When conflicts cannot be avoided completely, as has been said, the opportunities to experience them are usually greater, especially in complex social contexts where significant differences are at stake. It is precisely for this reason that it is fundamental to speak of conflict resolution in ethnically diverse and multicultural work environments, where not only „normal“ labour disputes can arise, but where languages, worldviews, lifestyles and, ultimately, differences in value can diverge. If these concepts are compared and their consent or disagreement is noted, the soul forms judgments. „An unfailing disagreement is a situation, in which there is a thinker A, a thinker B and a proposition (content of the judgment) p, so that: A (judge) thinks that p and B (judge) that non-p, and neither A nor B have made a mistake (It is fault) (Kölbel 2003, p. 54) The counter-reaction to the FDA study revealed a fundamental disagreement between the Agency and livestock biologists. Any differences of opinion on the details of SEO would be resolved, as it was usually just a matter of language that helped clarify Katie`s team paper. Laser Wires, P. (2005). Contextual dependence, disagreements and predicates of personal taste.
Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643-686. When he disagreed, Scalia was recognized for „the abrasiveness of his attacks on opponents.“ In peace and conflict research, a definition of conflict resolution is presented in Peter Wallensteen`s book, understanding Conflict Resolution: no one has the right to express disagreement with the company in this way. FD is often seen as evidence of valuation relativism (Kölbel 2003, 2008, Laser Wires in 2005). The fact that „most people have a healthy pretheoretical intuition, that there can be and that there are unfailing disagreements“ (Kölbel 2003, p. 54) is not obvious, despite the author`s remarkable confidence. If X claims that p and Y do not claim-p, they usually disagree if p, and at least one of them must be responsible. You may have the right to affirm this p, but the justification is not true and it is the very essence of the norm of truth that it gives to the disagreement its immediate normative character: what is the function of expressing an attitude towards an object in relation to the affirmation or conversation that one has this attitude? Footnote 1 This is the question I address in a discussion of the so-called phenomenon of „unfailing disagreement“ (FD), which seems to characterize what is called „subjective discourse“. . . .