How should we handle moral disagreements?

There are two common policies for when people disagree over moral behavior: confrontation, and tolerance. I propose a 3rd alternative: engagement.
Here's the ideological turing test I mention in the video: en.wikipedia.o...

[@mkrafts8519]

It's cool how you can smile and not smile at the same time.

[@good-questions]

?

[@ilalighieri]

@@good-questions expressions shown in the face, it can be seen in one's eyes and brows generally.

[@mattmurphy1065]

@@ilalighieri I was going to mention that I believe it is her eyes.

[@ilalighieri]

@@mattmurphy1065 absolutely. smiling eyes are the big teller, particularly now with the prevalence of masks.

[@quaidcarlobulloch9300]

That is cool

[@ryandury]

"Tolerance is usually the policy I see people advocate" whaaa.. ohhh this was made in 2015, that explains things! Love your channel, Julia, thank you KZbin algorithim!

[@angadsingh9314]

Hahaha

[@festive5476]

xD

[@Idontwannashutup]

@@festive5476 all praise the one word KZbin name. WE HAVE NOTICED YOU OLDF2G

[@peterdesmidt8742]

Speaking as someone who's taught moral philosophy at university for many years, this is an excellent video! It captures what I try to do (and encourage) in my classes.

[@Seanonyoutube]

Does it work? Seems like “engagement” these days ends up meaning that those with more conservative views are disregard in favor of the progressive minorities who are trying to “dismantle the structures of power” etc. in this social climate, how can someone perceived as “privileged” be able to convey their views and be taken seriously by those progressive folks?

[@peterdesmidt8742]

@@Seanonyoutube That's not what I do. My student evaluations are highly positive, and many of my students are very conservative.

[@Seanonyoutube]

@@peterdesmidt8742 you must not be in the schools i’m talking about.

[@bryanweed515]

I love that you can be a friend even in moral discussion. Your open mind does have its boundaries that should be held. Others violating them should be resisted.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as Positive habit mindset... Vs Think less as Sunday building Arrival-Departure drive but how to appreciate myself those moments I got a chance to drop my mother in her work place is the moment I learnt more about how to drive confidently

[@foglite4335]

It could be argued that tolerance is a precursor to engagement, especially in a confrontational environment.

[@jamx97]

I'm confrontational when I drive, Tolerant at work and engaging in my relationship.

[@larrybeckham6652]

I was a confrontational driver in Texas, then I witness some gunplay and decide to more tolerate and alive. I learned to mediate in traffic.

[@pauljoshy96]

I think this woman will do a better job than me in living my life

[@logielleEntiopya]

​@@greenrockyroad3845 I believe its a lighthearted way of stating that she seems highly intelligent and rational, possibly great at decision-making.

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Frustate* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Fate* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as K is for *Kernel* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as K is for *Kidding* again

[@Boslandschap1]

Julia, you seem to be an incredibly reasonable person (literally), which I find most commendable. As such, your proposed approach of engagement makes so much sense. However the approach of engagement presupposes that people are reasonable and, in particular reasonable in moral discussions. It supposes that the basis for people for acting is the reasoning behind it, i.e. the observed behaviour of people is a product of the reasoning that lies at its foundation. This is as it should be in my opinion and ,if I understand you well, this is what you'd advocate as well, correct me if I'm wrong. In my experience, it works more or less the other way around for the great majority of people. In my experience, people tend to act as they please in principle, and find the justification they need that can justify their desired behaviour. You could call it cognitive dissonance. People tend to find a "credible" reasoning that they can get away with (including towards themselves) that can justify their desired behaviour, even without knowing that they are doing it. Examples: - _I want to have slaves, but owning another person seems immoral._ Conclusion/justification (among many possibilities): coloured people aren't fully humans. - _I like eating meat, but animals seem sentient._ Conclusion/justification (among many possibilities): it is the way nature behaves, it is natural. (As a kid, I was actually told fish don't feel pain, which seems most unlikely to me) - _I want to make genital modifications to my baby, but it it implies forced altering of the body of another individual._ Conclusion/justification: this is part of religion practice and religion is a personal matter. As a parent, my child is my full responsibility and I get to decide for her/his well being. That being said, I still think that something like engagement is the only reasonable option there is, I at least can't think of a better alternative. In practice, I'd like the discussion about what basis is acceptable for moral justification we find acceptable to have a much more prominent place in our society and/or education. The truth is, it is an uncomfortable discussion for the majority of people, which I understand. And whether people realise it or not, comfort is (still) a major basis for deciding what to do and what not, including addressing this question. And why questioning something that suits oneself and that one can get away with socially (for the moment)? Tragedy of the commons wouldn't be a reality if people were moved primarily by moral reasoning and not/less by comfort. Still, something like engagement seems to be the only viable option. If I am not mistaken, attributing authority to a morally superior person in the form of a philosopher-king was the solution that Plato proposed in The Republic. However, in practice it is (almost) impossible to make this work and in practice this model will lead to totalitarianism. Marcus Aurelius seems a lucky exception in that regard.

