Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

In principle, I sorely disagree. If your beliefs aren't being acted upon, there's no need to challenge them.

It's easy to draw this distinction until you ask yourself: Why wouldn't someone be influenced by their beliefs? If someone's actions are in no way influenced by their beliefs, those beliefs are completely extraneous and probably wouldn't be held in the first place.

[Montague]

Some beliefs are set in a person's mind and there is no way somebody else is going to convince them otherwise. Religion is a good example of that, no amount of debate or valid arguments will really change a person's mind on that, which is why it causes so many problems. Politics are more flexible, as evidenced by political officials changing their position on issues pretty frequently.

It's easy to draw this distinction until you ask yourself: Why wouldn't someone be influenced by their beliefs? If someone's actions are in no way influenced by their beliefs, those beliefs are completely extraneous and probably wouldn't be held in the first place.

I'd say many people have beliefs they do not or cannot act on and all their actions might not nessicarily coincide with their beliefs. Probably because it'd be illegal or have some other undesirable concequence for them, or their beliefs are not important enough to override common sense or pragmatism. I could give lots of examples on this.

People who always act in accordance to their beliefs are probably what you'd call extremists.

[Bauglir]

In principle, I sorely disagree. If your beliefs aren't being acted upon, there's no need to challenge them.

It's easy to draw this distinction until you ask yourself: Why wouldn't someone be influenced by their beliefs? If someone's actions are in no way influenced by their beliefs, those beliefs are completely extraneous and probably wouldn't be held in the first place.

That was the rest of my post, yeah. Like I said, people are always influenced to some extent by their beliefs, and it is therefore acceptable to challenge them. The cost of challenging a belief is quite small compared to the benefit that can be gained from doing so, in some situations.

[Criptfeind]

Well yeah. If someone acts upon it in a harmful way.

But even acting upon wrong beliefs is not always harmful, and so I don't see the reason to debase the non harmful wrong ones.

[G-Flex]

But even acting upon wrong beliefs is not always harmful, and so I don't see the reason to debase the non harmful wrong ones.

A correct behavior derived from incorrect premises is only "correct" by arbitrary coincidence, and cannot be counted on to always be non-harmful.

[Criptfeind]

Okay.

First thing, I did not even say the behavior is correct. Just non harmful.

Secondly, so? Do you want to be the thought police? Make sure everyone does everything optimally? Do you want to reeducate people on the chance they try to do something harmful?

[G-Flex]

There's a difference between "being the thought police" and openly discussing/criticizing things. It's kind of a leap to call someone "the thought police" for verbally disagreeing with someone.

[Criptfeind]

What's the difference?

If you know someone is thinking incorrect thoughts, but they are doing nothing harmful about it, why would you seek them out and to disagree with them?

I mean, are we just talking about on these forums? Because I assume we were talking about in general, I mean, if someone brings up their thoughts for talking, then sure. Talk. But if they do not, would you seek them out for it?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Criptfeind, we aren't breaking into people's homes and beating them into agreeing with us. An open avenue of debate is normal and healthy for a functioning society.

[Criptfeind]

You said that people do not have the right to be left alone if their thoughts are incorrect.

You said you have the right to harass even if they do not act.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If they want to be left alone, they can just not make their unacted upon thoughts known. Sweet jegus, you are inventing a problem where there isn't one.

And discussion is not equal to harassment.

[Criptfeind]

I'm saying that even if they act upon their thoughts as long as the action are not harmful then you should leave them alone.

And yes, discussion with someone who does not want it and is not harming anyone is harassment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People generally don't talk about things that they don't want to talk about.

[Criptfeind]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Other then you seeming to say you have the right to force them to do so.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To discuss something with someone, the topic has to come up. If the topic comes up and they don't want to engage in the discussion or make their views known, than they won't. If they do make their views known when the topic comes up, they are by definition consenting to talk about it.