# how do you disagree with someone without making them your enemy



## kunox (Apr 6, 2013)

I have ended up in another online argument heck this one started on the phone. it would seem like I need to practice assertive communication and in one particular area. that would be when i disagree with someone. Basically I have done this three times over the past year and I am not sure why. One in a forum called writers forum{and yes this us going on multiple forums} and another on the phone so how do you disagree with someone thought them felling like I am "running over them."​


----------



## Brock (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't know, but I am just now starting to learn that staying quiet -- even when you know that others are wrong and you can prove it -- can ultimately make you a much happier person.  Let them think the sky is red and walk away.


----------



## kunox (Apr 6, 2013)

lol... cool


----------



## NathanBrazil (Apr 6, 2013)

I think a lot depends on who you are disagreeing with.  I've seen some posters that will brook no denial.  It's easy to play king of the hill.  Why would I want to open a debate with someone that has no interest in looking for the truth?  

As long as both parties are actively looking for the truth, then I believe the tone is very important.  If you can put together a counter-argument that doesn't disrespect the other person(poster), then it should be well received.


----------



## kunox (Apr 6, 2013)

NathanBrazil said:


> I think a lot depends on who you are disagreeing with.  I've seen some posters that will brook no denial.  It's easy to play king of the hill.  Why would I want to open a debate with someone that has no interest in looking for the truth?
> 
> As long as both parties are actively looking for the truth, then I believe the tone is very important.  If you can put together a counter-argument that doesn't disrespect the other person(poster), then it should be well received.



that last part would be my problem....


----------



## NathanBrazil (Apr 6, 2013)

I have a very difficult time separating personal attacks from salient points in a post.  If I'm responding emotionally to the attack then my brain shuts down.  Once the debate devolves into flaming, I tend to disengage.  There's no value in it.  

The questions I always want to ask, when I see these attack-counter attack posts are - What are you gaining?  What is the purpose of your post?

I suppose it may be cathartic at some level, but it seems like one snarky, negative post, spawns a return post in the same vein.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 6, 2013)

NathanBrazil said:


> As long as both parties are actively looking for the truth, then I believe the tone is very important.


As long as the government isn't there to steal your bank account funds claiming it's "unclaimed money", and is genuinely wanting to help you...  Sorry, was going off to another place for a moment, oh my bedroom walls are a kind of pastel pinkie-orangey-fawny-brown type colour.

If you did have such a scenario (not the government thing, it's not going to happen), it'll help to use non-personal terms.  Cut out any 'you' for a start.  The 'you' is a beginning to personalization, which you're not seeking in a cordial discussion.


----------



## Rosier (Apr 6, 2013)

Just tell them that you respect their opinion, and you disagree with it. :stung:


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Apr 6, 2013)

There's also something to be said for choosing your battles wisely. Just ask yourself: "Is this really worth arguing about?"

In most cases, the answer is no. But if you feel you just _have_ to take a stand, do it with respect and dignity. State your case to the best of your ability and then walk away. If you're in the right, most people will see that, and the ones that don't are not worth arguing with because you'll never, ever, ever change their minds.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 6, 2013)

And while on the phone keep your tone neutral.  In fact, smile--genuinely smile--it comes through over the phone.  If you're smiling you can't have the intonations in your voice that indicate anger or frustration quite so easily. (Smiling forces the tones of the voice to raise, it's quite real that someone can hear a smile).

Might sound hokey but it works.  I'm not great with people but I have a wonderful phone presence and that's because I smile while I'm on the phone.  I'm working on transferring that to my in-life presence.


----------



## MJ Preston (Apr 6, 2013)

Generally after a heated argument, I have found brandishing a firearm an effective way to calm things down.


----------



## Cran (Apr 6, 2013)

Adding to the valuable advice already given, in particular this gem:


Rosier said:


> Just tell them that you respect their opinion, and you disagree with it. :stung:



The key is to distinguish the person from the discussion (argument, whatever), and it's something we've all faced in every aspect of our lives, whether it's with parents, partners, siblings, friends, co-workers, neighbours, or the stranger behind the counter. Often we find ourselves having to say, "I [_insert relevant verb* here_] you, but ..." which is a standard attempt to separate the personal relationship from the subject of the moment. 

