Artist’s instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rusty.creates/
Artist’s webtoon: https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/bummer-party/list?title_no=797667
Artist’s newsletter: https://rustycreates.substack.com/
Artist’s instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rusty.creates/
Artist’s webtoon: https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/bummer-party/list?title_no=797667
Artist’s newsletter: https://rustycreates.substack.com/
As far as I’m aware, an actual disagreement can only really occur in one place - opinions. I’ll explain what I mean, and I’m happy to be corrected on this if you disagree :)
Here, A and B disagree because they value different things about the food, and both arguments are valid. I assume this is what the comic is referring to.
Now consider this other example:
Here, X has come to the wrong conclusion either by misinformation or just on their own, and while they believe themselves to be correct, they are not. On the surface it may seem like a disagreement, but the two sides are not equal, as only one side actually is actually correct. As long as X keeps an open mind and is willing to correct their view, there should be no problem, and they will have learned something new.
The problem arises when people refuse to argue their point in good faith and resort to other tricks/fallacies to appear right, even when they’re not. Using the example I gave, X could purposefully conflate fact and opinion by saying “let’s agree to disagree”, downplaying the correct argument as a mere opinion despite it being provably true.
Some might think I’m arguing semantics here, and that both situations could be classed as disagreements. Let me explain. The dictionary definition of “agree” is to have a positive opinion of something/someone. Opinions are therefore an integral part of agreement (and conversely, disagreement). knowing that, and knowing that facts are objective, the logical conclusion is that disagreement and facts are fundamentally incompatible. Following this logic, you cannot disagree with something that is objectively true.
I’ll leave you with this:
Yeah, what we’re seeing a lot of lately is intentional ignorance, and manufactured intention.
“Just look up!”
“No.”
They even made a movie about it, it’s called Don’t Look Up.
my favorite experience with Don’t look up was /r/movies acting all snotty and uppity about how it’s too “on the nose” only for me to see a few weeks later seeing someone arguing in a different thread about how “Don’t look up isn’t about climate change, it’s about a meteor, are you stupid? they literally show it”
so yeah, it definitely wasn’t too on the nose for the target demographic
I think it was also a direct attack on the political environment of the time. Its core message is a warning about how we’re ignoring climate change, potentially with apocalyptic consequences, but there’s definitely a secondary criticism in there. I said “of the time”, but there’s a lot that hasn’t changed. There’s just a lot less screeching now that we don’t have a howler monkey in the Whitehouse.
I’d argue things are getting worse only in areas most dont necessarily travel. The same seething just below the surface that created the opportunity for Trump is still churning only now under a even more dystopian normal then it was before. Under the veiled racism we expienced in the George W days there was real racism. Under the veiled fascism we expienced in the Trump era there is real fascism. Next up is veiled genocide.
I’d have to disagree with you on one point, which is that competing sets of facts or evidence do exist in many situations. In a murder trial, for example, the defense team may have evidence that points to innocence, and the prosecution presents evidence that points to guilt. Now weighing one body of evidence against the other, the judge or jury must decide where the line of “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of evidence” lies. This is a matter a comparing one set of facts to another set of facts as objectively as possible against known standards and precedents, which, to me, is different than arguing pure opinions (“red is the best color” “no, I like green better”) and also different than inarguable bare facts (“12 people are in this room right now”). Idk, just my 2 cents on it, but to me there can be shades of reasonable debate on differing sets of evidence that aren’t covered by an opinion-fact dichotomy.
I disagree
/s
The problem is that some opinions aren’t just a matter of opinion but incompatible with other opinions. Like everything in morals and ethics.
Some days ago there was an interesting discussion in a thread on Lemmy about whether or not certain moral axioms exist that are objective. Or if all moral standpoints are purely subjective.
On this meta level, we can’t even agree whether those discussions are concerning opinions or objective facts.
In that cases one side would think it’s a matter of difference in opinion while the other would think it’s a matter of someone being uneducated or ignorant, for example.
I would agree with this if all disagreements were as definitive as math, but a lot of the time the things that people disagree about are things where knowing the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt is wildly difficult, impossible, or far off in the future. It often time comes down to peoples opinions about how to best guess at the absolute truth - intuition, statistics, provable action, etc.
For your last disagreement, I just want to mention as someone that likes the colour turquoise especially the darker version. I have gotten into a lot of disagreements with people, about if something is turquoise, blue or green. So I can definitely guarantee that there is some people, for whom the sky is objectively green.
So it’s not the best example, but I did understand the point you were trying to convey.
Have you ever read about quantum mechanics or academic politics. Objective truths are socially manufactured realities.