Originally Posted by Five
I guess you can only have degrees of certainty...
...that expands incrimentally in the consideration of conflicting ideas or points of view.
While I merrily engage in internal conflict-resolution inside my own mind, oh how I detest and avoid
arguement with people directly. There's tremendous difference between discussion/ debate, and defensive arguement. The former encourages free expression of ideas and awareness, indeed it fosters an environment for learning. The latter suppresses thought and reverts to base defense techniques, sometimes very crude and base and off-topic. It gets very primal. I SO prefer the calmer, rational approach. But that requires participation on BOTH sides of the discussion. So I try to keep myself in good intelligent company, and avoid the mess.
Originally Posted by paulmh
For myself, I feel no need to push my ideas on anyone. But I do feel a need to push back when things that matter to me are misrepresented.
Ah, that's where it gets so tricky, and so maddeningly frustrating! Complicated. Impossible to effectively "push back" when the audience with whom you're conversing isn't interested in listening, only defending. Know your audience! And then choose whether or not to engage. If the conversation is one-directional and based in arguement (not open discussion/ debate) there may be nothing to gain on either side, and it may be better to walk away.
I don't directly evangelize in my work (by design, it's largely solitary), however I do have outside interests in music and writing in which I'm free to evangelize to my mind's content. If anyone wants to listen, they're free to tune in. If not, their choice. I have no desire to force anything on anyone. I have my hands full just trying to sort things out for myself.