How Often have You Solved a Conflict by....

[Sunstone]

How often have you solved a conflict -- say, a conflict with your spouse, boss, co-worker, or neighbor -- by accusing one side of being evil while claiming the other side is good?

What about solving a conflict by accusing one side of being entirely immoral while praising the other side as completely moral?

Or, how often do you solve conflicts by focusing on which side is more to blame, and which side is less to blame?

Again, if any of those methods are your preferred method for solving conflicts, do you view yourself as a effective and efficient problem-solver?

Last, and most importantly, if none of those methods is your preferred means to solving conflicts, please describe what are your preferred means.

 

[sandandfoam]

Any conflict that I have ever resolved has resulted from talking. It seems to me that resolution lies in the common ground reached through conversation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How often have you solved a conflict -- say, a conflict with your spouse, boss, co-worker, or neighbor -- by accusing one side of being evil while claiming the other side is good?

What about solving a conflict by accusing one side of being entirely immoral while praising the other side as completely moral?

Or, how often do you solve conflicts by focusing on which side is more to blame, and which side is less to blame?

Again, if any of those methods are your preferred method for solving conflicts, do you view yourself as a effective and efficient problem-solver?

Last, if none of those methods is your preferred means to solving conflicts, please describe what are your preferred means.

I get your point, but none of this applies when you're dealing with evil, horned, devil-Jews or the perfect, noble, and peace-loving Hamas.

 

[Sunstone]

I get your point, but none of this applies when you're dealing with evil, horned, devil-Jews or the perfect, noble, and peace-loving Hamas.

Oh damn! You caught me in the act of perpetrating the mother of all logical fallacies: That reason might be applied to the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. In my defense, I was only doing it to see if I could get away with it. I don't honestly think there's any logic to it.

 

[Sunstone]

Any conflict that I have ever resolved has resulted from talking. It seems to me that resolution lies in the common ground reached through conversation.

Especially true, I think, if active listening is involved.

 

[Phil25]

How often have you solved a conflict -- say, a conflict with your spouse, boss, co-worker, or neighbor -- by accusing one side of being evil while claiming the other side is good?

What about solving a conflict by accusing one side of being entirely immoral while praising the other side as completely moral?

Or, how often do you solve conflicts by focusing on which side is more to blame, and which side is less to blame?

Again, if any of those methods are your preferred method for solving conflicts, do you view yourself as a effective and efficient problem-solver?

Last, if none of those methods is your preferred means to solving conflicts, please describe what are your preferred means.

I know where you are getting into, but Israelis are evil and Palestinians are saints. Its that simple.

 

[Sunstone]

I know where you are getting into, but Israelis are evil and Palestinians are saints. Its that simple.

You could argue that for one half of the day, and then argue vice versa for the other half, depending on how much fun you can stand to have.

 

[Phil25]

You could argue that for one half of the day, and then argue vice versa, depending on how much fun you can stand to have.

Did I say Israelis are saints or Palestinians are evil.

 

[Sunstone]

Did I say Israelis are saints or Palestinians are evil.

I don't believe you said that, but I'm suggesting -- given how non-productive, self-indulgent, and masturbatory so much of the discussion of this issue strikes me as being -- that you might as well argue both sides of the issue in the strongest possible moral tones. In short, I'm being sarcastic.

I hate explaining jokes, don't you?

 

[Willamena]

How often have you solved a conflict -- say, a conflict with your spouse, boss, co-worker, or neighbor -- by accusing one side of being evil while claiming the other side is good?

Does simply demonizing them count?

 

[Wirey]

Problem solving:

1-Identify issue
2-Scream and scream
3-Punch to the windpipe
4-Plea bargain

 

[Sunstone]

Does simply demonizing them count?

It's always a good start...

 

[Sunstone]

Problem solving:

1-Identify issue
2-Scream and scream
3-Punch to the windpipe
4-Plea bargain

"Better call Saul".

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How about arguing who is being the most rational/logical? Surely only good can come by claiming someone is being irrational, illogical, and just plain silly.