How often or well that approach succeeds varies from person to person and from situation to situation. When it doesn't succeed, changing the subject, taking some time out to cool down, or as MJ put it, brandishing a firearm, might be called for. 

_*eg: love, respect, understand; _even at times_, agree with, hate, don't understand, etc. _


----------



## patskywriter (Apr 6, 2013)

Having a genuine respect for people can lead to your having the ability to speak to anyone about anything. If all parties in a discussion are mutually respectful, much can be learned.

Years and years ago, we kids had a babysitter, who we loved because she was kind and gentle. One day, I asked her why her head was always covered. She explained that it was for religious purposes, and naturally, I asked her about her beliefs. She described the basic tenets of her religion and answered my questions very sweetly. We had a beautiful conversation. Later, I talked to my parents and expressed my surprise in finding out that not everyone believed in Jesus. They explained that we don't all share the exact same beliefs, but that most religions have the goal of making us better people.

In later conversations, as an adult, I've had people tell me that they were shocked that my parents would let "someone like that" into our home. Unfortunately, many people have yet to develop the ability to consider other opinions and beliefs as valid, and instead of learning something, they lash out and resort to name-calling and verbal attacks. I think that once you realize that people with differing opinions are not somehow fighting against you, you'll start having better conversations.


----------



## lonely-soul (Apr 6, 2013)

Everyone is individual. So their thinking,theory,beliefs,understanding,too,etc. People who argue uselessly and end up with no good outcome or conclusion because they don't want themselves to be proven wrong at their opinions,ideas. This is ego or you may call it whatever as you like. When two persons are mature and arguing on some matter, it is then quite obvious that one of them will accept the fact of being proven wrong for his beliefs,ideas,theories. So,then he doesn't lose respect but he gains something,he adds something in his knowledge which is to be true.
So,never waste energy on effing egoistic childish puppets.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2013)

It does depend on the subject. I'm one of those people who, when discussing opinions, tend to be more objective. I may disagree or even think their opinion stupid, but it's their opinion, so... I think that comes from having a family with Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, agnostics, and atheists in it. When discussing fact, I tend to be more stubborn. Unless someone can point to new information that proves my facts wrong, or even not conclusive, I tend to get very frustrated with disagreement. But when I find my anger starting to boil over, I (usually) withdraw. It's at that point I figure if people want to remain ignorant, so be it.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Apr 6, 2013)

Politely. "I know it may be a matter of opinion, in my view..." "Clearly we are at odds over this, perhaps each of us is a little bit wrong and a little bit right..." - "I've never understood why it isn't possible for people to be friends even if they disagree in some areas..."


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2013)

Depends on the subject. If it about something like politics, if people can't handle a differing opinion -- too bad. I'm not going to spend a lot of time sugar coating things for people who take everything personally. If it's actually about something personal, that's different. There's usually something positive you can throw in to cushion things -- something more than some platitude like, "this is only my opinion" or whatever. It also depends on the person and the opinion -- some are due respect -- others aren't. There's no one-size-fits-all way to handle it.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Apr 6, 2013)

I share your dilema. I have a pretty decent memory, almost like like a rotery style address book, and when a fight gets heated I can use my memory as leverage but it only adds fuel to the fire. By then, the point of no return is crossed and enemies are made.

So I have learned that the best option is to disengage no matter what they may say. I've also learned to keep my temper in check, to keep emotions out of the argument and if all else fails, bite my tongue literally and figurativly.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 6, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Depends on the subject. If it about something like politics, if people can't handle a differing opinion -- too bad.



