Persuading People to your Viewpoint

[viscousmemories]

Just out of curiosity, if I believed it was outright wrong for people to be members of exclusive forums (which I don't) why do you think it would be wrong of me to try to convince you of that? What's wrong with trying to persuade people to adopt values you think are important?

Good question, I was mulling over something very similar just now. I have strongly held beliefs. They are important to me and integral to my being. Yet, I never feel the need to persuade others to adopt my values. I'll put mine against yours in a public forum. I'll use mine to fight yours if we are proposing legislation. I'll stand by mine, if they are attacked.

But, never do I feel the need to persuade others to come to my side. Do I hope for such an outcome? Sure, it depends on the specific value we are contesting.

This does not mean that my stances are unwavering. I'm always willing to listen, learn and revise. And I would hope that my "opponents" are the same way. And if I've presented my position well-enough, then they may be convinced.

I guess intent is a big thing for me. I have no problem with presenting my arguements clearly for you. Should you be swayed by them, then wonderful for me. If not, then we agree to disagree. But, if my goal is to persuade you, then we'll never reach the latter and be hopelessly fighting it out to achieve the former. I don't see that as being particularly useful.

Sometimes I fear that my attitude renders me impotent. That I have no values or positions worthy of note. That, ultimately, I am purposeless and undefined as a person. But, restricted within the confines of an Internet forum, I see no useful purpose in arguing for the sake of persuading others to your side.
I thought it'd be a good idea to start a new thread to respond to this, because it's tangential to the thread it originated in but something I really would like to explore further. I hope you don't mind.

In some ways I can totally relate to what you're saying here. I'm always somewhat put off by political activists, for example, because it just strikes me as profoundly self-righteous to be so sure that your own viewpoint is the correct one that you would get in peoples faces and/or push for legislation to make everyone behave the way you think they should.

At the same time though, I consider myself a very principled person and I make a tremendous effort to "do the right thing" as I see it, sometimes to a fault. And in that same vein, I have no qualms about expressing my opinion about what I think is right and wrong behavior or confronting others when I think what they're doing is wrong.

For the most part though, I'm really just making it up as I go along. I'm not a religious person so I don't have any moral code set in writing that I can live by, and I'm still too wet behind the ears in philosophy to have developed my own consistent and comprehensive system of beliefs and values. I'm working on it, though, and part of working on it is arguing about it with others.

So any time an issue comes up where I think there was some injustice or unethical behavior, or if I see a thread where someone else points out something along those lines, if the subject moves me I'll jump into the discussion and give my reasons for agreeing/disagreeing or whatever. At that point I am most often not out to persuade anyone to my viewpoint per se, I'm just expressing my own views as honestly as I can.

But, if someone then challenges my reasoning or conclusions, or says something that otherwise contradicts me, I will argue to the ends of the Earth in defense of my position no matter how trivial the issue. This is because to me, knowing that my reason for holding a particular belief or value is sound is usually just as important as whatever the issue under discussion is.

So if I feel someone's counterargument is fallacious, I will say so. Not because I want to 'beat' them, but because if I'm wrong I want to know about it so I can change my own beliefs or behavior. Unfortunately the end result often looks something like this:

Me: I think it's wrong to kick puppies because puppies feel pain.
Poster1: I disagree.
Me: You disagree with what?
Poster1: I don't think it's wrong to kick puppies.
Me: Why not, do you think they don't feel pain, or do you just not care?
Poster1: I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want.
Me: Even if it causes pain?
Poster1: Look, I'm just stating my opinion not looking for a debate.
Me: Okay, then why did you say you disagree if you're not looking for a debate?
Poster1: Are you still on about this?
Me: Well yes, are you going to answer my question?
Poster1: I can't believe you won't just let this go. What's the big deal?
Me: It isn't a big deal really. I said I think it's wrong to kick puppies and you disagreed.
Poster1: So what? You think it's wrong so now everyone else should do what you want?
Me: Um, no, I'm just saying...
Poster2: Is this thread still going?
Poster1: Careful what you say Poster2, Mr. PETA is here watching you.
Me: I'm not Mr. PETA. All I'm saying is that I think it's wrong to kick puppies...
Poster2: LOL You're right poster one. Total PETA action.
Poster3: VM is at it again, I see...
Poster4: 3 pages about kicking puppies? Puh-leeeez. Someone needs a life.

