I doubt it

@Background Pony #625F  
_{oh god}
 

@CaptainGrumpy  
Never.

@Background Pony #7C72  
are you fucking kidding me
 
go to sleep

@SocDev  
You can’t stop me.

Now, lets return to the picture at hand. No more commenting on unrelated stuff.

@SocDev  
oh my god
 

@Exedrus  
Yes, no one knows everything, and when we have incomplete knowledge, we either conduct an experiment, or if it is an abstract concept, then we think about and discuss our beliefs with others, always presenting the strongest argument we can, and always assuming the strongest possible interpretation of our opponent’s argument. This is how we figure out which beliefs are true and which are bullshit.
 
Ultimately, we may reach a stalemate. The most often case is when two people can’t agree on their priors - that is, they believe different things about the fundamental nature of reality, such as “life has value”, for example (assuming that this is actually a prior and can’t be deduced from other facts, for the sake of argument). If we can’t reconcile our priors - if it’s impossible to determine that one of us actually, genuinely has a different experience of the world (such as schizophrenia, or color-blindness), then further discussion is genuinely impossible.
 
The point being that THIS is when you agree to disagree. Throwing up one’s hands the instant a discussion actually becomes passionate and deciding “well shit, we can’t POSSIBLY know what’s true, and you’re a big meanie if you don’t back down!” is not a valid argument.
 
Besides which, nobody ever says “Agree to disagree” sincerely. What they are really saying is “You’re wrong, and just too dumb to realize it, and there’s simply no hope for you.”

Doing Ban Evasion now? Geez.
 
I mean. i was sleeping man. :(

@Background Pony #3F43  
I didn’t realize you were being quite that philosophical about that statement, but alright.
 
It’s true that if a person really believes something to be true, then they should be willing to defend it. But there is some degree of wiggle room here. I mean no sane person thinks they know everything. There will always be some things we don’t solidly know (because we haven’t figured it out yet) and other things that we simply can’t know (because they’d constitute a logical paradox if we did). So there will always be some things that people can’t come to an absolute conviction on. These are the sorts of things that people can use the “agree to disagree” conclusion on.
 
And it doesn’t seem unfair to let them, because full and complete debates of issues can stretch on for ungodly amounts of time. And sometimes, even if everything known about an issue has been said, it still isn’t easy to find the “truth” or “correct answer”. That isn’t to say that one doesn’t exist. But simply that it can’t be found (for now).
 
So I don’t think that agreeing to disagree shows that two opposing idea are equally true. Just that we aren’t certain enough about them to actually say definitively either way.

@Background Pony #3F43  
I saw there were 115 comments and i knew it was a flame war but i never thought a gif about alicorns would lead to talk about slavery, context makes things less funnier.

@Background Pony #9261  
So in other words, we never should have tried to abolish slavery, because it’s just a matter of belief, right? Fuck it, anything goes!
 
Yes, of course universal truth exists. The fact that humanity isn’t perfect often prevents us from discovering it, or from discovering it quickly, but it exists all the same. This is as true for morality and art as it is for mathematics.
 
Even if the truth appears impossible to discover, that is no excuse to stop trying.

@Background Pony #3F43  
So, you believe in some universal truth, same for everyone, same always?  
And you’re mixing “believing” and “tolerating”. If you live with someone with another view of the world, you can have some tongue-in-check discussions about it in idle time. Trying to force your belief, every day, every hour, with relentless persistent insistence is quick way to make your life into living hell.

truly savage
 
good job girls
 
@Background Pony #270A  

 
this

@Exedrus  
No, and if that was actually the perspective I lived with, you would have a point.
 
“Agree to disagree” is a well-researched, intellectually dishonest, essentially meaningless phrase. Yes, it can be used politely, but politeness is never conducive to an honest discussion, so it’s irrelevant.
 
If you actually believe something, then you must believe it to be the truth, or else it’s not a belief at all, it’s just something you say because you think it sounds nice. The alternative - the assertion that all beliefs are equally true - is the same as refusing to believe in anything. It is the denial that truth even exists. Is that really the perspective you want to live with?

@Background Pony #63E0  
: ἔπεα πτερόεντα.

@Background Pony #3F43  
Well, it could be used that way… But then, what can’t?
 
I mean even compliments can be turned into veiled insults. And if a person tried hard enough I’m sure they could read every scrap of text they’ve ever encountered with a snide bitter tone and an irritated subtext, and assume that everyone was painfully rude. But is that the sort of perspective that people really want to live with?

@CaptainGrumpy
 
This is the difference between you and me. I will never try to prevent you from expressing what you believe to be true.

give us a hand here mods
 
_{I mean I don’t want to bother you guys or anything I’m sure you have better things to do but we could use a bit of help on this}

@CaptainGrumpy  
I’m not sure what you’re refuting here.
 
Are you saying that as an anonymous user, I actually can silence you, or prevent you from expressing yourself in any way?
 
I have no feelings about anonymous versus named users either way. As an anonymous user, I can’t ban you or block you (that I am aware of) - not that I would anyway, no matter how thoroughly I disagreed with you. These things are true for the vast majority of online communities.

@Exedrus
 
No, it’s the truth, and it’s a well-documented problem in essentially every community that has ever existed on the internet, going all the way back to the first usenet groups.
 
“Agreeing to disagree” is just another dishonest method of silencing people you disagree with. It’s a well-poisoning tactic of trying to make yourself automatically appear civil by default, while automatically making the other person look uncivil if they refuse your offer.
 
It really means “I don’t want to be wrong, but can’t be bothered to actually defend anything I believe. Oh and also, I think relativism is an acceptable worldview, because fuck trying to discover what is actually true.”

@Background Pony #3F43  
I’m not though
 
I mean you’re actually kinda amusing - although I’m sure that wasn’t your intention but I mean I know how this’ll end, you’ll put some facts out of your arse about how “ANONZ ROOL USERZ DROOL” and the mods will put you in the time out corner again
 
but if it makes you happy I mean do it, I won’t stop you - though someone else might

@Background Pony #3F43  
That’s a cynical, but (I guess) possible way of looking at/utilizing that sort of info…
 
Tho I’d rather think it more like figuring out that some users just won’t see eye-to-eye on an issue and agreeing to disagree by not bringing up certain topics… But then I haven’t read the 100+ comments below, so I’m speaking pretty broadly.

@CaptainGrumpy  
Anonymous sockpuppets have no ability to silence other people.
 
Only moderators and users with screen names have that ability.

@Background Pony #3F43  
you seem to understand how anonymous posting works for sockpuppeters
 
have you done it before
 
I wouldn’t be surprised