Mixing
How to deal with people who instantly end discussions with a “you aren't any better†kind of argument?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
When I criticize circumstances or a person who cause something or do something that is worsening something's or someone's current situation, people tell me stuff like "do it better yourself", "you do the same", etc. and just instantly kill the whole discussion. Most of the time I am aware that I do those mistakes too. But apparently me having done what I am criticizing is enough for people to not even discuss about the problem with me or declare all of my arguments as invalid because "but you".
This isn't only the case when I am the one doing or having done the mistake I am criticizing. It is also the case if the person or institution who I am siding with in a discussion is doing or has done it.
Example:
Sometime ago, German media was criticizing that there were cases in Turkey where people were way too long in custody before being presented to a judge or even properly looking at the case. When I tried to talk with people around me about that, of them just argued "Well, that stuff also happens in Germany." and just stopped the discussion because of this empty phrase.
How do I deal with this? Whenever people use those killerarguments, I think to myself "well, that's true but that doesn't change the current situation at all. It just hinders progression." I don't know how to properly convey this thought of mine to people who seemingly don't want to discuss in a fruitful manner.
Edit for clarity: I want them to understand that those arguments aren't enough to stop the discussion. This is just an assumption but I don't think that those people think they are souring the conversation. I feel like they are genuinely thinking that using arguments which fall under the category "but you" are arguments which have any validity. To me these "arguments" feel empty. I hope this could clear things up. I don't want to come over like I am better than them. I am not. If my attitude towards this problem is wrong, I would really like to hear why.
conversations
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
When I criticize circumstances or a person who cause something or do something that is worsening something's or someone's current situation, people tell me stuff like "do it better yourself", "you do the same", etc. and just instantly kill the whole discussion. Most of the time I am aware that I do those mistakes too. But apparently me having done what I am criticizing is enough for people to not even discuss about the problem with me or declare all of my arguments as invalid because "but you".
This isn't only the case when I am the one doing or having done the mistake I am criticizing. It is also the case if the person or institution who I am siding with in a discussion is doing or has done it.
Example:
Sometime ago, German media was criticizing that there were cases in Turkey where people were way too long in custody before being presented to a judge or even properly looking at the case. When I tried to talk with people around me about that, of them just argued "Well, that stuff also happens in Germany." and just stopped the discussion because of this empty phrase.
How do I deal with this? Whenever people use those killerarguments, I think to myself "well, that's true but that doesn't change the current situation at all. It just hinders progression." I don't know how to properly convey this thought of mine to people who seemingly don't want to discuss in a fruitful manner.
Edit for clarity: I want them to understand that those arguments aren't enough to stop the discussion. This is just an assumption but I don't think that those people think they are souring the conversation. I feel like they are genuinely thinking that using arguments which fall under the category "but you" are arguments which have any validity. To me these "arguments" feel empty. I hope this could clear things up. I don't want to come over like I am better than them. I am not. If my attitude towards this problem is wrong, I would really like to hear why.
conversations
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
When I criticize circumstances or a person who cause something or do something that is worsening something's or someone's current situation, people tell me stuff like "do it better yourself", "you do the same", etc. and just instantly kill the whole discussion. Most of the time I am aware that I do those mistakes too. But apparently me having done what I am criticizing is enough for people to not even discuss about the problem with me or declare all of my arguments as invalid because "but you".
This isn't only the case when I am the one doing or having done the mistake I am criticizing. It is also the case if the person or institution who I am siding with in a discussion is doing or has done it.
Example:
Sometime ago, German media was criticizing that there were cases in Turkey where people were way too long in custody before being presented to a judge or even properly looking at the case. When I tried to talk with people around me about that, of them just argued "Well, that stuff also happens in Germany." and just stopped the discussion because of this empty phrase.
How do I deal with this? Whenever people use those killerarguments, I think to myself "well, that's true but that doesn't change the current situation at all. It just hinders progression." I don't know how to properly convey this thought of mine to people who seemingly don't want to discuss in a fruitful manner.
