To "Disagree to disagree" means to:

[chacham]

Abstain

 7/4%

Agree

 19/10%

Keep arguing until you agree

 27/14%

Disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing

 17/9%

Going to another level of disagreement

 16/9%

Not agreeing to disagree

 59/32%

Be illogical

 8/4%

I disagree with all the above options

 34/18%

187 total votes

[hdb]

Customer Service: We are not satisfied until you are not satisfied.

[marto]

The opposite of Agree_to_disagree? :P

[LanX]

> Agree_to_disagree

Which is strictly speaking a Liar paradox ...

Fun! :)

[syphilis]

Also the opposite of "disagree to agree".
And the same as "agree to agree".

Couldn't be simpler ;-)

Cheers,
Rob

[marto]

Agreed!

[BillKSmith]

This question seems to have been written by Shakespeare's monkey's on one of their bad days. I chose to abstain because no answer is possible.

[papidave]

One could argue, perhaps correctly, that disagreeing to disagree is like failing to fail.


sub disagree_to_disagree
{
   die "I agree!\n";
}

Then again, perhaps that should be sub disagree_to_agree.

[AnomalousMonk]

It means "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you" (update: or in more general terms, "I agree that you will not disagree with me").

[Skeeve]

Example: Two people stated something.

1. A stated X
2. B stated Y

Now A says: "X means the same as Y, so I agree with B".

But B says "X means something different than Y, so I do not agree with A".

So they both disagree to disagree, right?

[BillKSmith]

I think I get it.

A agrees with statement Y thus agrees with B.

B agrees about the truth of Y, but not with A's stated reason for it thus he disagrees, at least in part, with A's second statement.

I am confused!

[swampyankee]

Wouldn't "disagree to disagree " mean that the two are arguing about the fact that they're arguing?

Wouldn't this get us into an endless recursion?

[perldigious]

Both parties disagree about something and one or both parties refuse to allow the other to continue to hold the position they disagree with, even though the opposing party's opinion is not something the other party has direct control over beyond continued attempts at influencing them to change said opinion... and where "influencing" can range from simple continued argument, to coercive violence, to murder.

In practice, disagreeing to disagree typically leads to some harbored feelings of hatred for either or both parties toward the other, and in extreme cases both sides feeding off each other for even more hatred.

At a societal level, in the worst of those extreme cases, this has lead to mass atrocities such as "reeducation camps" or mass culling of "undesirables" when one group has sufficient power to enforce control over the other. Which is why any system that prevents too much consolidation of power can be an effective safeguard, but unfortunately even then there's no guarantee of effectiveness.

Philosophy has always interested me. Psychology and sociology as well, but only as long as I can keep my distance from the subject(s) of study, which is why I went in to engineering instead (well, that and the money). Things are inherently more logical than people, and all too often... well... people just suck. :-)

[Anonymous Monk]

It means we stop arguing about it, but I continue to be right.

[Gavin]

To my mind its when two parties with opposing feelings decide to hold their original views and agree to have opposing views.

[pryrt]

two parties with opposing feelings decide to hold their original views and agree to have opposing views

You have just described the normal phrase "agree to disagree". This poll is about "disagree to disagree", and the self-contradictions inherent therein.