This is such a prevalent problem in modern society that I’m not even sure where to begin. (In other words, expect this to be a long and rambling rant.)
First, if I disagree with you, and show that your position is not logically sound, no matter how attached to your position you are, no matter how much you like your views or how many years you’ve spent “thinking about it,” my disagreement with your position is not a personal attack on you. My disagreement is not a personal judgment against you beyond the obvious fact that I am judging you to be wrong on that issue.
Second, my disagreement with you does not entitle either of us to resort to ad hominem attacks. Do I really need to say more on this issue?
Third, your credentials, your experience, and your intuition, are all useless against logic. Your experience is not a universal. Your intuition is not infallible. Furthermore, my insistence on the importance of an argument being logically sound (that is, both valid and true) does not mean you can dismiss my argument as vanguardist or part of the “academic patriarchy.” Such dismissals are, by nature, anti-intellectual and do not directly argue for your case or against mine.
Fourth, your opinion is of no use to me or anyone else. If I’m ordering a pizza, I’ll ask for your opinion. Your opinion has no place in rigorous debate.
Finally, I will never “agree to disagree.” If I’m right, I will not concede for polite society or for the sake of others’ feelings. If I’m wrong, then I hope I’m humble enough to admit so, learn from my mistakes, and move on. I’m human; I’m bound to be wrong sometimes, but that is no excuse for being slothful in the pursuit of the truth, or for clinging to a comfortable lie.
I’ll return to this, expound on it, and build it into a full article. I just had to get some things off my chest now.