[@MrNewberryL]

+Bos Landschap First of all, I just want to say I think that's overall a great comment - just for its civility and thoughtfulness. Great. I just wanted to pick up one point here. I think as a psychological fact, it's true that humans frequently come up with post-hoc rationalisations for their behaviour. So, the sceptic may take this as evidence that genuine rationality doesn't apply in moral matters, we just cynically, if subconsciously, invent stuff after the fact to shore up our own interests (or something like that). Moral justification is not possible, or at least not the norm, in humans. Alternatively (and I think, rightly), we could take from this observable tendency to rationalise or invent that we humans actually acknowledge that reasons are requirements. If humans were thorough-goingly cynical, for example, they wouldn't *need* to rationalise away their behaviour: the slave-owner wouldn't need to think of his slaves as less than human. If we come up against a strong case against our conduct, we (I think most of us) either search for new reasons or cease conducting ourselves in that manner. I think even if we have spurious tendencies, they are nonetheless evidence of a deeper recognition of the demand to justify our behaviour - which means being argued with and persuaded otherwise remains an option (at least, in principle).

[@Neonb88]

Excellent comment! It is also worth noting that given the choice, I would expect that most people prefer tolerance to either engagement or confrontation. I don't have data to support this belief, but my heuristics that evaluate my experiences tell me that's roughly the case. Considering this is true, confrontation as a strategy used by a small number of people may not be the worst strategy. Take, for example, the approaches to the slavery question taken by historical figures in United States history. Henry Clay was supposedly known as "the Great Compromiser" in his day. His preference for tolerance succeeded in delaying the Civil War for decades, and he was active in politics to the extent that he ran for president three times. Whatever you think about Henry Clay's contribution to U.S. society, most historians argue that Abraham Lincoln's impact was much greater. Lincoln probably didn't WANT to fight the Civil War, but doing so resulted in progress. It would not have been practical to advocate that all the Southern white landowners who had based their livelihoods around slave labor for many generations should just ASK the Northerners why slavery was wrong. People need to survive before they can contemplate complicated moral issues and behave consistently with their conclusions. Survival, while easier and easier for the vast majority of humans, still isn't easy. Furthermore, reproductive success doesn't necessarily result from behaving rationally and morally. Although confrontation may not be pleasant, history provides evidence that people tend to take the path of least resistance, making it necessary to confront moral issues from time to time. This does not have to happen violently, though. You could call the Seneca Falls convention "confrontational," but the ideas espoused there did eventually make their way into the Constitutional amendments, without any need for a war or massive reform of economic systems. Great video, Julia. You make me consider ideas that I wouldn't otherwise work through so rigorously

[@unbr34k4bl3]