I never fail to be amazed by the stupidity from those who I generally in principle agree with.  I really wonder whether there's an (almost) universal stupid switch which turns on whenever somebody has an opinion.  In truth, I don't think it's possible for most people to handle different opinions, regardless of what prospective they come from.  Disagree with somebody, and you're their enemy; there's nothing I've seen which makes this less than 97% true.  This is reality.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> I never fail to be amazed by the stupidity from  those who I generally in principle agree with.  I really wonder whether  there's an (almost) universal stupid switch which turns on whenever  somebody has an opinion.  In truth, I don't think it's possible for most  people to handle different opinions, regardless of what prospective  they come from.  Disagree with somebody, and you're their enemy; there's  nothing I've seen which makes this less than 97% true.  This is  reality.



Your reality, maybe. I know a lot of people who are well-informed, quite intelligent and even tempered. Some with whom I agree -- others not, but we get along just fine. Maybe you need to get out more.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 6, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Your reality, maybe. I know a lot of people who are well informed and quite intelligent, some with whom I agree -- others not. Maybe you need to get out more.



Really?  Let me give you two real life publicly known situations then.

Take Obama.  Here's proof.  I guarantee you that anybody who has any opinion on him has automatically taken their position in preparation for combat, mud-packs ready.  Doesn't matter what position that is.

So another example.
There's a man who wanted a young 6 year old girl.  He approached the father who agreed to hand the girl over (for a price).  The mother of the girl who wasn't permitted to say anything against this never the less helped prepare the girl and help with the final transaction a couple of years later.

You think this is bad?  There are people out there finding all types of excuses to support this paedophile/rapist, find all types of excuses why this is acceptable; and on the flipside, those who know and dislike this man will believe any cotton-bull story no-matter how ridiculous.  Similarly, when a local Ipswich teacher was caught being a paedophile, many students and teachers supported him, saying that he's a 'nice bloke'.  A nice bloke?   Don't people think?  And say one word against it, you're scum.


This is reality.  The world is ugly, and people simply aren't the reasonable understanding beings that the brochures make out.  Joseph, I'm not somebody who's lived in some bubble (note: LM competition prompt).


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2013)

Of course, there is ugliness in the world and bad people. But there is also beauty -- and there are good people. And there is just about every shade of gray in between -- that's the reality I see. Recognizing the good doesn’t mean you’re in some kind of bubble. I’m grateful that that I can see and appreciate it. Life's too short to go through it with such a cynical outlook.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 6, 2013)

These were your comments the moment somebody had a different viewpoint to yours.



JosephB said:


> Maybe you need to get out more.





			
				JosephB said:
			
		

> Life's too short to go through it with such a cynical outlook.



This shows that you've failed your own argument; when you're not capable of having a different viewpoint without attacking (in this case me), ironically in a thread about whether it's possible to have different viewpoints without making them an enemy.  Your personalized attacks simply proves my point.  This, when there's nothing even at stake.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2013)

Ha ha. You think the phrase "you need to get out more" or the suggestion that someone who says "the world is ugly" has a cynical outlook is a "personalized _attack_?" Oh dear. I wasn't really being all that serious -- but now I really do think you need to get out more.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Apr 6, 2013)

Gentlemen, gentlemen theres no need to get into an argument over arguments . Yes, both of you have made valid points but there is no need to force your ideals down each others throat.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2013)

Neither of us are in a position to do any "forcing." And don't worry -- I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Besides -- I'm the only one who made any valid points.:grin:


----------



## Tiamat (Apr 6, 2013)

How ironic.  A thread about how to disagree with someone politely has turned into a disagreement that's gradually edging its way into not-so-polite.

Maybe we could try to get back on topic here . . .

Personally, if I have something I want to say, I'm going to say it.  That said, I've been told more than once that I would benefit by looking up the word "tact" in the dictionary, but as it happens, I know what it means and choose not to exercise it at my discretion.  However, the trick is knowing when to speak your mind and when you're better off just keeping your mouth shut.  Sometimes it's worth it; sometimes it's not.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 6, 2013)

Do I look fat in these?    If I'm ugly, should you tell me?  For the sake of honesty? Are you hiding any Jews under your floorboards? 
If I hold opinions that you think are ridiculous should you tell me I'm being dim, ignorant, hold a stupid view, etc.? How does that make you/I feel? 
Deficient or stupid? Maybe satisified or superior? 
Why? JMTs


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 6, 2013)

kunox said:


> ...so how do you disagree with someone thought them felling like I am "running over them."



