Almost nothing will ever have one hundred percent agreement; even the most obvious subjects will be debated by "someone" using skewed and twisted logic (at least to them).
We teach second graders how to try and discern "opinion" from "fact"; yet very often that skill seems to be lacking in these discussions. Our existence is mostly some shade of grey.
We can deny all we want, but we all have some type of "prejudice"; it just depends on how you perceive something and how you were raised. How we respond to that prejudice is the real problem, not having it.
Very few of us can claim, in reality, that emotion does not sometimes shade our thought process (or lack of it occasionally), and therefore our response.
Just because we disagree about things does not make those with whom we disagree "stupid, ignorant, dumb, perverted, and so on. It is simply a disagreement!
"Compromise" is not one sided; and it is useless without allowing it to happen at some point.
Statistics are dependent on "opinion"; they do not make opinion. Experts can make anything seem to be supported in one direction or another. The actual "study" subject, the questions, the people queried, how they were queried (and even where and when), individual bias, the size of the study, and many other variable all are part of the outcome.
If you reach far enough you are likely to find some type of connection between two ideas or persons. Whether you believe absolutely in creation or in evolution, at some point we all share ancestors in one form or another.
I am sure others can add many additional things to this list. My point is that all too often we cannot seem to get past our first "knee jerk" to some ideas or conceptions. But, at some point, we need to accept that we can argue to the depth of eternity, but we will not convince everyone we are right, accept we may be wrong.
At some point, usually within the first two or three pages of comments here, we have reached a dead-end; the place where neither argument will realistically change the other side of the debate.
We teach second graders how to try and discern "opinion" from "fact"; yet very often that skill seems to be lacking in these discussions. Our existence is mostly some shade of grey.
We can deny all we want, but we all have some type of "prejudice"; it just depends on how you perceive something and how you were raised. How we respond to that prejudice is the real problem, not having it.
Very few of us can claim, in reality, that emotion does not sometimes shade our thought process (or lack of it occasionally), and therefore our response.
Just because we disagree about things does not make those with whom we disagree "stupid, ignorant, dumb, perverted, and so on. It is simply a disagreement!
"Compromise" is not one sided; and it is useless without allowing it to happen at some point.
Statistics are dependent on "opinion"; they do not make opinion. Experts can make anything seem to be supported in one direction or another. The actual "study" subject, the questions, the people queried, how they were queried (and even where and when), individual bias, the size of the study, and many other variable all are part of the outcome.
If you reach far enough you are likely to find some type of connection between two ideas or persons. Whether you believe absolutely in creation or in evolution, at some point we all share ancestors in one form or another.
I am sure others can add many additional things to this list. My point is that all too often we cannot seem to get past our first "knee jerk" to some ideas or conceptions. But, at some point, we need to accept that we can argue to the depth of eternity, but we will not convince everyone we are right, accept we may be wrong.
At some point, usually within the first two or three pages of comments here, we have reached a dead-end; the place where neither argument will realistically change the other side of the debate.
. But da idea can still be genuinely stupid. 
.
Comment