Bob Landschap I think you are totally right, but in my experience it hardly ever comes to that introspective point. Most people when confronted with moral questions don't follow the "I like x, but x seems wrong to me" thought, they rather go "I like x, and x is done by most people" or "I like x and morality is subjective" completely dodging any thought that might even lead to the conclusion that they are in conflict with their own morality/reasoning. So pushing someone to actually state "I want to have slaves, but owning another person seems immoral" is something I hardly get from anyone, because the next step would be justification or easily debunkable denial/fallacies. I thought of an approach to moral discussion that tries to force those questions on people. Specifically on eating meat, I think most people's individual morality would already support a vegetarian diet. So I'd like to try (haven't yet) not to argue that eating meat is wrong but that the person that I am arguing with already thinks that eating meat is wrong and just doesn't realize it yet. If you're interested, it goes a little bit like this: Suppose you kill a man that has severly reduced mental capabilities to get 100$. He has no family or friends, the death is instant and painless and you will face no consequences. Would your personal, subjective morality allow this to be viewed as a neutral or positive thing? I'd assume most people would say "no". Out of this, I think, can only follow that eating meat is wrong, given you don't use logical fallacies or arbitrary rules. (btw: anyone who'd like to put holes in this argument, please do, I'd like to improve it) This of course assumes that the other person would like to have internally consistent views on morality and don't say "well, but if I do it it's ok".

[@2Truth4Liberty]

+unbr34k4bl3 RE: [[ kill a man . . . . eating meat is wrong, given you don't use logical fallacies or arbitrary rules. ]] For a human (man/mankind) to identify a logical difference between a man(mankind) and all other creatures is not arbitrary and requires no logical fallacy to conclude that killing a man is wrong and eating an animal is not wrong.

[@6iaZkMagW7EFs]

Bos Landschap What if I know that animals feel pain but simply don't feel much empathy for fish. The same was psychopaths don't feel empathy for people

[@C20MO]

the problem is that most people would use confrontation as their form of engagement while still believing that they are going for the third option

[@evannibbe9375]

The people that are talking to people using engagement will generally see it as confrontational, since most people don’t think like Julia Galef as far as desiring to do things in a more moral fashion than they are doing now.

[@jelly-li1vx]

@@evannibbe9375 assuming the engaged views the engager as confrontational is a confrontational mindset.

[@renato360a]

@@jelly-li1vx no. He's just stating a fact, it's not an assumption. Engaging with someone and being seen as confrontational is still engagement. That's using an engagement mindset and having it fail. What I do agree is that, at a later time on a separate occasion, writing "blatantly" about this issue on an KZbin comment is confrontational.

[@jelly-li1vx]

@@renato360a are you confronting

[@renato360a]

@@jelly-li1vx no.

[@sparky7718]

At 54, I've tried all 3. Arguing doesn't work. The second option reminds me of a great quote by the recently deceased Dr. Wayne Dyer "Love is a allowing others to be themselves with no insistence that they satisfy you" (paraphrased), which like you said, is a bit unfulfilling. The third option, engagement. Done it, tired of it. It's my experience that people are largely vapid and vacuous, unable and unwilling to listen or change their minds no matter how you articulate your point. I'd say the rate of getting through to someone is less than 5%, which makes engaging a futile waste of precious energy and time, at my age. Thank you for the video. o/

[@xeno126]

+sparkymoo At the age of 26 and I agree with you. That's what I had in mind when I watched the video, most people don't have an open mind to discuss and change.

[@sparky7718]

Good for you, learning it early on. I've wasted too much time arguing and debating morals & ethics with people. It's like beating your head against the sidewalk. Feels the same as last time I did it. 7 billion humans, we are all different. The rate of success isn't high enough, the masses intelligence is not high enough, to justify wasting time with it. That sounds cynical, yes. But that's my experience.

[@AlbertCloete]

+Xeno I think many people do change and are open to change. But if you tell a person why what they're doing is wrong, you're going to meet resistance. Most people are that way. You and I and most other people included, probably. On the other hand, if you can figure out how to promote ideas without attacking people's current beliefs, you'll meet less resistance, and might even get people excited to try something new.

[@happypolishboy]

+sparkymoo Engagement + knowing your sphere of influence is where the magic happens. The engagement method applied to a situation where all logic suggests I will fail puts me in a worse position for the next moral disagreement. (It can also start to feel a bit like broadcasting rather than engaging...)

[@kant12]

+sparkymoo Personally, I enjoy the process of argument and getting a chance to test my ideas on other people. It helps me with my own understanding. Don't worry too much about changing other people and it's not a waste. :)

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest Intuitively way as O is for *Olympus* again VS Think more the quickest Intuitively way as O is for *Ossa* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as M is for Mischievous Vs Think more as N is for Nourisher

[@JeffNippard]

Great video! I agree and have found your recommendation to be useful in most other forms of disagreement as well. Out of curiosity, is there any place online or elsewhere where you have spelled out your meta ethical world view?