Anyhoo...

I absolutely understand your feeling purposeless and undefined as a person, because it many ways I do too. There are some issues I feel very strongly about, but for the most part as I said above, I'm just making it up as I go along while trying to do the 'right' thing.

But for whatever it's worth, the few times that you and I have argued/debated/discussed or whatever you want to call it, I have found you to be very thoughtful, gracious and reasonable. And you stick to the topic, avoid flaming, admit when you're wrong, etc. All things that in my opinion speak very highly of you. So I don't think you're a piss-poor debater at all, personally.

[LadyShea]

I think it's natural to try to persuade others to your way of thinking. It doesn't bother me if someone disagrees as long as they have well thought out reasons for their stance. Unfortunately many people have very strong opinions and zero reasons for holding them.

For example Ronin and I were on opposite sides in an abortion debate. I thought we both laid out and backed up our positions well, but then people would interject with the "Baby killers!" or "Woman haters!", neither of which add anything to the discussion or help anyone learn anything.

[wei yau]

Thanks for starting this new thread, I welcome the opportunity to explore further.

First, I'd like to start off with a confession. When I posted about this topic, I presented myself in an "ideal" situation. I try to be the type of person I described in the post, but I do admit that too many times I argue with the intent of persuading others to my view of things.

As far as "ideal" goes, this is a significant factor in the type of discussion I'm describing. If your opponent does have well-reasoned and justifiable rationale for their stance, then I do not see the point of continuing the arguement. If they do not, then absolutely I believe that you should argue in an attempt to rectify the situation.

However, you also need to acknowledge that not everyone has a rational reason for every stance. I'm hesitant to use an example as it may seem overly contrived or inadvertently offend someone. Suffice it to say that there are many opinions that are based on little more than emotion or personal preferences.

As you said, if your position was challenged and you feel the need to play defense, you are also open-minded enough to understand that your position may indeed need revising. Stubbornly holding to your position without regard to revision is folly. As you said, it's a journey. And in my opinion, it's a journey without end.

So, in summary, I have no problem with presenting your arguements. If it is countered on fallacious grounds, I believe you should defend your position. If it is countered on valid grounds, then you are obligated to consider revising your position.

However, though the tendency may be natural (as pointed out by Lady Shea) and something that I succumb to far too often, the goal of the arguement should not be to persuade others (unless required by the situation, such as a proposing legislation).

Such a goal seems to be unattainable, especially in an Internet forum.

[godfry n. glad]

I think that discussion of differential opinions is somewhat different here online than it is in face to face discussions. That's because it is known to both conversants that there is an audience. I think there is a certain playing to the audience amongst online disputants that rarely exists in face to face confrontations. That, combined with the higher likelihood of miscommunication because of the lack of visual cues, makes disputations online more difficult to keep from spiralling out of control.


godfry

[viscousmemories]

I think it's natural to try to persuade others to your way of thinking. It doesn't bother me if someone disagrees as long as they have well thought out reasons for their stance. Unfortunately many people have very strong opinions and zero reasons for holding them.
It seems natural to me too. I mean if you think kicking puppies is wrong then why wouldn't you try to persuade people who are pro-puppy kicking to reconsider their stance? Don't you owe it to the puppies to help 'em out?

