Let’s introduce the latest incarnation of moodspins with an obvious statement, shall we? “It’s quite amazing what you can find on this here Interweb…” You’ve got people coming of their shells in order to have more of a social life than they ever would in “RL” (or people who are inherently socially inept taking part only in relationships via an online persona, thus becoming even more reclusive?); artists utilizing a new medium through which to share their visions (or hacks that don’t deserve the attention getting together with their buddies and splicing together nonsense for the above recluses to fawn over?); free speech in its purest form, allowing anyone with an idea and access to blog software to share their views (or free speech at its worst, giving idiots yet another arena in which to shout their uninformed, uneducated pablum?)…
Let’s face it, even the simplest idea can be attacked from two opposing points of view. It’s all about context right? Depends on your perspective! Eh, it’s all relative anyway…
…but is it?
I’ve had the idea of “agreeing to disagree” on my mind all day, for a variety of reasons (evident of course by the title of above YouTube video clip, found here). And in most cases, man, what a cop-out! If you and I are in an argument, and you TRULY believe your opinion is right (and that I’m talking out of my ass), then you should try your best to if not change my mind then at the very least get me to understand where you’re coming from. If I start to get unreasonable, irrational, illogical, then is it understandable to want to just end the debate and move on? Of course (and if that’s the case, “I hear ya, bro, but I still think Right Said Fred is better than John Lennon” is my preferred way to end a conversation that’s at a stalemate — at least that way both parties show that they understand the argument posed by the opposing side, and recognize that said dead horse is being beaten). But if the conversation is going back and forth and it doesn’t seem headway is being made, at least let’s understand each other before we agree to… move on to something else.
Sure, this might all be semantics. Perhaps the “agree to disagree” phrase is just a pet peeve of mine. Maybe this comes with studying philosophy in college.
And obviously, everything I’ve written up to this point can get thrown out the window if we’re not debating an issue like, say, “Despite our reasons for getting into the war, is it a good idea to immediately pull our troops out of Iraq?” or something similar. My perspective on “agreeing to disagree” doesn’t really hold much water for “Vanilla ice cream is MUCH better than chocolate!” and other similar arguments. When it comes to taste (in food, art, entertainment, etc.), I’m not sure you go much further than “but this is what I LIKE” followed by trying to explain “why.”
In fact, if I tell you that “I like orange more than apple,” you can’t debate me on that that. I’m talking about what I like. But if I say “orange is better than apple,” then let’s get it on!
No Inside Pulse diehards were harmed while writing this piece.
