Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm perfectly aware of what listen means. I'm perfectly aware it means understanding, reception comprehension. That is my point.
Who here was hurt, angry, wounded? Certainly not I. Do you mean to tell me that because I disagree passionately the only explaination you can resolve is that I was hurt or wounded and so did not understand or hear?
I'm sorry Fjlotsdale but it is intolerance. It is refusal to acknowledge that you could be wrong and that all that remains is for you to get me to understand your view.
Whether you intend it or not it is highly insulting and hampers discussion. Respect is paramount to discourse.
I repeat, since you seem to have ignored my statement, that Dio made an assumption without key information. A factor you seem to blithely disregard in your statement about me not listening.
No I am not hurt, wounded or angry; merely being matter of fact. Discussion is impossible if you refuse to allow another the right to a different opinion. The right to look at a picture and draw different analysis.
Thankyou m'girl 
|
Hi there, Yorick!
I offered the explanation of the word because you seemed to think I didn't know what it meant, lol! You are one VERY scratchy person, you know that?
I did note what Diogenes missed AND his apology! It just did not seem relevant to the point of 'listening' that you were making, even though it was a case in point.
About people being 'hurt and angry': Maybe YOU were not, Yorick, but can you honestly say that most of America was not? I also find it dificult to believe that someone who was in NY at the time could FAIL to be hurt and angry. But my statement was a generalisation (oh, big mistake to make generalisations! But we all do), and not aimed at you specifically.
Regarding intolerance: I have definite views on things. You have definite views on things. Expressing those views strongly does NOT mean being intolerant! You come accross to ME as intolerant, friend, FREQUENTLY!
But I do not regard it as insulting - merely that you have strong views.
SURE we will try to persuade each other that the other is wrong!! What would be the value of having strong convictions if we DID NOT try to convince our friends that our viewpoint is correct? If we are SURE something is right, then NOT to try to convice others is cowardly, isn't it? That does not mean to say either of us is ACTUALLY INTOLERANT of the other person's views!
I 'listen' to other views. I have often had my viewpoint changed by others because of the good case they present, and my own further investigation subsequent to that. That is not intolerance. You yourself have made some excellent arguments in our religious debates that have had me scurrying around to check if you might be right (imho!), and you have certainly made me pause to think very often.
So far, though, I have not seen what I consider to be a single good argument for military action in Afghanistan, even though I understand and have some sympathy for those arguments. My basic instinct is 'bomb the bastard terrorists out of existence!'
However, common sense prevails. That is not intolerance, honest!
I AM intolerant of SOME things, though.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 09-24-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 09-24-2001).]