If you think about it, philosophy is the ideology of examining the thought process. If we were to postulate that someone's belief may not be inline with our own, but not directly attack something, would it not be possible to construe the matter to the point of attacking the thought process itself?
For instance, let us take two persons, of which have their own system of beliefs, where the first person believes that grass should be cut at a certain angle from either the street or the building residing on the lot, and the latter thinks the whole idea is preposterous. However, instead of trying to attack the way of doing things for the first person, the latter suggests to the first that they just try to cut in a different direction, to see if there is a better cutting angle for grass.
Now, at this junction, two possibilities exist:
A) The first person decides to go ahead with the experiment, and randomly chooses, or if put forth, uses the angle provided by the latter person, to determine if such an angle produces a better looking field of grass.
B) The first person decides not to proceed with the experiment.
In
A) The first person's philosophy of cutting grass is getting second guessed. Therefore, the experiment was carried out to determine the better cutting angle.
B) The latter person's philosophy of cutting grass is getting challenged. Their idea has been rejected.
I do not know if I am reading way into this or not, but in each scenario, both philosophies are being attacked, whether directly or indirectly.