For example Ronin and I were on opposite sides in an abortion debate. I thought we both laid out and backed up our positions well, but then people would interject with the "Baby killers!" or "Woman haters!", neither of which add anything to the discussion or help anyone learn anything.
God I hate that shit. And it's particularly bad at large, busy boards like IIDB. But even well-intentioned, thoughtful interjections can have the same negative effect if they're slightly tangential, fallacious, or otherwise misdirect whatever positive interaction might be happening in the thread. Especially if you've got an attention span like me and can barely stay on topic to begin with.

[Sweetie]

Is an interesting thing. I have some thoughts on the subject, the first of which is that I study myself alot, I'm introspective and I have been all my life. One thing I have a long time ago identified in myself is that I'm hard to convince of something but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I decided that it was the right thing to do to leave the door open for myself to be wrong so how that translates in my mind is I give everyone an opportunity to convince me. They don't have to know that I do, but it's to say I'm listening and I'll consider what you have to say, it doesn't mean that I must necessarily agree with another because primarily just because they are convinced doesn't mean that their opinion is as convincing as they think it is so on the one hand I do listen and I absorb information that others give me but on the other hand, not necessarily within their time limits. Too, I will even listen to people who most might dismiss automatically because of the way the people come accross or choose to go about saying what they say.

As far as that goes, I have spent a large amount of time and energy building my position, it's not a simple thing to demolish and all that is just to say is that it would take alot of time and energy to demolish or build another position but that's assuming that the former position is wrong or inconsistent and the like.

So it's pragmatic to me to consider:

a) I could be wrong
b) it would take alot of work to convince me
c) people could be saying something true even if I don't like them
d) it requires alot of energy and time to get anywhere

So I think it's realistic to consider that nobody will be convincing anybody of anything anytime soon so to put alot of stock into the prospect is a little unhealthy and unrealistic which is why when I say "I don't care" what other people believe, it's because of the above, I can't really do anything about anybody else, the only person I can change or do anything about is myself so that has to be the goal as opposed to anything else. I can't live anybody else's lives, I can't make people think what I want them to think and I don't even want to, if I allow myself space and recognize my need for space to do my own thinking then it must be true that I also allow everybody else space and recognize their need for space.

Now, as regards internet communication I think it has several advantages to real life communication. For one, I can't discuss these things person to person because:

a) I'm not real great at confrontation even if it's about nothing special
b) I don't think fast on my feet
c) you can't really support yourself with references
d) you can't revise

For two, most of the people to have these discussions with are friends and family and I want to be with my friends and family not to fight with them or to try and change them, I just like them and I like to be with them, I don't really like these types of discussions having any role in my real life, only maybe a minor role but the problem is, then the role is so minor that it really doesn't go anywhere.

Thirdly, and this is primarily the reason I responded to this thread, I think over the internet or in a real debate format in real life is the best way to have these types of discussions. I'll give you an example, my sister's boyfriend called the other night, he and my mother are having "issues", he wanted to confront her though he really wanted to tell her off and he was looking for a fight so he ended up having this "discussion" with me. Now, one thing I found really funny is that some of the crap he was saying, and I think he must have been purposely misunderstanding me so that he had a reason to continue being loud and obnoxious, if we put it down on paper, he could see what the hell was going on with this discussion, for example:


Him: Well, I'm just gonna move out [leave my sister], this is too much of a soap opera for me, I got a place at my mom's ...blah blah blah
Me: You can't just threaten to move out everytime there's a problem
Him: Threaten?
Me: Yeah, you did this a month or so ago, you can't threaten to move out everytime there's a problem.
Him: Threaten? I'm threatening you?
Me: You threatened to move out just like you did a month ago.
Him: [insert a whole bunch of bullshit here connected to the fact from his end that he's aggressive and in therapy, has ADD and that he probably has been in trouble for making threats in the past, so therefore his own issues are mixing in]
Me: [I would put up with being threatened with that all of once, the second time, just fucking go then]


So, my sister calls me later to asks what this conversation was about and he's in the backround making comments like yeah, I'm gonna come cut you up into pieces and [ie: he's "threatening" me, trying to make himself sound so smart], in other words, he completely took the word "threaten" out of context and ran with it in his own little mind.

