Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
When you say "anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant", or "uninformed", you really do not come across as someone who wants to have a conversation, or that anyone would want to have a conversation with. I would never say something like that, unless it's on something I see as totally uncontroversial, like whether vaccines cause autism. In saying that anyone who disagrees with me on that is ignorant, I'm signalling that I don't want to have a conversation about it, because... I don't. That shouldn't be the approach to most political issues, in my opinion. To then add, "I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong" seems pretty disingenuous.
|
No, what I'm saying is that "I find what I believe to be true based on the sources of information I've been exposed to and the perspective I've examined the topic from. Many of the people I've previously had this discussion with haven't been exposed to the same information or considered the same perspectives." It might be arrogant but I don't think it's particularly unusual. You're acting as if my belief that someone is LIKELY ignorant is based on some reflexive instinct to them disagreeing and that this carries over to any topic, when it's completely based on my experiences in these types of debates.
It's like when someone starts going off about world banking conspiracies, I immediately start to think that they might be an anti-semite or bat#### crazy because that's what my experiences with the type of people who espouse world banking experiences have been. I don't think I'm unique in this. We're all coloured by our previous experiences.
EDIT: I should also add that these would be my thoughts about the person. I wouldn't immediately jump down their throats and call them a bigot for disagreeing with me unless I was totally fed up with them or they were quite clearly a bigot.