Do you judge an idea on its own merits?

[Machjo]

I've found instances in some threads where a person's ideas are rejected not on the basis of the ideas themselves, but rather on who the speaker is. This to me just seems ridiculous. After all, I've found a few quotes from Hitler that I can agree with, even though I'd disagree with the vast majority of what he says. I might disagree with Gandhi on some points too, inasmuch as I respect him. Ideas are ideas; people, people. The same person can change his mind. Two arch enemies can share a common idea (The Prophet of Islam had learnt the idea of building trenches against the enemy from the enemy itself), just as two best friends can have disagreements (Ghandhi and Tolstoy, though good friends and penfriends, did have their minor friendly disagreements at times).

I just don't get how supposedly educated people can conclude tht an idea is good or bad based not on the merits of the idea itself, but rather on who presented it.

Sometimes the stupid man can come up with a bright idea, just as the wise man can blurt out an idiocy on occasion.

 

[Kreskin]

Very well said Macho. Around forums it could be that everyone just likes arguing, no matter what the issue is or which side they're on.

 

[VanIsle]

Very well said Macho. Around forums it could be that everyone just likes arguing, no matter what the issue is or which side they're on.

You both make valid points. In regard to the forums though, some people just zero in on a name and argue because of something a "name" said in a different thread. You have to be able to disagree on some things and agree on others. I can see reading an opinion and agreeing or disagreeing. If you cannot respond by being reasonable about your different feelings, then you should not respond. There are threads and posters that I personally avoid because I have seen the way some of the posters respond and I don't want the arguement. There is a major difference between a disagreement and outright insults. It's okay to disagree but it's not okay to say disturbing things. People need to learn to let go from one thread to another.

 

[Machjo]

Another good point. I tend to treat each thread separately. I cold be having a heated debate with a person on one thread and patting him on the back in another thread, and then go back to the first and criticize his idea again, and I see no contradiction in that whatsoever. Sometimes I'm not even sure where I stand on an issue and I'll say it. Sometimes, I change my mind. And sometimes, I'm just plain wrong. I don't hold others aainst their words. I treat the words as separate from the person who types them, and generally expect the same treatment for my words.

 

[VanIsle]

Another good point. I tend to treat each thread separately. I cold be having a heated debate with a person on one thread and patting him on the back in another thread, and then go back to the first and criticize his idea again, and I see no contradiction in that whatsoever. Sometimes I'm not even sure where I stand on an issue and I'll say it. Sometimes, I change my mind. And sometimes, I'm just plain wrong. I don't hold others aainst their words. I treat the words as separate from the person who types them, and generally expect the same treatment for my words.

You have to be careful when it comes to changing your mind or mabye we could call it "seeing things in a different light". If you don't explain yourself to death in your change, you almost get accused of being two faced or untruthful. People may not read all of your posts on a thread and then they call you on just one of them and you can as I stated, turn out to appear to be a bad person. If a person seems to do an about face, the reader needs to go back far enough to see why. Then again, if you take the time to explain, some complain of a long winded post so it's a lose lose situation at times.

 

[JLM]

You have to be careful when it comes to changing your mind or mabye we could call it "seeing things in a different light". If you don't explain yourself to death in your change, you almost get accused of being two faced or untruthful. People may not read all of your posts on a thread and then they call you on just one of them and you can as I stated, turn out to appear to be a bad person. If a person seems to do an about face, the reader needs to go back far enough to see why. Then again, if you take the time to explain, some complain of a long winded post so it's a lose lose situation at times.

I find that the older I get the more often I change my mind (that's why I can't argue politics very well) In the old days I saw changing ones mind as a weakness, but now I look upon it as a strength as every situation depends on dozens of variables and I think those who do best life are the ones who adapt the easiest. So if I agree with you one day and disagree the next I may NOT necessarily be either two faced or senile.........:lol::lol::lol: Think I'm going back for more zzzzzzzzzz

 

[Cannuck]

The term flip-flop has always annoyed me. Any time a politician changes his mind he is ridiculed and labeled a "flip-flopper", when, in reality, he should be praised for being open minded and flexible.

For me, there is no right or wrong. We simply do not have all the information. As we receive more information about a issue our opinions may or may not change. The key is to be open to accepting new information. Somebody that rejects a person's ideas not on the basis of the ideas themselves, but rather on who the speaker is, is using that as an excuse to be closed minded.

Let's call a spade a spade. The person you were thinking of when you created this post is, hands down, the most closed minded person I've met on this forum. That said, it is he that will (and probably has) paid the price for his attitude.

 

[JLM]

The term flip-flop has always annoyed me. Any time a politician changes his mind he is ridiculed and labeled a "flip-flopper", when, in reality, he should be praised for being open minded and flexible.

For me, there is no right or wrong. We simply do not have all the information. As we receive more information about a issue our opinions may or may not change. The key is to be open to accepting new information. Somebody that rejects a person's ideas not on the basis of the ideas themselves, but rather on who the speaker is, is using that as an excuse to be closed minded.

Let's call a spade a spade. The person you were thinking of when you created this post is, hands down, the most closed minded person I've met on this forum. That said, it is he that will (and probably has) paid the price for his attitude.

Perhaps bad ideas just need a little "tweaking" to become good ideas.