The Challenges of Respecting Disagreements

[jireh the provider]

I actually had this idea from a video in youtube talking about the design conflict with a game called Smite. Some of you may have heard the reporting conflicts of the Game director versus the Minority of Hindus raging out their response of Kali's design as an action for the male demographic audience on disrespecting their deities (aka Pornification).

But at the same time, I've been watching walkthroughs of a game called South Park: The Stick of Truth showing various themes that they like to show just like their TV counterpart: controversial themes like nazis, gay's thingys (something I can respect even if I don't get the gist of this idea), child molestation, showing of physical sex in various houses, animal sex as well, and making fun of every race, religion, and people of the world. And many more...

So, is today's society just couldn't respect the things they are against? Are ordinary people easily misunderstood and misled by the media's represented stereotypes? Or does the degree of education truly affects one's level of perception.

For me, yes I enjoy reading books from Sientology for I also know their supposedly story of Zenu. But for me, I disagree with the zenu idea as a religion with humble respect. It's just really a sci fi story made my L. Ron Hubbard. Why take it seriously?

Edit: the host just asked me to moved it here on the debate forum

 

[Ketaru]

I'm not really sure what answer you're looking for. But for some issues, it isn't so simple as respecting others differences. I can speak only for myself here. For me, the most salient issue are "gay's thingys". This may be different for LGBT allies and LGBT people themselves, but I identify as gay. Opponents to LGBT equality often try to undermine that and say it is not a legitimate self-identification.

To say "Being gay is wrong" is like saying "Being Latino is wrong" or "Being developmentally disabled is wrong." To disrespect that is to disrespect me and, for that, I feel it is unfair to expect respect in kind. If the more belligerent religious folk are to be believed, gays ought to be put to death. Now, I believe killing is wrong in most cases and I bet most of you do too. How can I be asked to show positive regard for someone who internalizes that belief?

Furthermore, opponents take it a step further by justifying it with rationale that, if being gay isn't real, then they're not really disrespecting anybody. So they'll say anything to support their case- gays are drug addicts, gays are pedophiles, gays spread HIV, gays are trying to destroy families. I take all this as a personal attack and it's all baseless slander really.

But the truth is I do respect many religious folks. Because many religious folk don't hold the same interpretation of those ideas and believe I do have the right to live as I wish so long as I am a productive member of society. And for the religious folk that do believe being gay is a sin, many are still critical thinkers who are aware that their own personal religious conviction ought not be the basis for public policy making and legislation. I can respect that, even if I can't be friends with such a person.

 

[jireh the provider]

Well, about that gay part, you see, I respect it. I just don't get the purpose of pursuing it besides for an identity.

You see, I'm kind of thinking of tackling social studies too at the moment since respect and reason are intertwined. Yet for some people from my personal observations, respecting other's opinions that you disagree upon is a sign of weakness. Thus, some show their disagreeing opinion in a violent way instead of a well mannered etiquette. This video that I like on youtube shows not just a video of the issue with Scientology itself. If you read the comments below, you can see that only very few reply their disagreements in a formal way. Most would just be "OOHHH! SCIENTOLOGY IS AN EVIL MONEYMAKING RELIGION LIKE THE REST OF THE F***ING WORLD B****ES!"
Geesh, it's just science fiction just like their own version of Star Wars people...

If you think that I'm a member of that said religion, I am not. I just read their books from time to time. I mean, the way I see their view, it's just ideas and beliefs topped with bits of research. Ain't the same of other religions too? I mean, if you watch Ancient Aliens on History Channel, they reflect o religious teachings as an interpretation of today's modern technology given by ancient aliens from the past within every culture.

Maybe some cultures only really see violent and loud voices can respond and potentially destroy disagreements. Thus, resulting to a stereotype called the vocal minority.

So then, what are the other issues, debates, topics, and others, that a lot of people are struggling to respectfully disagree with justified reasons?

For me, one of those involves the Trans humanism State. If memory recalls, it's something about humans having robotic parts as part of our next evolution. Ain't that similar to, like, X-Men?

 

[Steampunk]

To be completely honest, I am not completely sure I am understanding the purpose of this debate, based on where the discussion is going. But if it is simply that it is difficult to disagree with someone in a tactful manner, that is an issue, one that I myself have been trying really hard (And yes failing at times) to work on.