 

[Sunstone]

How about arguing who is being the most rational/logical? Surely only good can come by claiming someone is being irrational, illogical, and just plain silly.

No, it doesn't solve the conflict -- especially since scientific studies have shown we are most likely to dig in our heels when contradicted, even with sound logic and solid evidence -- but pointing out someone's logical fallacies sometimes does provide a bit of amusement on those days when you aren't really serious about solving any conflicts anyway. Besides, they might point out your fallacies -- and if you're smart, you might learn something valuable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How about arguing who is being the most rational/logical? Surely only good can come by claiming someone is being irrational, illogical, and just plain silly.

Ah, the mantra of millions of husbands in unhappy marriages.

 

[ametist]

How often have you solved a conflict -- say, a conflict with your spouse, boss, co-worker, or neighbor -- by accusing one side of being evil while claiming the other side is good?

What about solving a conflict by accusing one side of being entirely immoral while praising the other side as completely moral?

Or, how often do you solve conflicts by focusing on which side is more to blame, and which side is less to blame?

Again, if any of those methods are your preferred method for solving conflicts, do you view yourself as a effective and efficient problem-solver?

Last, and most importantly, if none of those methods is your preferred means to solving conflicts, please describe what are your preferred means.

if you think you have a problem and that it should be solved, no, absolutely this is not the way to solve it.

But sometimes it is only you who think there is a problem..those that are involved might not be in the same mentality.. when you see kid killing ants by stepping on them for instance. when you ask why, the kid may answer because they are ugly. the kid doesnt have any problem with killing the ants, it is just you that have that problem.


I dont try to solve problems after I reach a point that it is made clear the other party isnt interested in a solution. I just quit. It is just his business(not even problem) and I am no owner of this world. If there is a wrong decision taken there is always the return of it to the wrong doer anyway. There has always been.

 

[bobhikes]

Is by just accepting blame, even if I didn't do it.

Especially with my wife.(Major source of my stress)

With neighbors I usually just ignore them, none have gotten others(like police) involved so ignoring generally works.(No stress)

With fellow employee's I have the toughest time. I usually don't want to jeopardize my job by taking the blame. Turning them in can lead to becoming the snitch. Most times I will deal with it until asked directly.(biggest source of stress for me)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How often have you solved a conflict -- say, a conflict with your spouse, boss, co-worker, or neighbor -- by accusing one side of being evil while claiming the other side is good?

What about solving a conflict by accusing one side of being entirely immoral while praising the other side as completely moral?

Or, how often do you solve conflicts by focusing on which side is more to blame, and which side is less to blame?

Again, if any of those methods are your preferred method for solving conflicts, do you view yourself as a effective and efficient problem-solver?

Last, and most importantly, if none of those methods is your preferred means to solving conflicts, please describe what are your preferred means.

That depends on the objective.

I get that you probably had Israel/Palestine in mind, but my thoughts went straight to LGBTQ rights. In the context of that debate, I've found it very effective to call attention to the horrible implications of the other side's position.

I don't do this to convince the person I'm debating with; I do it for the other people hearing or reading the discussion. I'm under no illusions that I'll convince someone who's adamantly anti-gay to change his mind, but I do have hope that I can convince someone who is on the fence to support LGBTQ rights, or who merely thinks they're a good idea to actually fight for them.

In these sorts of situations, I don't really care if the anti-gay guy works himself up into a ball of rage at the issue or at me. If he's so ostracized from society that he's powerless to hurt the object of his rage, I count that as a win.

 

[Wirey]

My aggressive side is occasionally, well, overzealous. I am always more than happy to escalate any arguement, and I am not adverse to seeing if I can drop kick someone's skull over the nearest 7-11. It's a genuine curse. Throw a bad temper on top of it, and you get me. I do my best to control it, but every now and then that little evil genie-in-a-bottle pops out and I flip my lid. And I always claim the moral high ground, even when I'm punching an old lady in the mall. Seriously. Dropped her husband, too.