Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. The idea that Questioner is putting forward is one which requires stay in intellectually infancy for life, and encouraging others to do the same, never transcending one's emotional reaction to the world around them. It is the stuff of nightmares.

I think here you've moved from the concept of 'truth' to 'norms'. They are not the same, and even if you think they are, we are not discussing this topic in that light. So the above is both slightly disingenuous (as in does not accurate represent what's been said, not suggesting it contradicts what is "true"), and probably so easily answerable its hard to grasp the point of asking, other than to rationalize behaving that way. I really enjoy how most of your replies to anything are open-ended and don't quite land on claims as such. It's cool. But in this case, it comes across as prevarication.

In your rush to push forward that only the objective matters, you forget the person.

I do not forget the person. — Questioner

This doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. So be it. That is exactly what we're discussing, and you've given ample example of exactly why the concept of "my truth" is incoherent, unhelpful and causes people to be worse interlocutors.

it has caused you to be unable to stay on a topic, answer a question directly or do much but post other people's ambiguous, and usually unrelated thoughts in service of belittling those who disagree with you. Its childish, anti-intellectual and likely a result of an emotional defiance to other people's views. Ironic.

Wittgenstein’s — Richard B

I suggest this is probably a sure sign you're in the wrong lane. But that is literally an opinion, I'm not making an argument of any kind - just noting why this wouldn't move someone in my position.

Not adding anything to this debate, think of it as more of a reaction to the debate as it unfolds.

I’ve not seen any effective rebuttal against the points I’ve raised. What I have seen are personal attacks on me, an intellectually dishonest position. Amounts to little more than trolling.

The concept of “my truth” has an ontological basis. “My truth” – as manifested in the concept of shradda, - refers to the “substance” of a person – is comprised of all that defines their world – and is an inherent part of their nature. It transcends the idea that truth is merely a property of language or knowledge. It is in fact an internalization of one’s reality.

To reject another’s concept of “my truth” based solely on a disagreement with whatever the other’s truth might be, is also intellectually dishonest. That position understands only at the level of language and knowledge, and does not address the concept.

A very common piece of advice to writers and poets is to, in their works, express their truth. The best poetry, the best writings, are those that creatively convey the artist’s truth.

As Rainer Rilke (Letter to a Young Poet) advised – “Go into yourself.”

And Emily Dickinson advised - “Tell all the truth but tell it slant —”

Walt Whitman collapses the distinction between poet and poem when in The Song of Myself, he writes -

“I celebrate myself, and sing myself.”

Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray) – makes a similar distinction - the artist is his art -

“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.”

And James Joyce (A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) spoke his truth when he wrote –

“To forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.”

Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone. There is no "My truth". — Philosophim

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective.

I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do. — Philosophim

Manipulative: influencing or attempting to influence the behavior or emotions of others for one’s own purposes. — dictionary

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". A politician trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him is "using manipulative language". A scientist writing that experimental evidence supports his theory is "using manipulative language".

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language (or at least an attempt at manipulative language -- I doubt your attempts actually manipulate anyone).

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". A politician trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him is "using manipulative language". A scientist writing that experimental evidence supports his theory is "using manipulative language". — Ecurb

Wasn’t rhetoric considered one of the highest arts by the Greeks?

Could you explain what you were getting at? It's pretty obscure, and in Law "might" is not relevant. — AmadeusD

Theoretically, not. Practically, it's everything.

No, not "might makes right." Just the law. But as Gaius Petronius Arbiter said, "What power has law where only money rules?" — Ciceronianus

How long can one idealistically maintain a sharp distinction between what law, theoretically, ideally is or should be, and how it is actually practiced?

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.”
― Jonathan Swift

Theoretically, not. Practically, it's everything. — baker

Do you mean whoever is the best lawyer wins, regardless of truth? Cause there's no "might" in the law at all until you get activist judiciaries.

You've been given several direct challenges that you've failed to rise to. You're free to see that however you want to. But you are lying about what's occurred and are projecting hte fact that you resile into ad hominems every single time a robust rebuttal is given to you. You then post someone else's irrelevant ideas as if that's somehow going to support the situation.

Once again, when all are giving you the same feedback, it's time to drop the ego and have a think.

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective. — Ecurb

Incorrect. A fact is something tested and understood within a language. "Pluto is a planet." Years later..."Pluto is no longer a planet". Both are facts.

Truth is "What is". Whether we classify Pluto as a rock, a planet, or dust ball, 'it' is still exists.