As was suggested by Cran, argue "to the point" instead of "to the person." (Ad Hominem)

But, some people interpret a disagreement as being a confrontation, not a discussion. There may be certain situations in which someone is determined to find a "confrontation" in your interaction instead of recognizing a simple discussion of opposing viewpoints. When that happens, there's little you can do to avoid confrontational arguments.


----------



## MJ Preston (Apr 7, 2013)

If I disagree with someone it means I oppose their position. Where it goes from there is really up to both of us. I can state my disagreement and leave it at that or try to change their position by leveraging it with an argument, If someone turns me into an enemy simply because I disagree with them, well, that's on them isn't it. If I turn them into an enemy because cannot accept the fact they are standing their ground and feel the need to press the issue then it is on me. Sometimes it is worth it to stand your ground if you fundamentally oppose a position, especially if that position runs contrary to descent behavior. One thing I would never do is take an internet relationship that is volatile to the next level, ilike the telephone or in person. That I reserve for people I trust and respect.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Apr 7, 2013)

It's easier to just not argue online. If it effects you that much, then forget about it.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 7, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Ha ha. You think the phrase "you need to get out more" or the suggestion that someone who says "the world is ugly" has a cynical outlook is a "personalized _attack_?" Oh dear. I wasn't really being all that serious -- but now I really do think you need to get out more.



This is so funny, continuing personalised attacks because somebody said a different viewpoint to you (and not even over an actual issue of importance); you obviously can't hold the civil conversation that you claim you're capable of.

Just goes to show that some advice in topics such as this isn't always grounded in reality.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 7, 2013)

What’s a “personalized” attack anyway – is that like an attack with your initials engraved on it?


----------



## squidtender (Apr 7, 2013)

*Just in case Tiamat's warning wasn't obvious enough, here's one from me: Get it back on topic or the infractions come out. *


----------



## moderan (Apr 8, 2013)

Just add water, not ad hominem.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 8, 2013)

Sticks and stones...


----------



## Foxee (Apr 8, 2013)

Back to the OP, I just wanted to mention (maybe it's already been mentioned) that if you're on the phone or in person with someone and you can tell that things are moving toward being an argument you can try suggesting, "Maybe we can just put this aside for right now and talk about it later." There's the possibility that 'later' will either not happen or that when it does you'll both at least be calmer.

Online is even easier, you can just walk away from the keyboard for a while. This gives them nobody to fight with and you a chance to think about something else.

Takes two people (at least) to have an argument. Usually. Unless you're really excellent at arguing with yourself.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 8, 2013)

As far as online is concerned, I think you should relentlessly pursue you point until you've exhausted your opponent or until someone implements the dead horse emoticon. "Walking away" is for sissies. And there's nothing wrong with arguing with yourself -- that way you can always be right.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 8, 2013)

For me, walking away  is often from boredom, but then I'm _not_ a driver and I'm _not_ a winner...


----------



## JosephB (Apr 8, 2013)

Gosh, I think you're a winner, Kevin. We're all special -- and winners in our own way!


----------



## cazann34 (Apr 8, 2013)

kunox said:


> I have ended up in another online argument heck this one started on the phone. it would seem like I need to practice assertive communication and in one particular area. that would be when i disagree with someone. Basically I have done this three times over the past year and I am not sure why. One in a forum called writers forum{and yes this us going on multiple forums} and another on the phone so how do you disagree with someone thought them felling like I am "running over them."​



Tell them that they have a valid point and what they have said is intelligent and might even be groundbreaking. Then when they are beaming at their own prowess, slip in your point of view then walk away, click off or hang up. Not every argument can be won and sometimes the best thing to do is just walk away or as I put it 'I'm not going there' It takes two to argue. Some people are always right, even when they are proven wrong.