Edit for clarity: I want them to understand that those arguments aren't enough to stop the discussion. This is just an assumption but I don't think that those people think they are souring the conversation. I feel like they are genuinely thinking that using arguments which fall under the category "but you" are arguments which have any validity. To me these "arguments" feel empty. I hope this could clear things up. I don't want to come over like I am better than them. I am not. If my attitude towards this problem is wrong, I would really like to hear why.
conversations
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
When I criticize circumstances or a person who cause something or do something that is worsening something's or someone's current situation, people tell me stuff like "do it better yourself", "you do the same", etc. and just instantly kill the whole discussion. Most of the time I am aware that I do those mistakes too. But apparently me having done what I am criticizing is enough for people to not even discuss about the problem with me or declare all of my arguments as invalid because "but you".
This isn't only the case when I am the one doing or having done the mistake I am criticizing. It is also the case if the person or institution who I am siding with in a discussion is doing or has done it.
Example:
Sometime ago, German media was criticizing that there were cases in Turkey where people were way too long in custody before being presented to a judge or even properly looking at the case. When I tried to talk with people around me about that, of them just argued "Well, that stuff also happens in Germany." and just stopped the discussion because of this empty phrase.
How do I deal with this? Whenever people use those killerarguments, I think to myself "well, that's true but that doesn't change the current situation at all. It just hinders progression." I don't know how to properly convey this thought of mine to people who seemingly don't want to discuss in a fruitful manner.
Edit for clarity: I want them to understand that those arguments aren't enough to stop the discussion. This is just an assumption but I don't think that those people think they are souring the conversation. I feel like they are genuinely thinking that using arguments which fall under the category "but you" are arguments which have any validity. To me these "arguments" feel empty. I hope this could clear things up. I don't want to come over like I am better than them. I am not. If my attitude towards this problem is wrong, I would really like to hear why.
conversations
conversations
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 3 hours ago
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
asked 4 hours ago
Limechime
1063
1063
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Limechime is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I'm reminded of these two idioms:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Both of which roughly equate to that you shouldn't be pointing out flaws in other people that you also have i.e. you're a hypocrite. I use this type of language to indicate to the speaker to empathy with the other party. If your solution is so simple, why haven't you done it yourself? It's very easy to criticize other people for not doing enough, but maybe what you propose isn't easy at all, which you would know if you did it yourself. An recent example on SO being overweight parent blaming their daughter's laziness for her weight problems. If losing weigh is so easy, why are the parents overweigh too?
Back to your original question, how do you continue the conversation when you encounter this argument of "you do it too?". Here are some suggestions:
- Acknowledge that you (or your country, your team, etc) have this problem too and look for common factors that would solve the problem.
- Refute the claim. It's possible that you don't have this problem and warrants some explanation of why the two situations are different.
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
They are trying to end the discussion because they don't want to have it.
When it comes to the personal example, you have to be very careful of being a hypocrite, because they are right, it does lessen your view if you yourself don't even believe them enough to have changed your own behavior. If you continue the behavior you are criticizing, why would someone listen to you.
As for the more global and political arguments, there are two options, either you know and expected them to make this argument, in which case you have evidence to dispute their claim and their point it moot. OR you are arguing from a less informed place then you re-frame and challenge. This is most definitely poor arguing skills and should be avoided, but if your opponent is not that great then it can work.
"Are you saying that our legal system is as broken as Turkeys?"
"I think that is a bold leap, do you have evidence to back that claim up?"
Or even a complete change of frame
"Ok if I accept that might be the case, then what is your proposed solution?"
Whatever you do you are flipping it back on them to force them to defend their position. And failing that changing the argument to a solution, which you can then poke holes in down the track.
To be frank though, this is getting to the point of winning more than having meaningful conversation, and it already seems the other party is disinterested.
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I'm reminded of these two idioms:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Both of which roughly equate to that you shouldn't be pointing out flaws in other people that you also have i.e. you're a hypocrite. I use this type of language to indicate to the speaker to empathy with the other party. If your solution is so simple, why haven't you done it yourself? It's very easy to criticize other people for not doing enough, but maybe what you propose isn't easy at all, which you would know if you did it yourself. An recent example on SO being overweight parent blaming their daughter's laziness for her weight problems. If losing weigh is so easy, why are the parents overweigh too?
Back to your original question, how do you continue the conversation when you encounter this argument of "you do it too?". Here are some suggestions:
- Acknowledge that you (or your country, your team, etc) have this problem too and look for common factors that would solve the problem.
- Refute the claim. It's possible that you don't have this problem and warrants some explanation of why the two situations are different.
