You left out the ‘e’ in politeness in the body of the poll.
I’m always most polite and civil to those who point out miner errers in gramer or spelng during a discourse on the of chnge that I made a mistake myself.
But that’s not better at all, it just looks like you don’t have any counterarguments…
In that case join the debate. Just be polite with it. Compare these two statements:
“I understand why you think that, but the fossil record clearly indicates otherwise.”
The fossil record clearly indicates otherwise, you f***ing jerk. And your mom’s a whore."
I pretty much agree with this. I’m really turned off by the number of very intelligent adults who continuously act with rudeness and arrogance when communicating with others, especially on the internet.
Yes, they’re intelligent, but how smart are they if they haven’t learned how to communicate in a way that accomplishes something other than pissing everybody off and making themselves look like jackasses?
Now, if only all this politeness and rational discourse could be transferred to GD…
While option two is completely douchey and unconstructive, option one has the unfortunate quality that it gives the incorrect impression that the opinion is a reasonable opinion to have. If that opinion is for example that the world is 6000 years old, then it’s NOT understandable to think that! It’s completely idiotic!
That point needs to be communicated and there’s really no polite way to do that, but I certainly agree that calling someone’s mom a whore is uncalled for (duh).
There’s a difference between being polite and being patronizing.
If someone believes that the flying spaghetti monster created the world, one can clearly say something like, “The view you are advocating is utterly without basis in scientific fact, and reminds me of the fanciful, bizarre explanations offered by children on things they simply don’t understand.” But I’m kind of wordy. In any case, the argument, although belittling of the FSM, is focused on the argument, not the person.
What is not acceptable or polite in my book is something like, “Your childlike belief in the FSM beggars rationality.”
OTOH, patronizing would sound something like, “You have a very interesting view, and while I’d appreciate hearing more evidence on how this levitating pasta creature created the world, I am afraid that my knowledge of science would lead me to believe that … etc.” Being polite doesn’t mean you have to take a stupid point seriously.
I understand why you think that, but English usage clearly indicates otherwise. 
I understand why you think that, but is used soften a statement that might otherwise be taken as unduly confrontational or aggressive. It acknowledges the other person’s opinion as not being perversely irrational or entirely arbitrary, but raher based on errors of logic or fact. By doing so, it avoids (or seeks to avoid) vexing the other person unnecessarily, and moreover gives the impression to onlookers that the person uttering it is being respectful rather than bullying.
Well, of course you’d have to take it on a case-by-case basis. In the above case I wouldn’t say “That’s a valid opinion, but I disagree”, because it’s not a valid opinion. If I’m feeling very polite I might say “I understand that you’ve held that belief all your life, and I know it’s tough to change a long-held belief, but…”
Calling the person’s belief idiotic is rude, but it’s better than calling the person idiotic.
And while you might not want to lend any validity to a very wrong perspective, don’t underestimate the power of making someone feel understood.
I’m not sure it is. It feels just the same to me.
True enough. People get awfully attached to their beliefs.
All the time, when you can manage it. You can respectfully disagree and maintain civil discourse. When you can’t you need to end the discourse. The only thing being an asshole accomplishes is to demonstrate that you vote that it’s ok to treat people assholishly. Attitude is contagious.
This works for me, too.
Honesty demands one not spare another’s feelings.
I’m just surprised that my choice is winning so nearly unanimously. While I’m sure that some don’t practice what they preach, it seems that the ones who don’t believe it are just more prominent.
It’s a basic study of human interactions: if I feel threatened or insulted, I’m going to feel the need to defend myself. This need can be so strong as to trump the need for being fair to my opponent. Heck, it can even override my knowledge that being mean to you won’t help. But, more importantly, it makes me more likely to look for evidence for my position, and not against it. The more “evidence” I gather, the more I will tell myself I am right, and the stronger my belief will become.
It’s the same thinking that makes “fundamentailists” so closed minded.
Is honesty the only virtue? The most important one? Does honesty require that one give ever single thought voice, or can one keep some thoughts to oneself and still be ethical/?
Of course some thoughts can be kept to oneself, but it seems logical that the higher the stakes go, both the need for honesty and the potential for grave offense are greater. So a good rule of thumb might be: the worse it might hurt someone, the greater the need for frank talk.
But frank is not synonymous with impolitic.
I think in such a case, though, there needs to be a certain amount of trust as well. You can’t be painfully frank with someone who barely knows you and does not trust you; the message would not be heard. Unless you have communication and empathy super-powers, I guess. I sure don’t.
Well, of course. One always gives way to power; it’s the only meaningful force left in society.