----------



## moderan (Apr 8, 2013)




----------



## Kevin (Apr 8, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Gosh, I think you're a winner, Kevin. We're all special -- and winners in our own way!


 Why does the term "short bus" come to mind?


----------



## Whisper (Apr 8, 2013)

Usually I find if I don't start the arguement with "Screw You..." it tends to go better.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 8, 2013)

You're right -- it's much better to save "screw you" until the end.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 8, 2013)

> What’s a “personalized” attack anyway – is that like an attack with your initials engraved on it?


Although I'm certain this was meant in jest, and I'd also agree that a more appropiate phrase would be 'personal attack,' and also think that considering one's remarks an 'attack' in any sense might be counter-productive to the goal of the original post, it does seem to me that the underlying question here is an important one. What causes some statements to be taken personally? To be received as attacks? Can we know this before we reply, or is it so subjective that intimate knowledge of those addressed is necessary? Do those participating in the discussion have some responsibility to allow leeway for mis-statements and poor wording? On a forum like this, should everyone's avatar have a pair of numbers, indicating that member's 'techy-ness' and 'sarcasticality' ratings? Maybe make that number inversely proportional to the number of post they can make per day?


----------



## alanmt (Apr 8, 2013)

Here are some thoughts:

1. "I respectfully disagree with that."     Just say that.  Nothing else. You preserve the relationship while establishing your disagreement.  If they follow up with "Why?", you can deflect "Oh, this is a complex and acrimonious subject that I really don't want to go into right now" or offer a short explanation, e.g. "I believe life begins at conception." followed immediately by a change of subject and a refusal to reengage.  This strategy is for your friends and family, where preserving the relationship is desired and changing minds seems unlikely.

2.  Be polite and impersonal and objective.  Disengage if the other person cannot do that or you are have difficulty maintaining such courtesy.

3. Ask yourself what the purpose of the discussion is.   If it has no purpose, why engage in it?  If it has a purpose, work toward that purpose, be it changing the other person's mind, hoping to influence third party readers/listeners, participating in a judged contest, reinforcing a belief amongst like-minded  people, or engaging in social shaming. etc.  Note that except for the last two, rudeness, personal attacks, and similar devices are always counterproductive, but for the last two they are productive.  Are you debating objectively determinable facts, public policy matters, the validity of religious beliefs?  Some things cannot be argued without alienating the other side; it is intrinsic to the debate. Learn to identify these topics.

4.  Civility and respect are not always appropriate, except on forums like this one where the rules require it.  After a lifetime of civility in political discourse, I have now adopted a new approach to arguments and assertions that are so ridiculous as to be insulting, however.  This won't solve the problem of alienating people, but it will gradually serve to correct societal stupidity.  For example, after I commented that the love same-sex and opposite-sex couples feel for each other is the same, so same-sex couples should be able to marry, a woman once responded "Well, if all we're talking about is love, why can't I marry my new jeans? I totally love them!" My response was: "Are you a moron?"  Of course, on this forum, such a response would result in an infraction.  But it certainly was appropriate under the circumstances.


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 8, 2013)

I have found through my short time being involved in this type of online interchange, is that it is near-impossible to attack someone "personally," and that we're all just part of the matrix anyway. Ethereal wisps of reality, with no tangible persona aside from what we choose to present to one another. 

Getting upset or hurt over what someone types is beyond silliness, and I believe it is like letting the ghastly overlords who control the interwebs have their way with you. If you disagree that strongly and have that much bloodlust to be proven right, go outside and pull up some grass, kick a pine cone, and spit several times toward the heavens. It will carry about as much weight, perhaps more.


----------



## MJ Preston (Apr 8, 2013)

squidtender said:


> *Just in case Tiamat's warning wasn't obvious enough, here's one from me: Get it back on topic or the infractions come out. *



Where did it go off topic?

Edited to add. Nevermind...


----------

