How Do You Explain To People What They Do Not Want To Understand?

Ok, this is getting far too personal. Call it a "win" if you like. I see no point to this.

 

I'm sorry (for you) if you don't see it but if anyone is helping polarizing the situation regarding cons and libs it is you and how you communicate your political stances. You're far from the only one, but really if you dislike the polarisation of american politics... you are doing something wrong.

 

"How do you explain to people what they do not want to understand?" Let me rephrase this: "How do I convince people to believe what I believe?"

 

If you are going to jump in a conversation, you should first read the whole conversation. Blaming me for the polarization is like the cons blaming the libs for the national debt when Raygun tripled the debt, Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, and Shrub Jr. doubled it again. And what Obama has added has been cleaning up the mess Shrub left him with. Shrub destroyed the whole U.S. economy and the whole global economy....But sssshhh! Obviously it's okay for you to point your finger at me, as "I'm" the one doing something wrong. It's like having sympathy for a rapist, because the woman was dressed like a slut.

 

Understanding and belief are not the same thing.

I don't know exactly what themnax had in mind when he posed the original question.

 

... a world being destroyed .

How do you convince people that an idealized prosperity is no entitlement ? Yesterday a friend came by the house with
a demand for this entitlement and if not realized he'd murder someone or himself - and I was commanded to get him the
old shotgun . So I listened to his rudely evil ranting then whooped that demon with philosophy (the philosophy I learned here
since 2004 ). There came a calm .

 

Really? That was an age old question that has been studied...and I think they are the same especially in the context of this thread. What is themnax trying to explain, to get people to understand? HIS beliefs.

 

I'm not blaming you alone for the polarisation (I don't even wanna blame you for anything) I'm saying you are definitely not trying to depolarize anything, in fact you are part of it. Don't act all butthurt because someone is pointing out the obvious.
And really, that comparison is preposterous. You act like I'm defending the side you're against, which is not even the case. But even if it would be so your comparison still would be a sure sign of how you are adding to the polarisation between the side you are for and the one you are against.

 

Hmm. I'd have to disagree. Understanding arithmetic for example doesn't really require any belief, and there are many other examples.

Some beliefs can actually be a bar to understanding. Back in the past people believed that illness was caused by devils, or by supposed 'humours' in the body being out of balance. Ardent as their belief may have been, our modern understanding shows they were wrong. We don't have to 'believe' in bacteria or viruses, it can be demonstrated that they exist.

Also a person might believe in God - does that mean they understand God? I don't really see it.

 

I do believe and understand that many dis-ease processes of our bodies are because of unbalances and not devils but for sure bad energies. Prove to me they aren't. How has modern understanding changed that? By making us believe doctors are always right? That medications cure us?

 

Lack of understanding or wanting to understand things and a lack of interest in listening to someone with a particular stance are also not the same thing. It is often projected on the person who doesn't wanna listen that they 'do not want to understand'. But there can be a whole list of other reasons of course.
A lot of the time it is something like the person have heard people explaining these stances before and simply doesn't agree, and is done debating the subject. Maybe the person 'wanting you to understand things' takes a pushy approach or is far from the only one nagging on the particular subject. Maybe the people who do understand (a.k.a. agree with the person trying to make you understand things ) make the people who disagree or show a lack of interest in debating with pushy people feel like they're void of logic or losers or something Being (or feeling) right doesn't mean people can be an asshole about it. Esp. where it comes to abstract stuff like philosophical and religious concepts.

 

You can observe bacteria through a simple microscope. And you can watch as anti-biotics kill them off.

I'm not saying modern medicine is perfect - it's far from it. I was merely using it as an example. Doctors are certainly not always right.

I notice you chose not to answer my other point - if you believe in God does that mean you understand God? To say yes would seem to be a very big claim to make.

 

Very true. Same in reverse.

Why do we always get the same debates in every thread about God, Jesus or religion no matter what the focus of the thread initially was? It's certainly not because the people with no such beliefs try to understand those who have them (well maybe they would like to understand, they simply have the conviction there is nothing worthwile to understand)
In fact, there are all kinds of issues and stigmas projected onto said believers because people won't understand (or believe so in this case they are kind of the same) that they can still be sincere believers in this day and age of logic. Like logic and reason are not compatible with being a spiritual (even in an organized form) believer.

 

There's certainly a difference between not understanding something and not wanting to understand it.

I agree with you that people get bored with hearing the same arguments over and again, and simply tend to switch off.

People with a smug or even arrogant attitude that they are the one's in the know can be very annoying, and often they are their own worst enemies as that kind of attitude does tend to put people off what is actually being said.
Myself, I will often back off from some discussions when it becomes obvious that people aren't interested or have an entrenched position. It does no good to persist in some instances.

 

I will not debate religion under any circumstances. :daisy: I avoid politics as well. :daisy: :daisy:

 

I think it's important to avoid projecting in the way you describe, or to criticize the beliefs of others without understanding. That's not to say you can't criticize what other people believe, but it should only be on the basis of some understanding of exactly what they do believe, and not based on some preconception.

 

Nothing wrong with criticism on itself (on the contrary). But yeah, where it comes to spiritual matters (esp. in religious forms) it often comes along with all kind of disturbing assumptions that can seem right if you project it on a group as a whole but not on the individual they're conversing/debating with. It can be said this too comes from a lack of understanding and an overly rigid feeling of 'I know I'm right and what works for me should work for you as well'.

 

There is another thread titled BEWARE OF THE LIBERAL-FASCIST HARDLINE. And you say I'm being polarizing, because I point out that this is the kind of distortion of the truth by the con propaganda. There is no such thing as a LIBERAL FASCIST. The definition of fascism is a far right ideology.
You say I'm being polarizing, because I point out that the cons promise to be fiscally responsible, yet the last three con presidents have added over $12 trillion to the national debt.
You say I'm being polarizing because I point out that the cons have stolen $3 trillion from the Social Security fund in their efforts to destroy it.
You say I'm being polarizing because I point out that the cons are trying to destroy healthcare.
You say I'm being polarizing because I point out that the cons are trying to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency.
You say I'm being polarizing because I point out that the cons are trying to destroy planned parenthood which provides women with healthcare.
You say I'm being polarizing because I point out that the cons have destroyed aid to the poor.
You say I'm being polarizing because I point out that the cons are trying to destroy food stamps to hungry children.
You say I'm being polarizing because the cons want to spend all those moneys on the war machine.
You say I'm being polarizing because I call them cons.

What you are saying is "be nice" and just let them get away with their con jobs. I'm sure cons love you for it.

 

For my part, I've all but given up trying to discuss my own spiritual interests on the forums.For one thing I know from experience that I am far from immune to falling away from the path as they say, from time to time. And I don't see my role as being to try to convince people of anything. I just try to keep to general comments, and questioning people where I see fit.

 

Well, I am happy to discuss my own spiritual thoughts and interests on here (it's one of my fav subjects). But not with anyone until no end of course. You have to be a fun, sincere and pleasant discussion partner. The only thing I am trying to convince people of is that there are more sides to everything in both the philosophical as in the spiritual realm of things :-D But I don't see it as my role or something either. It's more fun and useful to share our thoughts in general comments and questioning statements (instead of people ) rather than blatantly trying to convince people of or ridicule/push people into a certain position indeed.

edit: just spelling