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". — Ecurb

Give an example please so I know what you mean by 'manipulative'. I've given a clear example of manipulative language. How exactly is the teacher using manipulative language? Same with your other examples. They're so general nothing specific can be gleaned without further details from you.

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language — Ecurb

Instead of asking me, demonstrate you understood what I meant in my example of manipulative language. Then if you think what I've stated by 'clear evil' is manipulative, demonstrate why.

The concept of “my truth” has an ontological basis. “My truth” – as manifested in the concept of shradda, - refers to the “substance” of a person – is comprised of all that defines their world – and is an inherent part of their nature. It transcends the idea that truth is merely a property of language or knowledge. It is in fact an internalization of one’s reality — Questioner

What do you think of the idea that truth evolves via transitions in cultural norms and knowledge. For instance, Hegel argues that truth develops through dialectical becoming. The art, music, science and philosophy of the classical period makes way for the renaissance, and from there to the Enlightenment, the Romantic and modern eras. My truth as an artist can then be understood as my truth as it expresses my participation within a given period of cultural becoming.

Something along Moore's paradox would be more troubling, like "My truth is that it is raining, but it is not" (or "I believe it is raining, but it is not"). — Hanover

A Christian "friend" (who believed that vegetarianism was wrong or inferior) once told me that I was allowed to be a vegetarian, on the condition that I believe it is wrong or inferior to be vegetarian.
Seriously. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. But it wasn't the only instance of such reasoning on his part; after that I began to notice it in in some other people as well. A more common example is the way some religious people expect homosexual people to believe homosexuality is wrong.
There are people who do expect us to believe contradictions. This has to count for something.

Exactly this. Its a person using language to manipulate an outcome that they personally want vs using language to clearly communicate accuracy and clarity. The only way to defeat accuracy and clarity, is to attack the words themselves and diminish anyone who would dare use them in that way. Hate, unwarranted moral justification, and self-righteousness of cause are all tools to attack the one who wishes to be clear, rational, and assess the claim honestly. — Philosophim

Speaking of "honestly". In the recent years, this adverb has become something of a filler word, frequently used in contexts where it makes no other sense to use it than as a filler word; but it's also used in what seems like a deliberately offensive manner. "Truth" to be a similar type of word: sometimes just a filler word; other times, an invocation of an offense and hostility.

Sure, and that's not in argument I don't think. But attaching hte word 'truth' to it unjustifiably semantically rarefies the concept beyond "my feelings" or "my opinion" which is what we're talking about, and those terms are completely adequate. — AmadeusD

Again, my experience has been that this is not the case. Say that something is your opinion or your feeling or your experience, and sure enough others will shoot you down. Even when you are in fact talking about your opinions, feelings, and experiences. I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment.

Which also explains why they are so eager to rebut them, and why "my truth" can emerge as a defense against that rebuttal.

I think it's related to the rise of "I feel like ..." as an alternative to "I think ..." or even "I believe ..." In 21st America, your feelings are not open to critique. They just are what they are. Your opinions, your thoughts, your beliefs (but not your faith)—these are all open to critique and by saying "I think we should do this," you're practically inviting others to give their opinions or to critique yours. Not the case when you're expressing your feelings. — Srap Tasmaner

Interestingly, where I come from, feelings would be among the first to be attacked, especially in religious/spiritual circles.

"I don't feel the presence of the Holy Spirit."
"Then you're wrong. Just because you don't feel it doesn't mean it's not there."

What do you think of the idea that truth evolves via transitions in cultural norms and knowledge. — Joshs

Excellent question. I do admit that I have been coming from the viewpoint of personal truth, but cultural truths are worth consideration. I'm just not so sure they are universally accepted, if they conflict with personal truths. I would say that what is foremost in any one human heart is their personal truth.

My truth as an artist can then be understood as my truth as it expresses my participation within a given period of cultural becoming. — Joshs

But at the same time, we have individuals writing within the same cultural context coming from entirely different angles, or positions. Charles Dickens and Emily Bronte were both writing in Victorian England. Active were William Gladstone and William Wilberforce, who held diametrically opposed views about slavery. So, personal truth trumps cultural truth.

At least for the courageous among us. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by "idealistically" here, but as long as I've been a lawyer I've always thought the law and morality are different things, and shouldn't be equated. The law may be good or bad, but is always the law. The practice of law consists of the application of the law and its interpretation in the best interests of the client. But one may choose one's client.

Do you mean whoever is the best lawyer wins, regardless of truth? — AmadeusD

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to how the practice of the law is in the service of power.

