News-Record.com

My method: Agree to disagree and move on. Many of my views differ from those of my friends -- I have no problem with gay marriage, but 9 out of 10 of them oppose it; I am slower to call things "racially discriminatory" because I think the bar should be high so that actual cases get the attention they need and there's no "crying wolf" attitude, but many of my friends feel you should point to every incident because that's the only way it will end; I vote for the candidate whose ideals best match mine (I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate), no matter the party, but most of my friends vote democrat and won't entertain the notion that someone on the other side of the aisle might be a better choice. So very often our conversations can get heated and one or another of us will just decide to let it go.

There is two sides to every tale and we should be willing to listen to both sides and then accept the one that is found to be the right one.
Religion and politics are the ones that bring the most heated discussions.
By the same token discussins is the way to educated ourselves as to what is right.

Being polarized in our political discourse is dangerous, and adding a competitive "winner take all" attitude to it can be deadly. In discussions over facts, one should always strive for accuracy, but in discussions over opinion -- religious or political -- it is vital to retain respect.

I try to remember that no matter what political or religious views a person has, they must have reasons that are valid to them. I prefer to discuss views and the underlying reasons in a civil manner without resorting to name calling. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

I'm bothered anytime someone suggests a "reasonable person can't possibly believe x or y." Reasonable people CAN disagree about politics, religion, ethics, etc. I see this attitude on the left and the right.

You got that right, Margaret! It amazes me to see people becoming downright primitive in their reactions to statements that they disagree with. It's as if you said something horrible about someone's mother.

I think that the media has some responsibility for this. On TV, ugly sells for some reason. People dial in to watch Jerry Springer and his ilk... and the news channels decide to compete. So we get pundits that shout over each other, call each other names, and appear to come to blows. We need to get back to the "Point Counterpoint" days, IMO.

Eric, In our society, unfortunately, it has become the accepted norm that might makes right, ie, if the majority think it's right then it equates to truth. The truth becomes mighty and it, therefore, becomes right. Often might is incorrect, not the truth. Besides, truth is too subjective for most people to agree on.

Should it be that way? I think not. It is my opinion folks should come to these forums with an open mind and not with preconceived notions about the "truth of the matter". Idealistic? Yes, even for me. But, like you, I try to remain civil (after a lashing from mrproduce and Jon) but still fail at times. (Incidentally, both gentlemen sent me a personal email to explain their objections to the way I stated some things. I appreciated their imput and have tried to learn.)

All we can do when we goof is own up to it, back away from a discussion, take time to consider the opposing view and make a decision. We can come back to that discussion and state our original thought more forcefully (only present it from a different angle), we can drop out of the discussion or we can agree to disagree and truly mean it.

I have learned a lot about others, about myself and about life in general since the N&R made this type of dialogue possible. These discussions are informative at times, provoking at times but are almost always entertaining. Thanks to all who share, even if I disagree vehemently at times.

Well said Yvonne!