursory knowledge of the politics between them or the violent history.
But within a day or two it was clear exactly who the maniacal oppressor was. It was clear to me that Israel's "representatives" were blatantly lying on camera at every opportunity. They refused to accept ANY responsibility for ANYTHING and constantly attacked rather than defending their own position.
Therefore, I switched off from listening to anything they had to say. I knew that they were lying through their snarling teeth. It was clear to see that they were engaged in the most desperate propaganda battle I'd ever seen, and it sickens me to this day.

So, for me, it all depends on the clear actions of people and the intelligence of their opinions. If they fall below acceptable standards their opinion is not worth my time.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by newworld
 


Great post. Starred.

But doesn't having to listen to other view-points require you to really find out exactly what it is you believe in? Doesn't it also, as a result strengthen your faith in whatever it is that is being debated?

Doesn't it make you think? I know that just in the small amount of time that I've been on this site my brain has had to work harder to keep up with all the debate. Isn't it good when others are around to keep you on your toes and to keep you sharp?


Yes, listening to other points of view and the other side of a debate does help tremendously. however, I noticed you used the phrase "strengthen your faith in whatever it is that is being debated."

When debating and viewing opposing viewpoints, it is important to stand by one's argument, but do not trust it and believe your own argument by "faith." having one position by "faith" is a way to close your mind to the possibility of being wrong. Instead of faith, one should trust one's position by the amount and quality of your evidence, as well as your own background knowledge.

It is good to have others around you who disagree with you, because they will make you question your position and investigate further. but remember, never just "believe" or leave your position to "faith", your argument will be much stronger if backed up by evidence and logic rather than pure rhetoric or emotion.

this is why i spend so much time in this site, it is necessary for me to work up my brain and show my evidence and sources whenever I enter important discussions, otherwise I would get destroyed by the people in this site



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


There are two types of arguments.

Arguments that include facts.

Arguments that include morals.

The arguments that include facts can easily be won...example is this: "How do you spell Apple?" We know there is one way to spell apple, and that is how.

When arguments include morals, people view their side normally based upon ethics. But who gets to decide whose ethics are right and whose are wrong? I will use abortion as an example. Whether or not you think it is "wrong", or "bad", there are facts out there that go with it.

So I tend to drop the whole ethics argument, and base it upon facts. Others stick to ethics, and others use a combination. When we are fighting upon different foundations to our arguments, it is almost impossible to come to a logical debate.

THAT is why people don't listen to each other...and of course people should listen to opposing sides.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
This is why I only watch FOX News. They present both sides. Fair and balanced!



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


No,I'd rather not hear what the radical left has to say. I've heard it enough on CNN,MSNBC and the Networks.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join