Agree to Disagree: What does it really mean?

Wasted Honor -

Carl R. ToersBijns is the author of the Wasted Honor Trilogy [Wasted Honor I,II and Gorilla Justice] and his newest book From the Womb to the Tomb, the Tony Lester Story, which is a reflection of his life and his experiences as a correctional officer and a correctional administrator retiring with the rank of deputy warden in the New Mexico and Arizona correctional systems.

Carl also wrote a book on his combat experience in the Kindle book titled - Combat Medic - Men with destiny - A red cross of Valor -

Carl is considered by many a rogue expert in the field of prison security systems since leaving the profession. Carl has been involved in the design of many pilot programs related to mental health treatment, security threat groups, suicide prevention, and maximum custody operational plans including double bunking max inmates and enhancing security for staff. He invites you to read his books so you can understand and grasp the cultural and political implications and influences of these prisons. He deals with the emotions, the stress and anxiety as well as the realities faced working inside a prison. He deals with the occupational risks while elaborating on the psychological impact of both prison worker and prisoner.

His most recent book, Gorilla Justice, is an un-edited raw fictional version of realistic prison experiences and events through the eyes of an anecdotal translation of the inmate’s plight and suffering while enduring the harsh and toxic prison environment including solitary confinement.

Carl has been interviewed by numerous news stations and newspapers in Phoenix regarding the escape from the Kingman prison and other high profile media cases related to wrongful deaths and suicides inside prisons. His insights have been solicited by the ACLU, Amnesty International, and various other legal firms representing solitary confinement cases in California and Arizona. He is currently working on the STG Step Down program at Pelican Bay and has offered his own experience insights with the Center of Constitutional Rights lawyers and interns to establish a core program at the SHU units. He has personally corresponded and written with SHU prisoners to assess the living conditions and how it impacts their long term placement inside these type of units that are similar to those in Arizona Florence Eyman special management unit where Carl was a unit deputy warden for almost two years before his promotion to Deputy Warden of Operations in Safford and Eyman.

He is a strong advocate for the mentally ill and is a board member of David's Hope Inc. a non-profit advocacy group in Phoenix and also serves as a senior advisor for Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council in Chino, California As a subject matter expert and corrections consultant, Carl has provided interviews and spoken on national and international radio talk shows e.g. BBC CBC Lou Show & TV shows as well as the Associated Press.

I use sarcasm, satire, parodies and other means to make you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Agree to Disagree: What does it really mean?

I don’t know how many times I have heard this and to be honest, I think I have used it myself before not realizing how it really sit after the talking is done. In all reality, I don’t think the point debated or talked about was ever resolved and still up in the air from where it was in the beginning. Thus my conclusion is that nothing has been accomplished and nothing was really done.

I will be the first to admit that when you put two or more persons in the same room you might get as many opinions as there are people. This is logical because not everyone is going to agree with everyone on points of this discussion. Having opposite views on any subject is healthy and invites a thought process that is good for everyone inside that room.

The last thing you want to happen is a stalemate or challenge that brings the conversation to an end. Discussions and debates should not be curtailed because of phony attempts to make a point that may or may not be legitimate in fact or truths.

To challenge point is one thing but to stifle the other person is wrong. Nobody wants to created conflict yet there are many that thrive off such emotional bantering. Arguing or bantering does nothing to reveal the truth or fact surrounding the topic of discussion. In fact, it is often disrespectful and counterproductive and serves only the purpose of concealing the truth.

When you agree to disagree (ATD) several things happen you may or may not be aware of. First of all the facts remain buried and uncovered by closing the discussion without resolve. Secondly, we deny ourselves an opportunity to learn the facts without challenging the comments made. Third the exchange is left with the person’s last comment that may be false, leaving an erroneous impression.

It is reasonable to conclude that once someone has settled in this type of agreement or disagreement, they will no longer search for the truth of facts related to the discussion. This denies them an opportunity to research, investigate or inquire and examine the truth of the matter at hand.

In my opinion, although you might disagree with me, the use of ATD is a kind way to stop a debate and may have elements that resembles disrespectful or smug thinking. When you really think about it, using the ATD process you really accomplish two things: you avoid hearing or learning the truth or the facts involved and you know you have “rocked the boat.” It is likely that even this personal perspective or viewpoint is enough to agree to disagree.