For example, how the traffic police doesn't hunt down and fine people in fancy cars, even when it's clear they've broken the law, but they hunt down people in middle-class cars and poor-people cars for minor transgressions.
Or how a high politician who was sentenced to a prison sentence can walk out of a prison -- physically wallk out of the building -- and no guard stops him. And this is in a first-world country.

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law. (Real example.)

Cause there's no "might" in the law at all until you get activist judiciaries.

Hm. For example: I live in a jurisdiction where, after a routine traffic stop by the traffic police, the driver is offered to sign a document stating that the police officers have acted professionally and in accordance with the law. If you sign it, you can go. If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.) We could discuss whether this is a use or an abuse of power. Case in point: The traffic police likes to wait for people on an overpass, with very poor visibility and little room. So after they're done with you and they let you go, you have to drive backwards onto the main road, on an overpass with poor visibility. As far as traffic laws go, this is illegal and punishable, yet the police are forcing you to break the law.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms?
— Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. — AmadeusD

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread.

But at the same time, we have individuals writing within the same cultural context coming from entirely different angles, or positions. Charles Dickens and Emily Bronte were both writing in Victorian England. Active were William Gladstone and William Wilberforce, who held diametrically opposed views about slavery. So, personal truth trumps cultural — Questioner

Both Dickens and Brontë are considered Romantic writers. This is not just because they happened to be working in the same time period, but because their work shows the influences of the larger artistic and cultural trends that fall within the umbrella of Romanticism. Two Romantic artists can have diametrically opposing views on a given subject while both approach that subject in a way that is recognizably ‘Romantic’. Viewpoints can be variations on shared thematics.

Speaking of "honestly". In the recent years, this adverb has become something of a filler word, frequently used in contexts where it makes no other sense to use it than as a filler word; but it's also used in what seems like a deliberately offensive manner. — baker

Its hard to judge what is deliberately offensive. Regardless, offensive or not, if someone is being honest they are not using manipulative language. A person who was not being honest, but twisting the word 'honest' to imply they were, would be using manipulative language.

both approach that subject in a way that is recognizably ‘Romantic’. — Joshs

You'd also have to consider the themes of their work, though

"Pluto is a planet." Years later..."Pluto is no longer a planet". Both are facts. — Philosophim

Wrong. The subtle distinction is that "Pluto exists" is a fact; "Pluto is a planet" was a "truth", but no longer is. The description "planet" is an interpretation of the facts.

"Manipulate" means "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skillful manner:": When the tool is language, there are some negative implications: To "manipulate" a person means to control or influence him cleverly (or unscrupulously) . Obviously, unscrupulous behavior is by definition.
wicked, but clever behavior is not.

How you are using the phrase "manipulative language" remains a mystery. But influencing and even controlling people through clever speech or writing seems the goal of a great deal of speech and writing. What's wrong with that? Aren't you trying (unsuccessfully) to influence people by posting here?

Again, my experience has been that this is not the case. — baker

Sorry, what hasn't?

I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment. — baker

This seems confused. Do you mean its rare to find people who hear other people's opinions and feelings, and read them as such?

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread — baker

I cannot understand what you're driving at here, I am sorry. Assertive about what? Which party in the above tension? Being assertive against someone who claims 'my truth' either results in circular nonsense, as, fair enough, this thread became - or violence.

For example, how the traffic police doesn't hunt down and fine people in fancy cars, even when it's clear they've broken the law, but they hunt down people in middle-class cars and poor-people cars for minor transgressions. — baker

What? Is this some weird like early 2000s caricature? Traffic police cannot "hunt down" anyone. They ticket cars which are parked illegally, or automatically ticket cars that run red lights, drive in bus lanes etc...
You can't get around those by having an expensive car my man. The issue is it is more likely for people in shitty cars to break traffic laws. Various reasons for that.

Or how a high politician who was sentenced to a prison sentence can walk out of a prison -- physically wallk out of the building -- and no guard stops him. And this is in a first-world country. — baker

What are you talking about? Not incredulousness, I just have no clue what you're talking about. I do not know of any prison anywhere who would let any inmate walk out in the way you describe.

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law. — baker

Are you able to provide it? I have never seen a judge do something similar, and not have their judgment recalled at a later date. It is not a contempt of court to not answer a question. You have every right (in a criminal case. If you're not talking Criminal many other considerations to consider).

If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.) — baker

Where do you live? This seems to me a gross misunderstanding of any related practices i've ever come across. Would be interested to see what the policies are. Particularly given your description of a document for signing is Federally illegal in most states I'm aware of.