[@measureofdoubt]

+Jeff Nippard There is, though it's a few years old now! But I still stand by the gist: measureofdoubt.com/2011/04/01/whats-my-ethical-system-a-disambiguation/

[@JeffNippard]

+Julia Galef oh that was excellent! Thanks Julia!

[@No_Avail]

+Julia Galef I'm reading the linked post and just wanted to mention that metaethical error-theorists (nihilists) don't believe that moral propositions are neither true _nor_ false. As their label suggests, they believe that *all* moral utterances are false only, because to them moral discourse intends to be cognitively meaningful, and merely falls short on the accuracy front. Those who subscribe to metaethical non-cognitivsm (projectivists, fictionalists) are actually the ones who believe that moral statements can be nether true *nor* false, as they don't regard the project of morality as being in the business of truth and falsity in the first place. Weirdly, this places both error theory _and_ robust realism under cognitivism and its categories of meta views.

[@mrdrsir3781]

Jeff Nippard oh my goodness best crossover episode ever in the comments right here.

[@kdo2300]

@@measureofdoubt It's bizarre that that you would be a moral nihilist/error theorist and claim to pursue "moral progress". How do you "keep an open mind" to moral evaluations you ultimately think are held in error? Why would you want you mind convinced from one set of errors to another?

[@kikones34]

One of the main problems is that, generally, people are more willing to listen to someone claiming that what they think is right is wrong than to someone claiming that something they think is wrong is right. If we applied Engagement on practice, I suspect we would end up with an over-moralized society, since more people would switch from "this is right" to "this is wrong" than the other way around. I even think this is actually happening in the real word...

[@iangrant9675]

I had never thought about this before, and it's a _really_ interesting observation! Thanks!

[@evannibbe9375]

In Saudi Arabia, there is an equilibrium point between the amount of moralizations: Idea 1: Banning women from driving cars (it is not moral for women to drive; it is moral for government to intervene to stop them) Idea2: Banning the enforcement of the ban on women driving cars (it is not moral for the state to prevent women from driving cars; it is moral for women to drive cars). This applies to many things in moral frameworks with respect to how new things can be stopped because stopping something is the moral thing to do, and then deciding that it is not moral for there to exist a way to stop something. TLDR; for every political action there is an opposite (and sometimes equal) cost against another group (current or future).

[@spacedoutorca4550]

Great insights! However one major problem I see is the inherent “flexibility” of that third option. It’s such a purely conceptual idea, for good reasons, but anyone could make the justification that they’re following that option while still being aggressive in trying to argue their moral beliefs.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as the *Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how This Interpersonal Declaration is proclaimed as a standard of professional conduct for Journalists engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating, and commenting on news and in information...

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as C is for *Conversion* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as C is for *Cascading Style Sheet* again

[@thelifeandtimesofjames4273]

I find after years of trying to make a positive change my tolerance became one of apathy. Why bother nothing changes? So just let people be. I used to engage all the time but I found people’s thoughtlessness and the attitude of uncaring for others immeasurably frustrating and ultimately I backed off from trying. A constant up hill struggle with no mercy, rest or companionship.

[@harshilsangal6226]

I understand she's speaking of the ideal attitude a community should hold towards conversations about what we consider to be moral/immoral, but her example about a meat-eater approaching a vegan in a genuine effort to engage in good-faith conversation, with the intention of modifying their behaviour based on the arguments brought up in that conversation seems incredibly out-of-touch to me. As you said, people simply don't care.

[@newyoutube5645]

That's why there is something called community. If you're just nobody and alone and you're trying to change many people then they wouldn't listen. That's why be more influential, if not get a group. With a great number comes great power. Yeah it's hard but it's more plausible than doing it alone.

[@thelifeandtimesofjames4273]

@@newyoutube5645 I don’t like herds. I actually might if people lived up to my standards but the vast majority do not.

[@newyoutube5645]

@@thelifeandtimesofjames4273 Yeah I actually get what you mean. But one think that keeps me from staying away from other people is sometime I realize that I maybe wrong about things, and if everybody agree would it be a better solution? I mean people do things like communism because they want to make all people agree with their points of view.