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'm reminded of these two idioms:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Both of which roughly equate to that you shouldn't be pointing out flaws in other people that you also have i.e. you're a hypocrite. I use this type of language to indicate to the speaker to empathy with the other party. If your solution is so simple, why haven't you done it yourself? It's very easy to criticize other people for not doing enough, but maybe what you propose isn't easy at all, which you would know if you did it yourself. An recent example on SO being overweight parent blaming their daughter's laziness for her weight problems. If losing weigh is so easy, why are the parents overweigh too?
Back to your original question, how do you continue the conversation when you encounter this argument of "you do it too?". Here are some suggestions:
- Acknowledge that you (or your country, your team, etc) have this problem too and look for common factors that would solve the problem.
- Refute the claim. It's possible that you don't have this problem and warrants some explanation of why the two situations are different.
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I'm reminded of these two idioms:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Both of which roughly equate to that you shouldn't be pointing out flaws in other people that you also have i.e. you're a hypocrite. I use this type of language to indicate to the speaker to empathy with the other party. If your solution is so simple, why haven't you done it yourself? It's very easy to criticize other people for not doing enough, but maybe what you propose isn't easy at all, which you would know if you did it yourself. An recent example on SO being overweight parent blaming their daughter's laziness for her weight problems. If losing weigh is so easy, why are the parents overweigh too?
Back to your original question, how do you continue the conversation when you encounter this argument of "you do it too?". Here are some suggestions:
- Acknowledge that you (or your country, your team, etc) have this problem too and look for common factors that would solve the problem.
- Refute the claim. It's possible that you don't have this problem and warrants some explanation of why the two situations are different.
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
I'm reminded of these two idioms:
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Both of which roughly equate to that you shouldn't be pointing out flaws in other people that you also have i.e. you're a hypocrite. I use this type of language to indicate to the speaker to empathy with the other party. If your solution is so simple, why haven't you done it yourself? It's very easy to criticize other people for not doing enough, but maybe what you propose isn't easy at all, which you would know if you did it yourself. An recent example on SO being overweight parent blaming their daughter's laziness for her weight problems. If losing weigh is so easy, why are the parents overweigh too?
Back to your original question, how do you continue the conversation when you encounter this argument of "you do it too?". Here are some suggestions:
- Acknowledge that you (or your country, your team, etc) have this problem too and look for common factors that would solve the problem.
- Refute the claim. It's possible that you don't have this problem and warrants some explanation of why the two situations are different.
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
answered 3 hours ago
jcmack
1,474112
1,474112
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
I think that people should points out flaws even if you have them yourselves. Sometimes people might not even know that they have these flaws. It should be in a respectful way and ideally with tips on how to improve. Since the person telling you this still has the flaw himself/herself, even knowing what doesn't help at improving might be interesting. A small anecdote: In a video game I play with friends on a regular basis, I was doing a mistake which I didn't even know I was doing. Apparently, one of my friends was also doing this mistake and noticed it. He pointed it out to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
He didn't know how to improve himself but now that I know about it, I can think of ways myself. The thought of him being a hypocrite never crossed my mind. But at the end, this is just a videogame and not politics or something on a personal level. People might react differently about it if it's politics or something personal. To be honest, I don't know how I would react because it has never happened to me.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
@Limechime yea thats a good bit different than politics. Most people would welcome some advice that will help them improve in something like a video game. But so much as offer the slightest critique of their political "side", and all rationality and civility vanishes. Mental gymnastics are often employed if they run into any inconvenient arguments.
– SuperStew
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
They are trying to end the discussion because they don't want to have it.
When it comes to the personal example, you have to be very careful of being a hypocrite, because they are right, it does lessen your view if you yourself don't even believe them enough to have changed your own behavior. If you continue the behavior you are criticizing, why would someone listen to you.
As for the more global and political arguments, there are two options, either you know and expected them to make this argument, in which case you have evidence to dispute their claim and their point it moot. OR you are arguing from a less informed place then you re-frame and challenge. This is most definitely poor arguing skills and should be avoided, but if your opponent is not that great then it can work.
"Are you saying that our legal system is as broken as Turkeys?"
"I think that is a bold leap, do you have evidence to back that claim up?"
Or even a complete change of frame
"Ok if I accept that might be the case, then what is your proposed solution?"
Whatever you do you are flipping it back on them to force them to defend their position. And failing that changing the argument to a solution, which you can then poke holes in down the track.