If you simply respond to a debate topic with an insulting or sarcastic reply, it doesn't help your case, and just makes you look like a jerk. Really, you should reply with as much tact as possible, even if you strongly disagree with the topic. If you insult you will only get an insult in reply. And really, the trend I have noticed is that the mindset upon entering places like a debate forum, is "I am going to go in and because I already know what I'm talking about, I shall disagree with people. And to emphasize my disagreement, I shall also insult". Part of respecting a disagreement is happens even before you enter the forum/thread, you have to get rid of that mindset first.

 

[The Federation]

The title of the thread is interesting, because it brings into question the difference between a mature disagreement and the privileging of magical thought. I remember being told in the past "it's ok to disagree with x, but I would prefer you leave it be". Sometimes that just isn't an option, because the harm caused is too great to ignore.

As for Scientology and Mormonism, the two newer religions: we see them for what they are because dogmatism takes time to take root, and is drastically slowed by modern scientific thought. The reason we look at scientology and wonder how anyone can hear the story of Zenu or transcendent thetans and at the same time see those who accept metaphysical overlords and transcendent souls is because of the time period it was introduced. If you had to be completely honest, could you really give a reason why stories like Noah's Arc or Sodom and Gomorrah are more reasonable than ones that describe placing atomic bombs in volcanos and auditing your soul?

 

[Maedar]

Federation, stories like that take blind faith to believe.

But in the Information Age, people are far more skeptical or such outrageous stories, and see them as fanciful. We demand politicians show us the signed and witnessed documents to back up their stories, what makes religious leaders think we'll take their word for it?

 

[Baba Yaga]

Learning to agree to disagree is a useful enough skill, but when it comes to matters of grave moral consequence letting bygones be bygones simply isn't an option. Inaction and complacency can in themselves become forms of violence. The phrase “agree-to-disagree” implies that both positions (for and against) have merit– but in the case of civil rights, I don’t believe that’s possible. I simply do not believe that a person’s right to oppress is as valid as the rights of those experiencing the oppression. And I think we become complicit in oppression when we buy into the myth of the oppressor’s rights. I don’t want to play the “we-both-have-valid-positions” game when it comes to issues of equality or human dignity.

 

[AquaMilotic]

I don't think intelligence has a big impact on whether you can respect people you disagree with. For example, like mentioned before, most people who don't respect homosexuality are religious, and have trouble accepting it because of their religion. But I also know religious people who have no trouble with it and who tolerate homosexuality. And I know both intelligent and less intelligent people who can respect things they disagree with, and both intelligent and less intelligent people who have trouble with it.

What might also apply sometimes is whether someone is stubborn or not. But that's also hard to say: I know stubborn people who are still tolerant, and also stubborn people who are not.

It's hard to say what influences someone's level of acceptance. I think how someone is raised by their parents matters a lot. If they teach their children to be tolerant, it's going to be easier than when they teach their children that certain things are not acceptable. I'm a straight atheist and I respect homosexuality and religious people, and my parents do so too, so you can see their influence there. Maybe I might've been less tolerant if I would've had intolerant parents. But of course some parents preach tolerance and their child might still end up not being tolerant, which could be because of pressure or influence from other people, think about school, friends, media and other outside influences.

Learning to agree to disagree is a useful enough skill, but when it comes to matters of grave moral consequence letting bygones be bygones simply isn't an option. Inaction and complacency can in themselves become forms of violence. The phrase “agree-to-disagree” implies that both positions (for and against) have merit– but in the case of civil rights, I don’t believe that’s possible. I simply do not believe that a person’s right to oppress is as valid as the rights of those experiencing the oppression. And I think we become complicit in oppression when we buy into the myth of the oppressor’s rights. I don’t want to play the “we-both-have-valid-positions” game when it comes to issues of equality or human dignity.

I agree with this. I believe you should respect someone's point of view, as long as they're not pushing it on others. And when they push their beliefs down people's throat and maybe even oppress people, that's where the line is drawn. Then, I believe the oppressed group should be defended. Of course without violence, but a clear statement needs to be made. Otherwise, people who oppress others can continue what they're doing without any opposition.

When it comes to small issues like a taste in music or even Pokemon shipping preferences, it's easier to accept a difference in opinion (but not for everybody, sadly), but when it comes to, for example, a dictator or government oppressing the people in the country, or a certain group, that's not acceptable. Then, agreeing to disagree isn't possible, because then, the situation won't change.

 

[Mr Dragon]

For me, there are things that I cannot respectfully disagree with others on, because those opinions inherently lead me to judge them. There are things in which I can see diversity in opinion on, say, having different tastes in music, but if anyone tries to tell me that a gay couple shouldn't have the same legal rights as a straight couple (marriage, adoption etc.) then I cannot possibly respect them.