Me: You're controlling.
Him: Controlling?
Me: Yeah [I'm thinking along the lines of that he's being emotionally manipulative by threatening to leave my sister, he's not only controlling, emotionally manipulative, but whiny too :fuming: ]

Gawd, well then he's a liar in the sense of he likes to exaggerate incessently for the shock value, you never know what to believe around him. :doh:

So, according to my sister, this all about my Mom and my Mom's fault. Anyways, had we had this conversation down on paper which was a much longer conversation with me having to tolerate being hung up on twice, everything would have been much clearer, it could be demostrated exactly where the faults are.

[viscousmemories]

As far as "ideal" goes, this is a significant factor in the type of discussion I'm describing. If your opponent does have well-reasoned and justifiable rationale for their stance, then I do not see the point of continuing the arguement. If they do not, then absolutely I believe that you should argue in an attempt to rectify the situation.
I agree. If I ever continue to debate after someone has presented a well-reasoned and justifiable position it's only because I don't understand their argument at all, or I don't understand how it contradicts mine. I know it happens, because I occasionally read a thread a year later and think, "Ohh... now I see what he meant by that!"

This by the way is one of the biggest reasons I make a concerted effort to be more humble and respectful in arguments, though I still fail at times. I save myself the humiliation that comes with realizing that I was wrong after having been an arrogant, condescending prick. To this day I'm embarrassed about an argument I had with a theist on IIDB who, it turns out, was arguing from a philosophical position I just didn't understand. I was completely ignorant, but all the props I got from the peanut gallery of equally clueless atheists made me think I won the debate. It's embarrassing to read it a year later and realize his whole argument had flown right over my head.

However, you also need to acknowledge that not everyone has a rational reason for every stance. I'm hesitant to use an example as it may seem overly contrived or inadvertently offend someone. Suffice it to say that there are many opinions that are based on little more than emotion or personal preferences.
This is what I meant when I said it disappoints me when other members of boards devoted to critical thinking don't give it the same importance I do. I don't care if people want to cling to irrational beliefs for emotional reasons, but I'd expect to see far less of that in a forum devoted to 'freethinking', since I think reason and critical thinking are fundamental to 'freethinking'.

As you said, if your position was challenged and you feel the need to play defense, you are also open-minded enough to understand that your position may indeed need revising. Stubbornly holding to your position without regard to revision is folly. As you said, it's a journey. And in my opinion, it's a journey without end.
I agree.

So, in summary, I have no problem with presenting your arguements. If it is countered on fallacious grounds, I believe you should defend your position. If it is countered on valid grounds, then you are obligated to consider revising your position.
I agree with this too.

However, though the tendency may be natural (as pointed out by Lady Shea) and something that I succumb to far too often, the goal of the arguement should not be to persuade others (unless required by the situation, such as a proposing legislation).

Such a goal seems to be unattainable, especially in an Internet forum.
This is the only part where I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying you shouldn't have the goal of persuading others to your viewpoint on an Internet forum because it's impossible? Because that doesn't seem to be the case for me. I've changed many of my views as a result of arguments in these fora, and I continue to evolve...

[Hugo Holbling]

... But, if someone then challenges my reasoning or conclusions, or says something that otherwise contradicts me, I will argue to the ends of the Earth in defense of my position no matter how trivial the issue. This is because to me, knowing that my reason for holding a particular belief or value is sound is usually just as important as whatever the issue under discussion is.

Here is a suggestion that you may or may not find worthwhile: when you are about to post "in defense of [your] position" - don't. Leave well alone for a short time and then try to argue the opposite; or, where that coincides with your opponent's view, attempt to find a third position instead. If you do not understand the alternatives well enough (as in your theist example), resolve to come back to the discussion at a later date and do the other perspectives the honour of studying them to at least the depth of your own. Transfer your willingness to "argue to the ends of the Earth" to a position you do not hold.

