in other words do people learn/understand and then adapt to avoid conflict by watching/reading/hearing about conflict?
Printable View
in other words do people learn/understand and then adapt to avoid conflict by watching/reading/hearing about conflict?
Well now that MarkBastable has mentioned it, this does appear absolutely absurd. Which illustrates the point that we're just monkeys screaming and flinging poo at each other.
Still, it's cathartic.
J
well I would not want to spoil your pleasures , but I never considered myself anything but me and so with all due respects I think monkeys are more higherarchical and better organised that one thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
When animals are put behind bars they behave in the way you have just described , when left in their right environment they are behaved and better then a human.
Ah, touché. However valid your counterpoint is, please know there was no personal offense intended. In fact, that was a global insult aimed at the entire human race. Trust in that. JoH has been an insult to the human race for years now.
J
Point taken and yes I can understand where you are coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
I thought you meant whether conflict itself resolves conflict. Will a heated argument over something settle the conflict or does it just temporarily clear the air and put the underlying issue on ice till a later time. In that context I would say that conflict does not resolve conflict.
Strength can sometimes resolve conflict by which I mean the willingness to endure conflict for a cause - particularly if there is a clear rightness/ wrongness.
I have in mind face to face confrontations where you have to stand your ground in order to prevent/ enable something. Sometimes you find yourself in a situation, or observing a situation, where someone is being threatened or hurt. If you can accept the possibility of conflict in order to try to help someone - then you should. (If you can't - or are unable to match someone, then another way has to be found).
Yes I agree that is one of the ways of making a conflict worser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
What I meant by my question was would a film/a story/a documentary that shows conflict in all its gory detailsd help anyone understand and avoid conflict or is there another way better way, less confrontational?
I think violence begets more violence, as a rule.
the golden one? haha:biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by BookBeauty
I agree that what comes around goes around in this case.
It is what you put in the pudding that is its proof.
I would have to say no. I'm reminded of walking into the laundromat; there's a show on the Tele, it's a cop show or something. There's a cop who's questioning some alleged criminal or apprehending someone. But of course there's no clear lines and . . well you know. Anyway, there's a lot of anger, a lot of harsh tones, a lot of all of that. And that's what you hear, what goes into your sub-conscious. Now, all these shows have the noble goals, triumph over crime, etc. etc. But what you hear and absorb is the anger, the harsh tones, the violence, the conflict.
I think peace solves conflict. A person who is peaceful can bring peace to a conflicted situation, and it's perhaps the only way to do so. A person reading Walt Whitman will do more peace making and conflict resolving than a person who watches shows centered on conflict - that's an oversimplification. A person who reads Walt Whitman is taking into their mind and psyche more positive things, and less negative things, that will influence them towards peace, rather than a person watching shows centered on conflict.
Well, I mean, it technically does though. If everyone except you is dead (because you killed them), conflict resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Also, debate has obvious benefits. Imagine if no one ever debated anything, goodbye democratic system.
I'm not referring to conflict resolution where all parties are actively engaged in bringing the conflict to the table in order to seek a peaceful outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Debate occurs at diverse levels and while I agree that it can be healthy, it can also become destructive, violent and disrespectful. Nobody gains anything from this sort of conflict.
well I am not sure because you are then totally on your own,what do you do then?Quote:
=JuniperWoolf;1136853]Well, I mean, it technically does though. If everyone except you is dead (because you killed them), conflict resolved.
the obvious answer is to say well try and find more conflict to occupy yourself because that is the only thing you know and you are used to, but and there is always a but, you have gotten rid of all possiblie conflictees.
what to do what to do?! is the question or the conflict itself.
I agree debate is the heart of ,not democratic because is not an acquired right, but a ritual, nature's intended state for the human sense.Quote:
Also, debate has obvious benefits. Imagine if no one ever debated anything, goodbye democratic system.
Debate is a natural manner in which humans are to be, a way of being to get across a point or an idea and ultimately to actually get on to a same level of headedeness if you like.
Well, it is difficult to avoid the mud once someone starts flinging it without giving up your position completely. Here, I'll give you a hypothetical scenario: let's say you're in an online discussion about something you have a vested interest in, you've thought and read about this a lot and now you're looking forward to debating it openly with people of widely varying mindsets when you're engaged by someone who sprinkles each of his rebuttles with degrading personal comments about... oh, let's say... your culture, your age and your gender identity, while at the same time copiously and openly insulting your intelligence. In this one again hypothetical scenario, how would you proceed and maintain dignity while at the same time progressing the debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Well... in your hypothetical situation you have to recognize that in order to maintain dignity you have to have once had it to start with.
Returning to the OP... Cacian seems to be asking about the value of conflict in literature (as opposed to conflict in real life)... building upon our earlier debate concerning conflict and villains in literature. Again... I am not one who looks toward literature for its utilitarian worth. I suspect that excessive violence in the arts has an impact... especially upon the weak-minded or highly susceptible. On the other hand, I think making a case for a clear cause would be near impossible. One might cite the Renaissance Lords who had the most elegant and sophisticated artistic tastes... in painting, poetry, music, literature, and philosophy... who nevertheless were among the most bloodthirsty, rapacious, and murderous.
[QUOTE=JuniperWoolf;1136895]Well, it is difficult to avoid the mud once someone starts flinging it without giving up your position completely./QUOTE]
Choose your battles and maintain your dignity. There is no shame in bowing out at this point. Once the mud is slung, it's obvious people are not interested in reaching a solution, nobody is willing to agree to disagree and the debate or conflict simply deteriorates as it progresses.
[QUOTE=Delta40;1136957]Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
This reminds of the olden days where they use to have a gun battle between tow people and a judge,especially in western films as to solve a dispute so whoever shot first was the winner or quit.Quote:
Choose your battles and maintain your dignity
I cannot remember what it's called?
