Let's agree to disagree

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

One of the most frustrating things for me when discussing things is when someone says “let’s agree to disagree” on a topic of importance. If it is a matter of “what topping to get on the pizza” one guy wants pepperoni, another wants olives, and yet another wants anchovies, then yes, let’s agree to disagree. But of something of utmost importance, like abortion, then there can be no agreeing to disagree. That is, to me, a cop out. Or, the question of Christology - that is too important to let go with a half-hearted agreement of disagreement. It is one thing to call it a day, and acknowledge that there are differences that still need to be worked out - but the “let’s agree to disagree” is giving up on the dialogue. It says that you think the discussion - or the object of discussion - is too unimportant for you to waste your time on.

O.K. - that ends my rant for now. Discussion open.

 

[mary_bobo]

Hello,

One of the most frustrating things for me when discussing things is when someone says “let’s agree to disagree” on a topic of importance. If it is a matter of “what topping to get on the pizza” one guy wants pepperoni, another wants olives, and yet another wants anchovies, then yes, let’s agree to disagree. But of something of utmost importance, like abortion, then there can be no agreeing to disagree. That is, to me, a cop out. Or, the question of Christology - that is too important to let go with a half-hearted agreement of disagreement. It is one thing to call it a day, and acknowledge that there are differences that still need to be worked out - but the “let’s agree to disagree” is giving up on the dialogue. It says that you think the discussion - or the object of discussion - is too unimportant for you to waste your time on.

O.K. - that ends my rant for now. Discussion open.

Maybe the discussion has evolved into one side or the other saying the same thing over and over. IMO you can’t get far with that.

 

[Island_Oak]

Hello,

…but the “let’s agree to disagree” is giving up on the dialogue. It says that you think the discussion - or the object of discussion - is too unimportant for you to waste your time on.

O.K. - that ends my rant for now. Discussion open.

When you run into a brick wall of opinion–sometimes the only thing you can do is suspend the discussion. It is the farthest thing from reasonable to assume that to do so means the discussion is “too unimportant to wast time on,” it is merely a reasonable recognition that I am no more likely to relinquish my values, opinion, decision, than you are. Is that really so terrible? Or is fully agreeing with you/your opinion the only way one has any validity with you?

 

[dylanschrader]

Perhaps it’s just a cliche way of saying that all parties involved have something in common. It bothers me, too, if it’s an essential issue because there shouldn’t be disagreement on essentials. I don’t mind postponing a discussion, but it’s a false kind of “agreement” with another person if you just don’t discuss the issue.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

There does come a point when you have to dust off your feet and walk away. Even Christ instructed His Apostles to do so. We are also told not to throw our pearls upon swine. If someone is not willing to listen then it is time to pray and walk away.

There does come a point when all that is happening is each side is desperately trying to prove their point and/or trying to cram their beliefs down someones throat. That never works.

All you can do is tell the person the truth as you believe and leave it at that and let them digest it and work it out with God.

My siblings tried to cram salvation down my throat when I was 13 and got nowhere with me. I didnt become a believer til I was 30.

Just plant a seed and God will do the rest.

 

[Janet_S]

Hello,

One of the most frustrating things for me when discussing things is when someone says “let’s agree to disagree” on a topic of importance. If it is a matter of “what topping to get on the pizza” one guy wants pepperoni, another wants olives, and yet another wants anchovies, then yes, let’s agree to disagree. But of something of utmost importance, like abortion, then there can be no agreeing to disagree. That is, to me, a cop out. Or, the question of Christology - that is too important to let go with a half-hearted agreement of disagreement. It is one thing to call it a day, and acknowledge that there are differences that still need to be worked out - but the “let’s agree to disagree” is giving up on the dialogue. It says that you think the discussion - or the object of discussion - is too unimportant for you to waste your time on.

O.K. - that ends my rant for now. Discussion open.

I feel like you do–I don’t like that phrase either “let’s agree to disagree.” It sounds too relativistic.

Still, arguments must come to an end–they can’t go on forever, and most of the time people don’t change their minds overnight. I guess you must end an argument some way, and people often say this when they reach an impasse.

I know a very wise, learned, middle-aged Catholic priest who says he refuses to argue about the faith altogether. He used to debate and discuss issues with CC critics, but finally came to the conclusion that arguing was useless. Now when confronted with a critic of the CC, he simply responds with the phrase “I see things differently.”

 

[AnthonyM2]

I would also think that you can try to reason with someone, state your case as best you can and if the other person can’t see it the same way, at least you made your point. If you allowed the other party the same courtesy, then that’s the best you can do, unless you want to make an enemy and not speak to that person again. But if you still want to relate to them on other levels than on the matter of disagreement, especially if this person is a friend or relative, then you have to come to a compromise of sorts and move on. I would still pray that they have a change of heart, of course.

These are types of compromises we have to make everyday with friends and co-workers, in order to function in society. Otherwise, what do you do, refuse to associate with someone because they don’t agree with you on religion and politics? This America after all, as much as we hate relativism, we have to deal with it to some extant.