To be frank though, this is getting to the point of winning more than having meaningful conversation, and it already seems the other party is disinterested.
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
They are trying to end the discussion because they don't want to have it.
When it comes to the personal example, you have to be very careful of being a hypocrite, because they are right, it does lessen your view if you yourself don't even believe them enough to have changed your own behavior. If you continue the behavior you are criticizing, why would someone listen to you.
As for the more global and political arguments, there are two options, either you know and expected them to make this argument, in which case you have evidence to dispute their claim and their point it moot. OR you are arguing from a less informed place then you re-frame and challenge. This is most definitely poor arguing skills and should be avoided, but if your opponent is not that great then it can work.
"Are you saying that our legal system is as broken as Turkeys?"
"I think that is a bold leap, do you have evidence to back that claim up?"
Or even a complete change of frame
"Ok if I accept that might be the case, then what is your proposed solution?"
Whatever you do you are flipping it back on them to force them to defend their position. And failing that changing the argument to a solution, which you can then poke holes in down the track.
To be frank though, this is getting to the point of winning more than having meaningful conversation, and it already seems the other party is disinterested.
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
They are trying to end the discussion because they don't want to have it.
When it comes to the personal example, you have to be very careful of being a hypocrite, because they are right, it does lessen your view if you yourself don't even believe them enough to have changed your own behavior. If you continue the behavior you are criticizing, why would someone listen to you.
As for the more global and political arguments, there are two options, either you know and expected them to make this argument, in which case you have evidence to dispute their claim and their point it moot. OR you are arguing from a less informed place then you re-frame and challenge. This is most definitely poor arguing skills and should be avoided, but if your opponent is not that great then it can work.
"Are you saying that our legal system is as broken as Turkeys?"
"I think that is a bold leap, do you have evidence to back that claim up?"
Or even a complete change of frame
"Ok if I accept that might be the case, then what is your proposed solution?"
Whatever you do you are flipping it back on them to force them to defend their position. And failing that changing the argument to a solution, which you can then poke holes in down the track.
To be frank though, this is getting to the point of winning more than having meaningful conversation, and it already seems the other party is disinterested.
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
They are trying to end the discussion because they don't want to have it.
When it comes to the personal example, you have to be very careful of being a hypocrite, because they are right, it does lessen your view if you yourself don't even believe them enough to have changed your own behavior. If you continue the behavior you are criticizing, why would someone listen to you.
As for the more global and political arguments, there are two options, either you know and expected them to make this argument, in which case you have evidence to dispute their claim and their point it moot. OR you are arguing from a less informed place then you re-frame and challenge. This is most definitely poor arguing skills and should be avoided, but if your opponent is not that great then it can work.
"Are you saying that our legal system is as broken as Turkeys?"
"I think that is a bold leap, do you have evidence to back that claim up?"
Or even a complete change of frame
"Ok if I accept that might be the case, then what is your proposed solution?"
Whatever you do you are flipping it back on them to force them to defend their position. And failing that changing the argument to a solution, which you can then poke holes in down the track.
To be frank though, this is getting to the point of winning more than having meaningful conversation, and it already seems the other party is disinterested.
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
answered 3 hours ago
Negotiate
1592
1592
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
I don't want it to get to the point that is more about winning or losing. I really want to have a meaningful conversation. I just feel like it's unneccesary to mention another parties' mistakes if the conversation isn't on a personal level but more about global or political arguments. Knowing that the same problem exists somewhere else is important. But if this is the only link between both, the very existence of this problem somewhere else shouldn't be used as an argument.. Mentioning it won't improve any of the both problems if it isn't followed by ideas on how to improve the situation.
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
It could be that I am just thinking too much into it and it's just that the other party isn't even interested in having that conversation. Maybe I should ask "How do I know if someone else is intersted in this conversation?".
– Limechime
3 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
You are right that it is a cop out in terms of the discussion. But said cop out usually means either the other party isn't informed enough to challenge you, or they simply don't want to have the conversation. As someone who is good at arguing and enjoys doing it and winning, often I find that many people aren't on that same level, nor have the care to be and instead it is best for me to back off and drop it.
– Negotiate
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Limechime is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Limechime is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Limechime is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Limechime is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2finterpersonal.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19026%2fhow-to-deal-with-people-who-instantly-end-discussions-with-a-you-arent-any-bet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password