I hope i'm not coming across dismissive - I'd love to see these things!

Wrong. The subtle distinction is that "Pluto exists" is a fact; "Pluto is a planet" was a "truth", but no longer is. The description "planet" is an interpretation of the facts. — Ecurb

All you did was reverse the definitions I gave you on the terms. Let me explain it another way. A fact deals with knowledge. What you know is not necessarily the truth. What is true exists whether you know it or not. A fact cannot exist if no one knows about it. Truth does.

"Manipulate" means "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skillful manner — Ecurb

You are manipulating this context right now. I said 'manipulative language'.

manipulative - especially : serving or intended to control or influence others in a deceptive and often unfair or selfish way
a clever and manipulative child
manipulative behavior
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulative

How you are using the phrase "manipulative language" remains a mystery. — Ecurb

Only to someone who does not understand basic English or context.

But influencing and even controlling people through clever speech or writing seems the goal of a great deal of speech and writing. What's wrong with that? — Ecurb

You're blending two different concepts together into one question. Influencing is the act of trying to convince someone of an idea or action. You can influence someone in a positive or negative way. The term influence alone has no negative connotation. Being manipulative is an attempt to deceive someone into doing something they would not want to do if they saw through your deception.

Controlling is an act of asserting your will to do something another person would not want to do if free. To be controlling, you must have some type of threat that the other person would be more concerned about than their own freedom. This generally has a negative connotation among free and equal people, as it is a means of asserting a power dynamic that is not concerned with the other person's choice.

Aren't you trying (unsuccessfully) to influence people by posting here? — Ecurb

Yes, but the influence is not being done with manipulation or coerrssion. It is an appeal to rational thought. No one has to think rationally. You are free to get drunk and spout off that we're all controlled by little green men named Steve. You are free to use irrational arguments or even to initiate disrespectful language towards a person because you have insufficient experience in rational thinking yourself.

You make your own decisions about what I say. There is no knife, no clever twisting of language to trick you. Just me pointing at the moon and saying, "That's the moon". Maybe its not the moon. Maybe you think its something else. But whether you agree with me or not, I approach you as an equal and will speak with you like a person who can think and make good points until you prove to me that you cannot.

All you did was reverse the definitions I gave you on the terms. Let me explain it another way. A fact deals with knowledge. What you know is not necessarily the truth. What is true exists whether you know it or not. A fact cannot exist if no one knows about it. Truth does. — Philosophim

Well, we can define words however we want to, as long as we agree. I'd say that "a fact is a statement that can be proven or verified through evidence or data, while truth is a more abstract concept that is subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives." Since this discussion is about "my truth", the standard distinction I've noted here is significant.

Using the words this way, all facts are truths, but not all truths are facts. In court, witnesses present the "facts of the case", but the jury must decide on the "truth" of the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Here's a link to a discussion about this usage:

https://thisvsthat.io/fact-vs-truth

manipulative - especially : serving or intended to control or influence others in a deceptive and often unfair or selfish way
a clever and manipulative child
manipulative behavior — Philosophim

You've chosen the most negative definition of "manipulative" -- which, in my previous post - I noted. Nonetheless, even using this definition, "manipulative speech" is not evil, as the following hypothetical examples will demonstrate:

Noble, kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome) was being questioned by a jack-booted, ugly Gestapo who looked suspiciously like Philosophim. "Where are zee Jews hiding?" asked the Gestapo. "If you don't tell me now, you vill be tortured until you talk!"

Ecurb assessed the options. He could either tell the truth, refuse to talk (in which case he would be tortured and might spill the beans), or deceive the predatory gestapo and send him on a wild goose chase, which would give him a chance to move the Jews to a safer hiding place. "Last I saw, they were hiding in the basement of the church in the next village," Ecurb lied. He was using "deceptive speech to control or influence others". Was this evil?

Here's another example:

A masked man who looked suspiciously like Philosophim had seized a young child and was holding a knife to her throat. "I am kidnapping this child, and will molest and murder her," he crowed. Such would have been the eventuality, except that noble Ecurb happened to be nigh. Thinking quickly, Ecurb pulled his phone out of his pocket and pointed it at the villain. It was dark, and in the dim light, the phone could be mistaken for the barrel of a gun. "Release her, or I will shoot you," lied Ecurb, using manipulative language to deceive the predator. "I don't want to die," moaned the cowardly villain, who released the child due to Ecurb's manipulative speech.