This may seem impractical or problematic but i think you will see benefits quite quickly.

[Ensign Steve]

Me: I think it's wrong to kick puppies because puppies feel pain.
Poster1: I disagree.
Me: You disagree with what?
Poster1: I don't think it's wrong to kick puppies.
Me: Why not, do you think they don't feel pain, or do you just not care?
Poster1: I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want.
Me: Even if it causes pain?
Poster1: Look, I'm just stating my opinion not looking for a debate.
Me: Okay, then why did you say you disagree if you're not looking for a debate?
Poster1: Are you still on about this?
Me: Well yes, are you going to answer my question?
Poster1: I can't believe you won't just let this go. What's the big deal?
Me: It isn't a big deal really. I said I think it's wrong to kick puppies and you disagreed.
Poster1: So what? You think it's wrong so now everyone else should do what you want?
Me: Um, no, I'm just saying...
Poster2: Is this thread still going?
Poster1: Careful what you say Poster2, Mr. PETA is here watching you.
Me: I'm not Mr. PETA. All I'm saying is that I think it's wrong to kick puppies...
Poster2: LOL You're right poster one. Total PETA action.
Poster3: VM is at it again, I see...
Poster4: 3 pages about kicking puppies? Puh-leeeez. Someone needs a life.


:biglaugh: :hysteric:

This whole board needs a life. Did you read the two full pages on margarine?

[Ronin]

I think it's natural to try to persuade others to your way of thinking. It doesn't bother me if someone disagrees as long as they have well thought out reasons for their stance. Unfortunately many people have very strong opinions and zero reasons for holding them.

For example Ronin and I were on opposite sides in an abortion debate. I thought we both laid out and backed up our positions well, but then people would interject with the "Baby killers!" or "Woman haters!", neither of which add anything to the discussion or help anyone learn anything.

I'm glad I found this post.

That was quite a helpful discussion for me, Ladyshea, and it motivated me to look further into some of the perspective you offered.

As it stands now I have to add that while I certainly do hold that human life begins at conception and that abortion does not meet my standard of being a moral act...I think that it should still be a legal, but rare option and that the ultimate person to choose to make that decision is the mother.

Jailing the mother and/or doctors in these rare cases would be equally immoral.

It continues to be a difficult issue for me to reconcile.

[Godless Wonder]

Besides having well (or poorly0 thought out reasons for disagreement, another type of disagreement that some people find a way to argue about which I don't understand is areas in which opinions are purely subjective.

Vanilla is better than Chocolate!
Not it's not! Chocolate is better than Vanilla!

(To make a ridiculous example.)

But, it's not as if there have been no arguments over, say, taste in music, what music is "good," and what is "bad." Same for art.

Then some seem to hold the opinion that all opinions about any matters whatsoever are exactly as subjective as opinions about ice cream flavors.

and "Why am I posting this?" I ask myself.

This brings up another point relevant to viscousmemories' OP, and posting history, I think. (Which is good, because up to now, this has been pretty much apropos of nothing.) Sometimes people post an opinion, or a line of thought without thinking about it too much. They are here (or there, or wherever) for the simple reason that it is the most entertaining thing they have to do at the moment. They may not be terribly interested in a lengthy brain intensive debate, or in an exhaustive search for "truth" or in testing their basic assumptions or reasons for "believing" whatever they "believe." They may just be more or less shooting the shit for entertainment. Then you (or whoever) go and take things way too seriously (for their purposes) and so they blow it off. (Probably I state the obvious, and simultaneously miss the point.) But I hit the bullseye as I shoot the pointless shit.

[LadyShea]

It was a good discussion for me too, Ronin. I have been debating abortion for a helluvalong time, and you were the first on the pro-life side whose stance wasn't religiously based. I knew though that we would not really persuade each other, but I learned a lot anyway.

