Should there be any problem in converting people to your ideology?

But would it not be better to give them the facts of the new idea and let them draw their own conclusions rather than forcing them to accept something that may not agree with their own values. I think society as a whole would benefit more from lessons learned than lessons forced.

Even if an ideology is to be forced on him still it is right as long as the society will benefit on the process.

I think as the society debates and discusses ideas people normally choose for the right and better one. Unless one is mad we don't reject ideas which are rational and good. But ideological discourses are not simple; there are other factors that shape ideological movements. But whatever I am of the view that conversion must be brought about through debates and discussions in public square.

Sometimes it's easy, I would say, to convert people to my ideology if the other person sees the rationale behind my position. The rationale, however, could be misguided one too. Sometime it could be the right one; other times it could be because we have not really seen the bigger picture and so we thought we are in the right tract when we actually are not. But unless there is this provision for people to convert and change position people will not learn. Freedom of ideas include freedom to choose or reject an idea as the person see fit when ideas are debated in public square. To stifle such debate because we are scared of conversion is, I think, unfortunate.

But I never mentioned about forcefully changing other opinion. Teaching children is one thing; but what about teaching adult? After all adults also need to be taught and therefore change in different areas of life. Don't they?

I think if conversion is through deception then it's bad. But I think the word 'conversion' has both negative and positive connotation. Deceptive scheming is negative but teaching without imposing one's opinion is positive conversion. Regarding religion being the biggest offender, I am not sure if I could agree. There is definitely conversion in religious life, but I have my doubt if it's deception. I thought so because the devotees may be honestly wrong about their belief. But if that's the case then their conversion activities should not be termed as deception because they just did not know. Deception is knowingly deceiving others, I guess. I think in religion they share their belief to others thinking their opinion is right. Whether it's actually right or otherwise is totally a different matter though!

It's quite possible that there are more of this kind. It's rather good, however, that there is a possibility for people to choose. I would be sad if people are forced to remain as they are or rather forced to choose change. I think the choice should be left open. And once that choice is made possible people will convert!

I agree that forceful conversion of any political, religious, philosophical etc view should never be done. But whether one intends to convert or not, debate and persuasion of each other has to be there. I thought so because unless one does that there would not be intellectual growth.

We agree to a great extent. And we should continue to provide and protect platform where people can freely debate on ideas, whatever kind of idea it is. Be it political, religious, economic, social etc and whatever people choose to opt for they should be given the choice. That's what freedom is.

I have a slightly different take here though I have points of agreement with you. I think ideas that are being marketed have all merits. None of the ideas have only demerits. If any idea be it political or philosophical or religious or economic etc have only negative no one would buy it; in fact no mind would even try to conceive such ideology where only demerits and negative ideas are there. Ideologies are generally mixed. And we choose the one that has more of good ideas. Regarding religious ideas it's not like one has B.Sc and the other is about B.Com. It's B.Sc vis-a-vis B.Sc, because all religious ideas try to answer similar kind of human experiences and questions. The issue which syllabus offer better answer. And it's not that one syllabus has all the correct answers and other one all wrong ones. For example, Islam will not say that it has all the right answers and other religions have all the wrong answers. It will say that it has all the right answers, but other religions also have many right answers but not all. That's the way Christianity also says. For example, one religious says there is no God, whereas other one affirms it. So the point here is which one is right. Both cannot be true here. But both of them may teach love and kindness etc. It's just that at one point one will be wrong.

You've brought a very crucial point to table aidorm. We shouldnt have herd mentality. We should be dynamic in accepting and rejecting, thereby moving ahead, rather than accept things imposed on us by force, fear, or faith. Whatever we accept should be accepted because of reason and merits. There is another aspect to this, what may seem good today, may seem terribly odd a few 100 years later. So there is nothing wrong and there is nothing right, in true sense of word. Time, context, and the person's frame of mine change the right and wrong. So I think it is nice to have diverse natures, because something that strikes another person, may not strike me. I shouldnt get away with imposing my way of thinking because of my ego. :)

Sometimes ideologies doesn't come out right. There are times where some people's conception of a certain fact or issue isn't usually right. For example, the Ideology of Hilter in cleansing the world from the Jew. No matter how we twist his ideology it is still blatantly wrong and even if we look it at every angle, still it will not be ok. That's why we can not make a conclusion that no single idea is wrong. There are ideas out there which do not have any value or relevance in our society. Thus, it is safe to conclude that it is only right for some people be converted to another Ideology.