Saying our ideas and opposing to things that we do not agree with is human' s rights because it is an indicator of freedom. Sometimes a person in a classroom or in a meeting says something that seems incorrect to us, and to tell them our oppinion, it is better to wait until the meeting is over and then talk to the person about the correct form of our oppinion. There are some good reasons for doing it in this way which I explain them below.
First, it is more polite to talk to a person about an incorrect thing in person and not to attack them right away in the meeting because it is considered as rudness. For example, I had a teacher that talked about god a lot. I disagreed that religon is a nessecery element for humans, so at the end of the class I explained my reasons to him, eventually after a while he considered my reasons more convincing than his.
In addition to that, you have more time to talk about the subject to that person because in a public meeting, time is limited. For instance, in a meeting that is crowded everyone has an important task to do and wants to leave the meeting quickly and do their own jobs, but if you want to argue on something that seems incorrect to you in the meeting; other people may feel you are wasting their time.
Finally, In my view saying nothing is not a good way to deal with this situation because the leader of the meeting may goes to another meeting and repeates the same incorrect assumption. For example, if a teacher defines a law of physics incorrectly, one day another person tell him or her that the law is wrong and maybe the whole member of the class laugh at the teacher and consider him or her as an outdated tutor, so it is better to correct the mistake at the first place than to leave it to be corrected somewhere else with an inappropriate way.
Basically, I think it is better to say our ideas explicitly because it is a sign of bravery; however, if we talk to the person privatly, we have more time to clarify our reasons and it is considered as politeness.
Saying our
ideas
and opposing to things that we do not
agree
with is
human&
#039; s rights
because
it is an indicator of freedom.
Sometimes
a
person
in a classroom or in a
meeting
says something that seems
incorrect
to us, and to
tell
them our
oppinion
, it is better to wait until the
meeting
is over and then
talk
to the
person
about the correct form of our
oppinion
. There are
some
good
reasons
for doing it in this way which I
explain
them below.
First
, it is more polite to
talk
to a
person
about an
incorrect
thing in
person
and not to attack them right away in the
meeting
because
it
is considered
as
rudness
.
For example
, I had a teacher that talked about god a lot. I disagreed that
religon
is a
nessecery
element for humans,
so
at the
end
of the
class
I
explained
my
reasons
to him,
eventually
after a while he considered my
reasons
more convincing than his.
In addition
to that, you have more time to
talk
about the subject to that
person
because
in a public
meeting
, time
is limited
.
For instance
, in a
meeting
that
is crowded
everyone has an
important
task to do and wants to
leave
the
meeting
quickly
and do their
own
jobs,
but
if you want to argue on something that seems
incorrect
to you in the
meeting
; other
people
may feel you are wasting their time.
Finally
, In my view saying nothing is not a
good
way to deal with this situation
because
the leader of the
meeting
may goes to another
meeting
and
repeates
the same
incorrect
assumption.
For example
, if a teacher defines a law of physics
incorrectly
, one day another
person
tell
him or her that the law is
wrong
and maybe the whole member of the
class
laugh at the teacher and consider him or her as an outdated tutor,
so
it is better to correct the mistake at the
first
place than to
leave
it to
be corrected
somewhere else with an inappropriate way.
Basically
, I
think
it is better to say our
ideas
explicitly
because
it is a
sign
of bravery;
however
, if we
talk
to the
person
privatly
, we have more time to clarify our
reasons
and it
is considered
as politeness.