Agree, or disagree, with ideas rather than people. Be willing to entertain ideas with which you do not agree. Do not compare apples to oranges. DO NOT compare the best intentions of one to the less-than-best intentions of another. Be able to convey another's idea back to them, in such a way that they agree with your representation, before you disagree with it. Remember that, although nothing good comes from disagreeing with people rather than ideas, the very worst things come from agreeing with people rather than ideas.
And I should not disagree with people who project nothing but evil because...? Does giving an idea enough consideration to declare it thunderously retarded count as such? And if yes, do you not understand that there are a great many ideas only a fool would "entertain" more than that? So much for love, I guess.
Disagree with the evil they're projecting. Yes, one must entertain and idea, at least, enough to be able to accurately reflect it to be able to accurately disagree with it. Otherwise, all one does is disagree with a figment of their imagination. Love involves the entire person: intellect, emotion and volition Love is a complex of understanding, affection and charity.
And just how am I supposed to do that without disagreeing with the person when, as is most often the case, he agrees with the evil he's projecting? I'm afraid such platitudes fail to address the logical problem.
Here are two examples: Acceptable and respectful disagreement Person 1: the sky is blue. Person 2: The sky is often blue, but sometimes it is black and other times it is a multitude of hues. It can also be gray. Vs: Unacceptable disagreement. Person 1: the sky is blue Person 2:you are way over simplifying things! Everyone knows that the sky can be different colours. obviously you haven't thought about this. Or Person 1: x = y Person 2: x is never y.clearly you aren't educated about this Person 1: what do you think x is equal to? Person 2 it's not equal to y that's for sure. Only an immoral fool would equate x and y.