[@thelifeandtimesofjames4273]

@@newyoutube5645 but this is my problem. I expect people to choose the same as me but they don’t. I do not force anything on anyone. We seem to have plateaued at ‘oh well, never mind’ mentality. We should be pushing forward to make things better not desperately gripping on to the now and trying not to slip backwards.

[@Lucroq]

Option 4 would be culling, but that might just be a more extreme form of confrontation

[@anantprakashsingh8777]

Option 5, violence

[@terrykosowick594]

Very nice video. So sad it took me five years to find it. Moral discussions quickly lead to emotional reaction - discussion rapidly becomes difficult.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more it's not about being nice randomly at this point.. Vs Think more it's about being specifically at this point

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as O is for Opening Vs Think more the hardest way as P is for Printing

[@ganrimmonim]

I'm really loving these videos they're fascinating.

[@norwalltino]

Engagement, yes. And the power of asking questions like Sokrates, epistemology is a great tool. At the end of the day, it' is self-awakening that matters, isn't it?

[@gregm.5960]

As a wise man once said,Probably me "Advice: Wise men don't need it, fools won't heed it."

[@Grantovius]

Alternatively, as another wise man (for his time) said, "the wise man listens to good advice, accepts instruction continually, and proactively seeks out wise counsel".

[@danielperfiloff9142]

I believe it is Hesiod: "Best is the man who can himself advise;/ He too is good who hearkens to the wise; / But who, himself being witless, will not heed / Another's wisdom, is worthless indeed."

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as G is for Gaming Vs Think more the hardest way as H is for Hoarding

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Hardest way as E is for Enthusiastic again Vs Think more the Hardest way as F is for Fantastic again

[@KingoftheJuice18]

The kind of tolerance you are describing is often rooted in a "postmodern" loss of belief that there are in fact moral truths. What's the point of arguing about social, political, religious, or philosophical questions if there are no definite, objective standards to which to refer? Genuine engagement or dialogue requires a commitment to the validity of truth, so perhaps a video about this topic itself is in order.

How do you engage these conversations if everyone is happy being oblivious and time is of essence ?

[@Nickwritespoetry]

I think that's a good question. In that scenario, I think we need to scramble like hell to share our point of view with a sense of urgency both with people we know as well as on social media. With regards to especially antagonistic people or special interest groups, you'll have to be confrontational to demonstrate the urgency of the matter.

[@buckplug2423]

These methods are obviously only viable for people actually willing to put the time and effort into growing intellectually.

[@rheymanda1074]

I think this is great. As a vegan, I see a lot of people advocating veganism in very confrontational ways (often these are the ones that also use misinformation abundantly). Of course, this might to "convert" some people, but or most this will only bring them to want to slap the vegan before they back away and reinforce their prior beliefs (the backfire effect). I don't know if you're a vegan or not (I'm getting that you're not), but you might want to look up The Vegan Strategist, who advocates for this type of strategy for the vegan movement. Basically, it's a lot more efficient when trying to reach people who will become vegans for rational rather than purely emotional (or dietary) reasons.

[@zaknefain100]

Where did you go Julia? These are great talks.. thank you and hope you are doing well.

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Descent* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Design* again

[@theb1rd]

Engagement is predicated on tolerance.

[@nassimabed]

Check what Zizek has to say about political correctness ;)

[@OneAndOnlyMe]

I like the 'opt in ' option; it means I can opt out.

[@nassimabed]

Indeed. The undertones is some sort of a totalitarianism of political correctness. Very Animal Farm, isn't it...

[@MrShadowThief]

In other words: "How to sow discord while being able to claim the moral highground."

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as K is for Kinematics again Vs Think more the hardest way as L is for Light Emitting Diode again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as K is for *Kneel* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as K is for *Knowledge* again

[@samielkhayri9272]

Engagement appears to be a blend of confrontation and tolerance.

[@driphtwood]

I don't actually think so. I think it brings something to the table not present in the other strategies: individuals seeking out their critics. In confrontation, you have critics seeking out others, and in tolerance you have neither.

[@balazskecskemeti]

The strategy of engagement seems inherently unstable. Without actual results in changing other's minds, it quickly turns to either confrontation or tolerance.

