Littlestone
|
Re: feelings vs facts
Sep 05, 2012, 11:17
|
Agreeing to differ probably isn’t possible for those who see things in black and white Mr M ;-) The black and white-ers are not only unable to see subtle shades of grey, they’re also totally (colour) blind to the variety of solutions available in an equal variety of situations.
It’s a situation we’re faced with all the time – the pros and cons for and against capital punishment for example, assisted dying, abortion, etc etc. The black and white-ers can’t usually think outside the box. Capital punishment is seen by them in yes or no terms (ditto the two other other situations just mentioned) and they’ve more often than not arrived at their points of view through ignorance or creaking and no-longer relevant religious or moral frameworks.
It’s worth a try though (agreeing to disagree) and you do actually keep the moral high ground in that you’ve admitted the possibility of po (neither yes or no but po).
Maybe I should start a new thread with that title before this one spins out of control :-)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: feelings vs facts
Sep 05, 2012, 11:26
|
The black and white-ers can’t usually think outside the box.
True. Whereas would-be common thieves....
|
nigelswift
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 11:32
|
|
True. But its not just me. You're recommending a particular way things should happen in public so an explanation of who you believe should be exceptions, and why they need to be exempt is surely owed - not to me but to the stakeholders - including EH and Historic Scotland if theyre looking. How can they learn and adapt, other than by hearing your explanation?
|
Mustard
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 11:35
|
|
nigelswift wrote: True. But its not just me. You're recommending a particular way things should happen in public so an explanation of who you believe should be exceptions, and why they need to be exempt is surely owed - not to me but to the stakeholders - including EH and Historic Scotland if theyre looking. How can they learn and adapt, other than by hearing your explanation?
This is a great example of why we're wasting our time here. You seem to believe that everything needs to be defined by rules and regulations, which are then strictly adhered to. I don't.
Also, you used the word "stakeholders", which immediately makes me run screaming for the hills ;)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 11:46
|
"you used the word "stakeholders", which immediately makes me run screaming for the hills ;)"
Hmmm. Well it would wouldnt it if youre saying, as you appear to be, there's no such thing as society! What next, We are a grandmother?!
;)
|
Mustard
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 11:48
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "you used the word "stakeholders", which immediately makes me run screaming for the hills ;)"
Hmmm. Well it would wouldnt it if youre saying, as you appear to be, there's no such thing as society! What next, We are a grandmother?!
;)
Now now, Nige. There's no worse insult where I come from than calling someone a Thatcherite. ;)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 12:03
|
|
As if I didn't know....
|
Mustard
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 12:05
|
|
nigelswift wrote: As if I didn't know....
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=58979
;)
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 12:40
|
But what's wrong with having different opinions? We don't have to call a halt to the discussion at all.
I think you want to stop the discussion because you don't want to elaborate on the who and why.
If you don't think it's black and white, then why not explain your more nuanced greyish view?
You might educate a few other people even if you can't change poor Nigel's mind.
|
Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: piffle
Sep 05, 2012, 12:49
|
Hi Rhiannon, I don't know if you missed it but I asked you a question (on page 12 if youre a flat viewing head-to-head sort like myself)
regarding the monuments in the Avebury area. Once again, I'd really like to hear your answer.
|
