Dealing with arguments

It is evillest for me, in the way that it ails my heart, which is feeble, I hold. My chest will ache for days after, and I know I must not do it much.

Yes. I have been feeling tense and stressed for days, and I know it's having an effect on my body - where, I don't know, but all that tension is going somewhere and is possibly building up to something bad. I should go for a run to burn it all off, but I don't have time.

You must take particular care of yourself if you know you have a heart problem.

-- Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:41 pm --

emillionth wrote: By this point in my life, I feel like I've managed to stabilize what had to be stabilized, and managed to get rid of what I needed to get rid of. My main driving force toward change now is boredom rather than conflict. If I did encounter a situation where I had to manage conflict, I don't know what I would do. I don't know if I'd react well or very badly instead. I know for sure that I'd be very stressed. But the most important thing for me is that I don't need to know it, and it's that way by design.

Emillionth, that sounds a thoughtful and reasoned approach which you've been working on for a long time. Instead of getting buffeted this way and that. Like you say, a philosophy rather than responding to stuff in the heat of the moment. Interesting.

emillionth wrote: Individual people can't argue with groups, because groups always win.

You and I are of one mind as to most of your post, but not this. Though I do not have in memory whether I have disputed with a group before, but yet I think that I must have, I would more earnestly begin to dispute with a company of men than with a lone one, I hold. Tell me why then, for all my wilfulness, I must always fail in a dispute against a company of men.

Basic human nature. When loyalty and affiliation are weighed against empathy, instinct gives precedence to the former. The feeling of how someone fears or believes that they might be judged for their stance weighs heavier than the feeling of how they individually judge yours.

So individual matters have to be relayed in individual contexts, or else it all comes down to whether you happen to already be aligned with the group or not. And by "group" I mean even just two people sometimes (couples, especially). I never discuss sensitive family matters with both of my parents at once, for example. That's a cardinal rule that I learned long ago. The simple fact that a sibling deliberately forced me to do so at a critical moment in my life years ago is the very reason why that person is no longer part of my life at all.

There are many points to fights. Are you willing to smite? Are you willing to shout? You have said your words, and I understand them; but I do not think they pertain to all controversy between a man and a body of them. Here you are casting far. When I dispute with men it is with an intent, and even if they be three or four to my one, if they are not ready to shout, or well-nigh wrestle, then they may all fail against me. It may be that you have supposed that all men long equally to win a fight. Men who withstand goodness, which is all I wrangle therefor, are well feeble in their heart, and may well bow to their foe, when they learn he is righteous.

There was a reddit thread the past couple days about what cards people play against you in arguments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comm ... ay_to_try/

I went through the first main list or three and didn't see anything like my response.

When I argue something with people the resolution we come to when they don't end up agreeing with me or I don't end up agreeing with them is most often silence.

They put their tail between their legs and they scamper off to more friendly people.

I attribute this to the fact that I will argue only what is logically valid and sound, and give them the benefit of the doubt otherwise... and when that won't yield them what they want they shut down.

This results mostly in me saying something like, "yeah that's possible" which makes way too many people feel validated, but those same people say something with incredible evidence that they are wrong they just collapse. They wanted validation, which I guess I offered before, but then reality sets in.

One was a girl I lived with for a while. Another was her mother. Another is my mother. Another is another friend who seemed to think I just hadn't found the right sex or something.

@1201236: I don't know anymore what you're talking about... It sounds like a medieval take on some art-of-war kind of philosophy. I can't comment on that.

I usually enjoy arguing. I particularly enjoy antagonizing people and instigating arguments. The more aggressive the argument, the more I enjoy it - usually, not always.

My mother once said to me, "I'm sure you just argue for the sake of arguing. If I say white, you'll say black just to argue". It's true, lol. I do do that. I like pissing people off and my mother is no exception.

1201236 wrote:There are many points to fights. Are you willing to smite? Are you willing to shout? You have said your words, and I understand them; but I do not think they pertain to all controversy between a man and a body of them. Here you are casting far. When I dispute with men it is with an intent, and even if they be three or four to my one, if they are not ready to shout, or well-nigh wrestle, then they may all fail against me. It may be that you have supposed that all men long equally to win a fight. Men who withstand goodness, which is all I wrangle therefor, are well feeble in their heart, and may well bow to their foe, when they learn he is righteous.

People who need to shout in an argument have pretty much already lost the argument at that point. I find that remaining calm and using an authoritative tone gets the message across far better than shouting does.

1201236 wrote:

emillionth wrote: Individual people can't argue with groups, because groups always win.

You and I are of one mind as to most of your post, but not this. Though I do not have in memory whether I have disputed with a group before, but yet I think that I must have, I would more earnestly begin to dispute with a company of men than with a lone one, I hold. Tell me why then, for all my wilfulness, I must always fail in a dispute against a company of men.

it depends what is the point of the argument.and what motives have these people. can you convince the group or some of them to agree with you etc

for example you have to psychologize the other person.a good example is what reaper said above.if you understand that the other person is arguing just for the sake of it you act different with someone who is just upset or someone who is more open minded or close minded etc
polititians job is often to convince groups to vote for them.
you don't treat everyone the same.it depends who you have against you,his motives . and how much you care for his opinion

-- Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:48 am --

also i agree i have notice in jobs especially for example the calmer person is the one who wins.if you scream you loose

-- Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:50 am --

if it is a sports game argument for example is different with being in a job lol

-- Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:52 am --

i think the first people who answered had great advice.said it best.

Individual people can't argue with groups, because groups always win.

btw sorry few hours ago before i saw this topic i saw this video. this is how the sports came into mind,in my above comment .lol. association.
so it depends with the situation what you are going to do