[@aardvarksrock]

I'm a meat-eating smoker who enjoys hunting and loves a juicy prime rib or sirloin, so I'm not a stranger to this issue. Engagement is stupid. Don't do it. Otherwise, I'll just concentrate on all the reasons you suck as a person for passing judgment on me. Passivity would have no effect on me. I wouldn't notice you being passive. I'm not a fan of the way you put your solution "encouragement" and including "a little social pressure." In reality, I'd like to quit smoking, and wouldn't mind cutting down on my cholesterol, but listening to someone tell me how bad smoking is for me just makes me want to light up more. Tell me how great being a vegan is, and I'm running out for a Quarter Pounder. If you're dealing with a Ted Nugent, you're never going to get him to quit hunting - forget about, accept it. So point #1 - is this really an important piece of this person's life and their identity? You could never get some celebs, e.g., to give up their habits because it's a part of their identity, their persona, and in most cases, their income. But in other cases, "normal" people don't need to live their lives vicariously through celebrity images. So firstly, if you really give a shit about their actions in the first place and aren't just being a bullshitting engager / poser, find out why their so tied to their action that offends you so much in the first place. Second, question if you're really offended by that action in general, or if it's because it's that person in specific. Finally, if you can get to this point after passing the above, express your concern for what harm this is doing to the person committing the action. Smoking is easy ... red meat is a little harder, and stuff like hunting is tough, unless it's for endangered species. But this will let those of us who are stubborn at least your criticizing because you care. Just be ready for our feedback.

[@DaProHobbit]

I don't think the main argument for veganism is because of the personal harm it does. And I think people's compassion is greatly underestimated- it's been the driving force of most of the great social justice movements throughout history.

[@tylernichols031986]

Basically I read your statements as "If you really care about me show me how what I'm doing negatively affects me." Problem is there are things that you could do that benefit you and negatively affect others. At one point do we start caring about the world and not our self.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as I is for *Ink* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as J is for *Jacket* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest part that I should only think for myself... Vs Think more the hardest part that you should only think for yourself

[@nevrock1]

So could 4 be “setting an example?” You do your thing and hope the other person sees it and follows?

[@dukereg]

Yes! People react defensively to advice and modelling has been shown to influence others behaviour.

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Burin* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Bust* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest Intuitively way as R is for *Refractoriness* again Vs Think more the quickest Intuitively way as R is for *Recalcitrance* again

[@DanielFries]

Surely it's our moral conditioning that has us believing in "moral progress" as good.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as O is for Obituary Vs Think more as P is for Poll

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as C is for *Cloud computing* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as C is for *Compression* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as remaining 16 minutes before lunch bell ring... Vs Think more to remain calm and quiet in a situation of being helplessly helpless

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as M is for Motion Vs Think more the hardest way as N is for Notation

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as R is for Rest Vs Think more the hardest way as T is for Treat

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more when I know flipping the pages of my past reading materials are not important enough... Vs Think more what's matter is when I know the truth of my frequent failures are my solid foundation tips to not change even if everyone tells me to

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as G is for Gasses Vs Think more the hardest way as H is for Hypotheses

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way with Illustration treasure Vs Think more the hardest way with Optical Illusion treasure

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest Intuitively way as C is for *Charity* again Vs Think more the quickest Intuitively way as C is for *Closeness* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the quickest Intuitively way as K is for *Kindle* again Vs Think more the quickest Intuitively way as L is for *Lullaby* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more "if in that case, may be .... for you... Vs Think more if in that case may be you cannot find out my face eternally

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Hardest way as how in one of Alfred Hitchcock's experimental movie "Rope", the entire movie was filmed in a single shot Vs Think more the Hardest way as Director's role during Pre-production, Understanding the Script, Script breakdown, Gathering the creative team, Casting actors, Scheduling hunting, Location Hunting

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more hardest way as G is for Golfing Vs Think more the hardest way as H is for Handball

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as how a *Specific Purpose Software* is designed to perform specific function Vs Think more the hardest way as how a *Spooling* is defined as the process of waiting for the execution of tasks in batch processing operating system

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the spirit of go beyond in-depth Vs Think more the spirit of going beyond doubts and confuses

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as V is for *Vacuum* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as V is for *Varuna* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as M is for Mercury again Vs Think more the hardest way as N is for Nickle again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as Q is for *Quit* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as Q is for *Quiet* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way to play the day with the ability of what I feel satisfied with what I had.. Vs Think more the hardest way as wise with the elements of how to seek what I always love doing

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as wise as how not to be fool by the likeness, the choices of others Vs Think more the hardest way with the stuff that makes me remain calm and content

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Jumpline* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Journalist* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as *Sender(communicator)* the first factor essential for any communication to take place is the sender who wants to send a message to the person with whom he/she is communicating... Vs Think more the Hardest way as*Message* the second factor which is the end result of ideas, emotions and thoughts that the sender feels necessary to communicate.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as wise as possible to fool not with the delayed minutes that I focused on failures... Vs Think more as wise as possible with how I progress my honesty thought in my past 3 holiday days of a week

[@Beeblebrox6868]

The way I approach this is to think of moral disagreement as something that isn't a single concept, and it does not have a single kind of response. It's more practical to think of it as a spectrum. For example, at one end there are matters which I find morally unjustified, but which have limited effects or impacts, or where the mix of effects and impacts are complex. Then at the other end there are practices that are utterly repugnant to me, and which cannot be countenanced or allowed to pass. Put more bluntly, there are areas of moral disagreement where I can find some way to live with the difference, even with a measure of discomfort; and there are areas where I simply cannot live with the difference, where a practice or decision is so barbaric and horrifying that I feel I must act and could never find peace with the idea of inaction.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as M is for *Manageable* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as N is for *Nurture* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as wise as how I can't be fool like a person who die-hardly tried to impress you... Vs Think more as wise as what's makes me to trustedly open to you faithfully

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as "__" Vs Think more the hardest way as *blanks* which means a space to be fill in

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as O is for Optic Vs Think more the hardest way as P is for Public

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as R is for *Rudimentary* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as S is for *Stability* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Livestock* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Living mulch* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as P is for *Permissible* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as P is for *Pounder* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as H is for *Halophyte* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as H is for *Halophile* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Just War theory* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think ⬆️💎 Vs Think more when the road direction is straight forward ahead

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way of thinking for self only... Vs Think more just like everyone else does for themselves

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Binding Effect* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Bonafide* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more to be careful when someone loose faith in you.. Vs Think more it doesn't mean you earn everything, but you may loose everything

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Fusion* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Focal point* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more with Marker on white board in single computer lab room Vs Think less with chalks on blackboards in every rooms of working place

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as O is for Opportunity Vs Think more the hardest way as P is for Patiently

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Day Dreamer* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Due Date* again

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as Y is for *Yoga Sutras* again VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as Y is for *Yin Yoga* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as how *There are books on photography having a major part of the content as photographs, whereas 'The Life and Time publications' series of books on various topics like forests, marine life, automobile, architecture etc have so many visuals along with the text that it gives an entirely different experience of reading books* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how *The Periodical are published texts that appears in a regular interval of time*

[@JimnesstarLyngdohNonglait]

Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Jowai* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Jaiaw* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as K is for *Kaspersky* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as L is for *Linear Topology* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think *HIGH ANGLE* high angle shot which means pointing the camera lens down Vs Think *PAN* a most common movement of camera from left to right or vice versa giving the scene a panoramic view. How this movement of camera follows the action while the camera platform remains stationary

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as M is for *mathemaTICs* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as N is for *narcoTIC* again

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as wise as possible when I learnt to be a teacher this way... Vs Think more as wise as possible when I cannot poise my thinking abilities that way

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how in *Operations on Pointers* we saw that an integer value can be added to an array name in order to access an individual array element. Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how in *Preliminaries* before considering the detailed control statements available in C, first we need to form logical expressions that are either true or false.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more the hardest way as how *It was only on 29 January 1780 in Calcutta, when James Augustus Hockey published the first Newspaper of colonial India in English* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how there was a column named *'a poet's corner'* where Hickey presented his critical views and this weekly also carried notices and advertisements related to the articles for sales.

[@jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait3468]

Think more as Long-cutted learner's treasure Vs Think less as Short cutted earners's safety