-------------------

Now, it is not a 'fact" that Ecurb's use of manipulative language is justified, but perhaps you will agree that it is a "truth" (using my definitions).

Given these examples, it is clear that using "manipulative language" is not wicked ipso facto. Lying and deceiving are evil only if the intent or result is evil -- not in and of themselves. Telling young children that Santa Claus will bring them presents if they are good is controversial -- but not evil. It's fun. It adds to childhood joy and wonder (although it is also "manipulative").

Well, we can define words however we want to, as long as we agree. — Ecurb

If we are ignoring the context of the English language and doing whatever we want. And further, we don't agree.

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. I'm getting ready to leave town, so this isn't really worth my time. I'll check the thread when I get back and see if anything is worth addressing then.

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. — Philosophim

Examples of situations in which "manipulative language" is clearly the only morally correct choice prove that manipulative language is not evil ipso facto. You are taking the discussion too seriously. It's not worth it. A little humor can liven it up. Humor does not constitute "trolling" -- unless someone (you, for example) takes himself too seriously.

A little humor can liven it up. — Ecurb

Did you really try to bully, then when you were called out on it say, "I was just joking bro?" The worst people are those who are convinced they can do no wrong. A little self-awareness is good if you don't want to be one of those people.

Did you really try to bully, then when you were called out on it say, "I was just joking bro?" — Philosophim

. "Bully"? This is nonsense. I was trying to write a mildly entertaining post that was also on point. You must be thin-skinned indeed to think it constituted "bullying".

Did you really try to bully, then when you were called out on it say, "I was just joking bro?" The worst people are those who are convinced they can do no wrong. A little self-awareness is good if you don't want to be one of those people. — Philosophim

Ecurb's objections have been entirely reasonable and polite. Please stop sabotaging the discussion with unjustified accusations and emotional reactions. NOTE: this is a warning, not the opening of a conversation.

@Philosophim

Take it to the Feedback section if you want to respond or complain.

@Philosophim

When you post here, keep to substantive philosophy. Anything else, take it to feedback. Do not reply to this, please.

Can two competing beliefs both be right? Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

Considering what goes on in politics nowadays, it's prudent to rethink this. That many people in positions of such great power cannot simply be written off as childish or throwing tantrums.

Have you asked anyone whether their feelings about an issue have changed and what made them change? What if they respond that their feelings express their personal assessment of the meaning of something, and they can reassess the basis of that assessment such as to change the resultant feelings? Would you respond that their personal assessment must be open to critique from the vantage of third personal criteria of objective empirical truth in order to be valid? — Joshs

Ha ha. That's exactly the situation I was in with a Christian "friend". We were talking about our relationship, and yet he expected me to prove, objectively, that my feelings on the matter mattered. !!!! He actually said he expected me to quote reputable sources. Seriously.

To label a generation as narcissistic is to stop construing their ways of framing situations and start condemning.

When a teenager pushes me away and cuts in front of me in the waiting line at the grocery store, what is this?
Should this behavior be applauded?

The rise of “my truth” may not simply be narcissism run amok, but evidence of people experimenting, sometimes clumsily, with ways of owning their constructions while navigating pluralism. The task, then, is not to shame those experiments, but to ask which ones expand the range of anticipation and which ones constrict it.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your perspective here. But there is such a thing as too much empathy, having too much understanding for others. This is when that empathy starts to destroy you, put you in disadvantageous positions.

If I say my truth about my own gender is unique to me, is that an opinion or true? — Joshs

You can say it is true, while there are esp. religious people who say it's merely your opinion.
So now what?

Isnt this even more the case with political, spiritual , ethical, psycho-sexual and gender attitudes? Do any two people interpret the meaning of these domains in exactly the same way. And what are the implications of this for navigating the day to day conflicts among family, friends and strangers? Should we scoff at the idea that the source of interpersonal conflicts and disagreements is often the result of different perspectives on the truth of situations? Do we then look to find the one objectively correct interpretation that must apply to everyone?

Or do we recognize that each individual perspective is a valid datum that must not be discarded when trying to reach between-person understanding? — Joshs

Oddly enough, there is a mode of communication called "assertiveness" that is supposed to address and solve precisely this problem. It's not particularly popular, and when one uses it, it's usually interpreted to be either a mark of weakness or too aggressive.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms?
— Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. — AmadeusD

In other words, this comes down to might makes right.
A child doesn't accept another person's position because that person would "be right", but because that person is in some position of power over the child.

(And to begin with, the dispute between the two probably arose because the older person was using their position of power against the child in some way.)