Reasoning a disagreement
Posted: Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Posted By Ayinde on: Apr 13th, 2003, 5:22pm
Printer friendly version
We try to keep discussions about who contributes and how they contribute towards these services away from these reasonings because misconceptions based on another false sense of superiority and inferiority can arise. This can also distract some from focusing on the merit or lack thereof of certain views in discussions.
Attempts to identify persons behind usernames and who owns and does what should be pursued privately and away from these forums. People should respect the privacy of others and leave it to them to share as much as they wish.
People who feel the urge to do more should privately discuss this with whosoever they wish and not publicize these gestures on the forums. These 'public offerings' can place a strain on others who may wish to participate in discussions but are financially strapped.
Remember that these discussions are primarily about facilitating others who may be less fortunate than ourselves, sometimes not because of their own inabilities but often because the systems in all countries disenfranchises the best people.
People's ability or inability to support financially or otherwise is not a real measurement of their intelligence or worthiness.
Who can do more should do so, but quietly please.
Reply By Jeff on: Apr 14th, 2003, 1:42am
I overstand the issue raised, and apologize for any misunderstandings.
Ayinde, if you could email me, I would whole-heartedly appreciate it.
Reply By Ayinde on: Apr 14th, 2003, 4:36pm
Let me see if I can explain why I prefer not to email you.
If I make similar comments to you like I did in the past it may not be assessed on the merit of what I am presenting as was recently proven. This is the reason I previously choose to stop responding to you.
I backed down on the older board not because I felt I was wrong but because I knew I held the advantage so I had to back down. The place has since evolved to allow for a better exchange where we both don’t have the final say on how members’ boards are moderated. My participation, where moderation is concerned, is quite limited to the storage board and we should not reason together on that board.
Having said all of this, if you wish to discuss any of my past comments or conduct then I will oblige those exchanges on the General Board. I will oblige at this time only because we are familiar with the moderators and they are ‘neutral’ parties to these exchanges.
However, until the history is clear I prefer our discussions remain in the public domain where everyone can weigh the merits or lack thereof of any arguments presented.
Reply By Jeff on: Apr 14th, 2003, 9:15pm
Didn't want to bring up any past reasonings...just wanted to make peace man, that's all. No problem...you go your way and I'll go mine.
Reply By Ayinde on: Apr 15th, 2003, 6:35am
A disagreement is no reason to assume that people are at war. I have very valid reasons for not wanting a private discussion with many people. It simply means I do not trust them and prefer an open medium for us to work out differences. This must not be confused with war, hate or grudge.
Apparently some people do not understand the power of history. It is impossible to reason without reflection and anyone who believes that a dispute can be resolved, or peace can be had without revisiting the history of disagreements, is simply ignorant of the lessons of past and recent conflicts. In some people's idea of peace they are mixing up a relationship based on tolerance with true friendship. I only tolerate until the conditions are right to resolve differences but in no way am I confused about these important differences.
Your comment about dissing unresolved reasonings is equivalent to saying that people should forget the unresolved legacy of slavery and racism and lets all be friends. That is advocating amnesia. While I do not hold anger or grudges as these qualities dull the senses, I see no reason to forget. Remembering is how we do not repeat errors.
If disagreements are not reasonably resolved then what looks like peace and friendship is usually tolerance.
People tolerate rats and mosquitoes until they find a way to kill them. In the same way most people tolerate each other and when one side gets the bigger weapon then they bring up all the unresolved issues as an excuse to wipe out the other.
Relationships remain extremely volatile when people simply tolerate each other.
People will always disagree but they should set the conditions for reasoned discourses and not simply tolerate each other while being hypocrites.
Today, Rastafari could set a better example especially as it is Rastafari that placed reasoning as the highest medium for interacting, where illusions could give way to clarity through reasonable discourses. I am not a hypocrite and I would not pretend that someone is my friend when I know that the conditions have not been met for friendship.
If someone is not my friend it only means that we have not worked out our commonalities and reasoned through our differences. That does not mean we hate each other or we are at war. It simply means that I do not trust them.
It is because I define terms like friendship and acquaintances somewhat differently to many people I do not go around giving people the false impression that we can automatically be friends. I wait for reasoning to take place and I observe actions over time.
I usually respect people's rights, assist when I can and wish them well although they are not my friends. If we have mutual interest then the friendship/peace can be worked out over time but this is an ongoing process and not a done deal.
No one can dictate the terms and conditions for peace or resolving real or imagined discords. Even the places, terms and conditions for such meetings should be reasoned out.
Continue this reasoning here...
Send page by E-Mail
Homepage | Reasonings | Features | Forums | Interactive