"I Disagree" is not an Opinion

Perhaps it is the Toastmaster in me, but after listening to a young man explain something clearly, I pointed out that his message was diminished because he said "irregardless" three times during his explanation. I suggested to him that the correct word is "regardless." He told me that they mean the same thing, and he proved it by showing me that it is in the dictionary and its one meaning is "regardless." I pointed to the type of word it is, which is a "nonstandard adjective," and told him that "nonstandard" means "used incorrectly."

He thanked me for pointing that out to him. If he did quit using it in his explanations, his willingness to change will increase his credibility to those whose opinions he may want to sway in the future. However, even if he develops his skill to convey complex messages in terms that are easily understood, there will be somebody somewhere who tries to dismiss a message with "I disagree" and claim that it is their opinion if pressed for an explanation.

When Discussing Topics, Raise Logical Arguments, Not Voices

Even though one of the definitions of "argue" is "yelling loudly at another person to make a point," doing that in an honest debate serves only to establish that the person has nothing new to add and refuses to acknowledge that which other people have added. It is an archaic ritual where the loudest and scariest prove dominance over those who thereafter are proven to be inferior. However, intellectual arguments do not require the raising of voices; they require raising factual arguments to put forth logical conclusions. 

The problem is more complex than people simply not knowing how to discourse a subject due to it being a lost art. We have become polarized in our opinions. This creates a situation that one either accepts fully one set of arguments with the only alternative to fully accepting an opposing set of arguments. In reality, taking some arguments from both sides may provide a better solution to the problem being debated than taking the totality of arguments solely from either side. Not only might it create a better solution, taking other people's points-of-view into account is the definition of compromise. 

No Need to Interpret: I Meant What I Said

I wrote a post several years ago that is titled Say What You Mean. Even though I can imagine who inspired the article, it does not apply only to one person or to one incident. There are people who say things that are incorrect, wrong, or both, who, when the error is pointed out to them, say, "You know what I mean." The point of the article is that no one has the duty to interpret an incorrect statement into a correct statement because they know what is meant despite what was said. I stand by what I wrote back then and will provide a link to the article at the end of this one.

This article is for those people who interpret what I say and tell me what I meant rather than accepting that I meant what I said. 

Say What You Mean

The debates are becoming more and more common as the nomination season is in full swing. One of the candidates supports democratic socialism, and a whole bunch of people who know economics from what they have learned by watching cable news networks are certain this will be the end of America as we have known it.

Except for the staunchest of the free marketers who have, at least, read one economic theory and erroneously embraced it as infallible, most of these people are simply idiots who make wild claims, and who have a common argument for anyone who points out their lack of understanding: "you know what I mean."