[godfry n. glad]

Me: I think it's wrong to kick puppies because puppies feel pain.
Poster1: I disagree.
Me: You disagree with what?
Poster1: I don't think it's wrong to kick puppies.
Me: Why not, do you think they don't feel pain, or do you just not care?
Poster1: I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want.
Me: Even if it causes pain?
Poster1: Look, I'm just stating my opinion not looking for a debate.
Me: Okay, then why did you say you disagree if you're not looking for a debate?
Poster1: Are you still on about this?
Me: Well yes, are you going to answer my question?
Poster1: I can't believe you won't just let this go. What's the big deal?
Me: It isn't a big deal really. I said I think it's wrong to kick puppies and you disagreed.
Poster1: So what? You think it's wrong so now everyone else should do what you want?
Me: Um, no, I'm just saying...
Poster2: Is this thread still going?
Poster1: Careful what you say Poster2, Mr. PETA is here watching you.
Me: I'm not Mr. PETA. All I'm saying is that I think it's wrong to kick puppies...
Poster2: LOL You're right poster one. Total PETA action.
Poster3: VM is at it again, I see...
Poster4: 3 pages about kicking puppies? Puh-leeeez. Someone needs a life.


:biglaugh: :hysteric:

This whole board needs a life. Did you read the two full pages on margarine?

:roflmao:

No... I didn't. I read the first post and decided that there are just things I'd rather not know too much about. That's one.

Hey, there's an entire book out on the history of cod.

I need a life, for sure.

[viscousmemories]

So it's pragmatic to me to consider:

a) I could be wrong
b) it would take alot of work to convince me
c) people could be saying something true even if I don't like them
d) it requires alot of energy and time to get anywhere

So I think it's realistic to consider that nobody will be convincing anybody of anything anytime soon so to put alot of stock into the prospect is a little unhealthy and unrealistic which is why when I say "I don't care" what other people believe, it's because of the above, I can't really do anything about anybody else, the only person I can change or do anything about is myself so that has to be the goal as opposed to anything else.
An 82 word sentence! :eek:

This is an interesting perspective, Sweetie. But it seems to boil down to "persuading people to your viewpoint is difficult, hence it is unhealthy and unrealistic to try". I agree that it's difficult, but I'm not sure how "it's unhealthy and unrealistic to try" follows from that. I would say it's definitely unhealthy and unrealistic expect someone to change drastically or overnight, but I don't think it's unhealthy or unrealistic to expect to have any influence at all over time.

Now, as regards internet communication I think it has several advantages to real life communication. For one, I can't discuss these things person to person because:

a) I'm not real great at confrontation even if it's about nothing special
b) I don't think fast on my feet
c) you can't really support yourself with references
d) you can't revise
Those are really good points too. People often talk about all the problems with online interactions (no non-verbal cues, etc.) but rarely discuss these benefits. I think fast on my feet, but I sometimes have difficulty verbally expressing complicated ideas without long, frequent pauses and such. So my favorite thing about written communication is that I have time to carefully articulate my position without fear of interruption or distraction. But these other points are good too.

For two, most of the people to have these discussions with are friends and family and I want to be with my friends and family not to fight with them or to try and change them, I just like them and I like to be with them, I don't really like these types of discussions having any role in my real life, only maybe a minor role but the problem is, then the role is so minor that it really doesn't go anywhere.
That's interesting. I'm kind of the other way around. People with whom I can have this type of discussion are just about the only kind I'm generally interested in being around. Which isn't to say that I have to be serious all the time, I just don't find people who don't think deeply very interesting generally.

Thirdly, and this is primarily the reason I responded to this thread, I think over the internet or in a real debate format in real life is the best way to have these types of discussions.
I think you may be right.

[Sweetie]

An 82 word sentence! :eek:

Oh, the one in the nihilism thread was longer and it could've been worse, I felt one coming on in the HH thread too but I resisted. :D "If..then...but if not...and if then...but then...and then....but if...."

Honestly, I don't do any creative writing because my sentences are either too short or too long. This is one area where I have to choose to relax and let me be me or I get too stressed about it and give up. Posts don't bother me so much because sometimes I switch to conversational mode where I'm writing how I speak, commas where pauses are, words dropped where words are dropped, longer or shorter sentences instead of writing in perfect form how people don't actually speak. It may be a problem and I do try to correct it but to me it's better than nothing, no communciation at all.

I just....I just think alot of things at once and I run through things very quickly, I can't stay too focused on any one thing for a long time, it's like a slide show sometimes and other times like a computer where there are systems running in the backround and some in the forefront. I wish I could conform but I can't, I'm sorry if it's annoying. Actually, it's part of the reason why I stuck around at some places longer because things move so fast and therefore there's usually a place for individual thoughts to belong but this place is slower. Most things I do say that seem off-topic actually are on-topic but it's before or beyond or another perspective so it's difficult to show why they are related.

Bah, I talk too much, most people who knew me would be shocked. They all think I'm quiet. :D

This is an interesting perspective, Sweetie. But it seems to boil down to "persuading people to your viewpoint is difficult, hence it is unhealthy and unrealistic to try".

Hm, I don't know if it's that. It's not only difficult, it is impossible but perhaps I can only say that because I look at it in one certain sense. Information persuades people though it could actually be in reality that people persuade people. Information persuades me at least, I choose to learn something because I want to know not because someone has told me it's right or I should want to know. That's my personality type though, so, everybody is different. In that sense the driving factor is, having to do with something you alluded to before, is that I want to know where my own weaknesses are so in that sense I have to understand as good as they or better what others are thinking, other positions so I don't end up the fool. :P

I agree that it's difficult, but I'm not sure how "it's unhealthy and unrealistic to try" follows from that. I would say it's definitely unhealthy and unrealistic expect someone to change drastically or overnight, but I don't think it's unhealthy or unrealistic to expect to have any influence at all over time.

Oh, hm, I don't know. I have very little ambition and very low expectations most of which are very rarely ever met either so, it is perhaps a bit fatalistic and I should then correct that.

That's interesting. I'm kind of the other way around. People with whom I can have this type of discussion are just about the only kind I'm generally interested in being around. Which isn't to say that I have to be serious all the time, I just don't find people who don't think deeply very interesting generally.

I'm divided I guess. In my personal life I generally hang around people who have something that I lack.

[Beth]

I pretty much speak the way I write, too, Sweetie.

I do not think trying to persuade is harmful if all you are trying to do is get someone to see a point, Tom. I think that it is good that people do try to let others see your vantage point in certain thoughts. I also like being around people who I can actually talk to. I do not like to argue and debate, IRL, to anyone except my brother, though. We can insult and argue and it is all a game, arguing like that to other people would cause too many hurt feelings. I never change his neocon ideas and he never changes mine, but we do meet and share common views on healthcare and other things and we will yield to eachother. It is more or less a mental spar, not unhealthy because it is how we relate to eachother and it is fun. If I expected or demanded that he believe as I did, then it would cause problems.

I will chose my battles to argue IRL, as well, like I may argue and discuss something safe like a Confederate flag but totally avoid arguing about religion. Arguing religion is safer online because I think I am safer from being attacked and if someone thinks I am wicked, they don't matter to me anyway. Those whom I love do matter, if they say I am wicked, it does hurt.

After months of arguing the Iraq war, I finally did get my husband to see my point and to understand why I oppose it. He said that he finally got it and from my point of view he does understand. He actually listened to me and then agreed, not that it does any good as far as the world is concerned, but I got him to see my point. I think if I argue with someone, I usually want them to see my point of view, I do not usually expect to change them, I just want them to understand how I feel so they can better understand me or why I object to something.