A duel.
I am reminded of something Thich Nhat Hanh said, that being happy and peaceful is the basis of peace work.
Hi NikolaiI thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
I have never heard of Thich Nhat Hanh haha but peace is a funny thing isn't because from what I understand is that peace always comes after a deluge if you like.
In other words would one say that peace as a concept would only be because of war/conflict/problems ect? That without the latest the peace won't be?
I think peace in that case means something different than the peace you talk about.
The Dalai Lama would agree that the only way to spread peace in the world is by being peaceful (havng peace of mind, not being distracted by worldly concerns etc.) yourself.
Conflict only arouses more conflict. You can reach a concensus after a conflict (in the best case), but there will always remain the feeling that there is no peaceful state.
That would mean that you're being forced out of a discussion in which you want to participate. That is weakness, but more importantly, lately on litnet there have been very few interesting and active discussions so it'd be a ***** not to participate in the few we do manage to get going. If I want to participate in a debate and someone pops in who doesn't stick to the topic and throws personal insults around, the only way to continue without contributing to a thread which is "destructive, violent and disrespectful," is to sift the pertinent points from the same post which is inferring that I'm a gender-confused hillbilly and openly calling me stupid, while somehow completely ignoring it. That's not an easy thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
These last few months SD has been a huge headache. Then again, we've gotten some interesting new members too.
Maybe you and stlukes should just put each other on ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
You can't ignore a post in a debate, what if they make a pertinant point that changes the game and you just blunder on completely oblivious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
Yeah. I've tried putting people on ignore and then have taken them off.
You two could always reconcile, too, ya know. It's not impossible. I've done it with several members, even G L Wilson, and you know that's quite a feat. Hell, my first exchange with stlukes was rife with conflict.
Even Mutatis and I are getting along quite well. But of course, it takes two to have civil discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
That is certainly one way to look at it. If you think stepping out of a discussion after getting personal insults thrown at you, thereby maintaining not only your dignity but preserving your position is weak then so be it. I'm not prepared to lower my standards just so my point of view can be heard. You gave a scenario limited to forum discussion but this is a principle on a much broader scale. If you were at a social gathering, would you allow yourself to be insulted over and over again during the course of a debate for no other reason than to feel like you had scored one over the other person?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I have left debates that have turned too heated... not because I am unable to engage in such... I have frequented un-moderated sites in the past that were absolutely brutal... and profanity and cheap shots soon lost all their impact while it was wit, humor, and logical argument that commonly won the day. Having the last word doesn't mean you've won the debate. I have stuck with other debates, not because I thought there was any possibility of changing my opponent's mind, but rather because I felt the issue was important enough that an alternative view point was needed. I think especially of the recent debate concerning Hitler where several of us refused to give in to apologists making excuses for the murder of untold millions.
Word. :cheers2:Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I agree. Sometimes a debate arises where we feel our two cents has to be heard. The point is, if we choose our battles, then we should at least know when to bring it to an end. Since as you say having the last word doesn't mean you win the debate, neither does walking away mean you lose it. The notion that a conflict isn't over till it has sunk to the level of abuse is a standard for the individual to place upon themself.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That was exactly my view. An alternative viewpoint is still needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Of course no-one is going to change their mind and the term 'context' will automatically be equalled to 'apalogist'. Still, it does not change the fact that I at least am not one of those, depite what another here may think.
I tend to agree with what Juniper has said. Putting people on ignore is annoying. Firstly it makes you curious as to what he/she has said, because the tag 'this user is on your ignore list' is glarig at you, and secondly, it looks kind of weird in a conversation and may make for strange replies.
Re: Countries that do not subscribe to conflict
It is worth noting that heavily Buddhist countries in terms of devotion to one of the tenets of the philosophy/religon which is essentially conflict avoidance have a history of being overrun by either another country or by strongmen(the Military) within the country:
Three countries spring to mind:
Tibet
Cambodia
Burma
They tend to practice passive resistance and it has not done them any favours.
Personally I tend to avoid conflict and I gain peace of mind, but lose position in the tribe sometimes- in the short term at least.
In Tibet's past they had invaded China and took over large swathes of land. Rather than being passive resistors in the past, Tibet had a standing army. This declined and did not develop into the 19thC due to Tibet's isolationist policy to outsiders. Younghusband's British "invasion" and defeat of the Tibetan army is a case in point. they just weren't equipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
The current Dalai Lama's stance on passive resistance is a modern phenomenon. In fact he's going for co-operation and some kind of dependant autonomy now.
The picture is not so simple either. Thailand has had a long running military dispute with tribal and Muslim people, and a few years ago the Sri Lankan Army destroyed the Tamil Tigers in the north of the country.
One historical iconic Buddhist figure is Asoka whose army in India defeated rival armies in his wars of expansion. On seeing the suffering and carnage he stopped the war, sued for peace and converted to Buddhism. I can't think of another example of a victor stopping the war and expansion.
Interesting reads.
Is talking/communication enough to divert a conflict?
Cammaraderie comes to mind.
Interesting! I should read the more distant history of some of these "Buddhist" countries. What you say is correct, as I left Japan out of the picture, a "Buddhist" country - at least nominally, with a strong military history. It gets complicated, sufficed to say that passive resistance works best in a country with rule of law and a certain culture of Conscience-otherwise the threat of Consequence works best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
At work, avoiding conflict will help you stay alive in the trenches, but you will certainly be marginilized slowly and surely until you are fully despensable.
It depends on what your work is. What if your job is a negotiator or mediator? Then I guess you're always involved in conflict, but always trying to resolve it, and how well you do determines your success.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt