Tolerance to different opinions

Look at the following statement:

"In my opinion, many charity organisations make money and as part of their activities they provide aid giving to those in need."

It is logically correct and is true. But in regular conversation it will make a lot of noise sometimes.

Some people might say: "No, they don't make money". The reason that the organisations have to pay salaries to their workers doesn't always work.

Another argument is that this saying may offend people who are involved in the charity business and it's not polite to say such things. Though none of the people in the conversation are involved with that activity.

When the person who produced the statement above would argue that it's her personal opinion based on some research and definition of charity, and by proving examples would try to convince the audience to listen to the facts - they say that the speaker has to be tolerant to others opinion.
The irony is however - they can't tolerate the speakers opinion at the same time.

Comments

Wine - 2011 Brown Brothers Crouchen Riesling

Very nice wine with fruity taste - peach and pear: Consumed with Hungarian salami. Tasting notes .

Scrum - Team Culture and Wall Manifesto

In the Scrum framework one of the key components is the wall and daily stand-up. In some organisations I worked with the whole concept of the wall is not accepted by many developers, because of the stand-up necessity and "time waste". Very often all that methodology is used for the sake of methodology and not to achieve what we actually do - adding or creating value to our customer (usually called "The Business"). I can understand frustration that is caused by the wall and stand-up process. From the software developer perspective it is really a waste of time for the following reasons: 1. In 95% of cases developers are head down working like hell delivering valuable outcomes that they are accountable for. Extra effort to go to the wall, staying there for 15-30 minutes and listening or not listening to what others were doing yesterday and will be doing tomorrow is annoying for them; 2. The mere fact of having to do something mandatory to do that looks like

Mastering The Multitasking

There is usually two distinct perspectives on multi-tasking: 1. Multitasking is counterproductive. We get distracted by multiple tasks that all get our way and fight for our scarce attention, time and resources. This leads to a common fallacy that if you do multiple activities “at a time” you are not doing good work in any of those. 2. Multitasking is a way of getting many things done in a short period of time or in a long run. Indeed it can be either a disaster or a great helper depending on how it is used and practiced. Most recent research shows that we don’t do multiple tasks purely in parallel or simultaneously. That means we don’t purely multi-task, but switch between tasks and execute them one at a time, but by spending very small timeframes on each task. A good example from the history is a story about Julius Caesar capabilities in that area. Plutarch writes, “Caesar disciplined himself so far as to be able to dictate letters from on horseback, and to give directi

Travels etc.

Search This Blog