Posted by Long, Long Ago on 3/15/2006, 1:51 pm, in reply to "Public Discourse and the Lost Art of Discussion" We have all heard the labels: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, etc. but have you ever noticed the number of people who cannot discuss a public issue without using one of these labels? There appears to be a mind set among these people that an idea or an individual is good or evil by virtue of party affiliation. To me it is distressing that people use these labels rather than reasoned thought in making up their minds on an issue. It seems that some folks are willing to allow someone else do their thinking, or seem to want to avoid having to think. It is a frustration for me when I ask a question and get the answer along the lines of: “If it is my party that wants it, it is good, if it is your party that wants it, is bad.” That’s not a debate, and it certainly is not a substitute for a rational thought process. My objective is not to sway you to my way of thinking. My objective is to get a fair hearing for my point of view. So, with that goal in mind, here are a few ground rules that apply if you want to have a discussion with me. I won’t have a stroke if after reading this you decide against having a discussion with me. WE WILL EACH RECOGNIZE THE OTHER TO BE PERSONS OF HONOR. This is Biblical. We should always put the best construction on everything. Nobody is harmed if you think well of him or her. AN ANALYSIS OF AN ISSUE WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY DETAILED SUPPORT ACCREDITED TO QUALIFIED SOURCES. For example, an oncologist is not qualified as an ecology expert simply because of the “MD” behind his name. He may be an expert but his medical training in his specialty falls short of showing me his qualifications in ecology. AN EXPERT IS AN EXPERT BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERTISE, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL LEANINGS OR EVEN NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF HIS FORMAL EDUCATION. He is most certainly not an expert because of his celebrity. For example, we may be experiencing global warning but it isn’t so just because Barbara Streisand says it is. Remember, Barbara Streisand is one of those who said the caribou herds in Alaska would be destroyed because of the Alaska pipeline. In fact, the herds have grown, not declined since the pipeline was built. Calves that previously would have perished in bitterly cold weather now survive because of the warmth exuded by the pipeline. YOU MAY ESPOUSE YOUR OPINION AND I WILL LISTEN. It’s OK with me if you are passionate about your opinion, but your opinion remains an opinion until you put some facts behind it. If you make a claim and fail to support it with facts you shouldn’t be shocked if I am not convinced. YOU MAY NOT CALL ANYONE EVIL OR A LIAR UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT. These are terrible accusations to make. Once you have made such a claim everything comes to a standstill until you either prove or retract the claim. DEMONIZING A PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS DOES NOTHING TO PROVE A POINT. People are not evil simply because they disagree with you. To hold that a person is evil because of his political position suggests to me a distressing level of arrogance in you. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION IS JUST THAT. It certainly does not strengthen a position and says a lot about the person making the claim. If you believe you can prove a point by calling someone a name, you are wrong. ISSUES DO NOT HAVE POLITICAL LABELS OR PARTIES. For example, poverty is poverty, it it neither Republican or Demoncratic. If you cannot discuss an issue without using labels our conversation will be severely limited, and I will probably end it. WE WILL EACH RESPECT AND MAKE A SINCERE EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER’S POINTS OF VIEW. If you cannot state my point of view as well as I can, I can make the case that you don’t understand me. If you don’t understand me you can’t really know whether we agree. NEITHER OF US MAY DISMISS A SOURCE BECAUSE OF THE NAME OF AN AUTHOR OR THE PERIODICAL WHERE IT WAS PUBLISHED. An issue must be settled by the facts, not by personal biases for or against an author or a publication. Sometimes truth is found in the strangest places it you will but look for it. TRUTH IS NOT TRUTH SIMPLY BECAUSE AN “EXPERT” SAYS IT IS. We must accept that everyone can find an “expert” to support a position. Some so-called “experts” are often biased toward a final answer and often do not present a balanced argument for their position. We must make the experts support their position with facts. VOLUME AND INVECTIVE ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR LOGIC AND REASON. Neither plays very well with me. The louder an opponent gets, the more quiet I get. My silence does not mean you have won, it simply means I think you are incredibly rude. Either we have dispassionate debate or we stop trying to have a conversation. THERE ARE NO TRUMP CARDS. You may not slam-dunk me with an “indisputable” fact and sit there with a smug look on your face. That does not happen in a search for the truth among persons of honor. I won’t do that you, and you won’t do that to me. WHEN ASKED A QUESTION WE WILL EACH SEEK TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. We will not launch into a doctrinaire diatribe instead of answering the question. You insult me if you will not listen to my questions or give me a direct answer . I insult you if I don’t give you a direct answer. TRICK QUESTIONS HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS DISCUSSION. You won’t ask me “Have you stopped beating your wife?” and demand a yes or no answer. I won’t try to corner you with trick questions, and you will return the courtesy. As a matter of fact, I won’t try to corner you at all. I will only express my position and try to convince you to look at it with an open mind.
Conditions For Participating With Me In A Discussion of Current Events
© 2005 LLA Associates
Main Entry: dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
The definition of “discussion” which I choose to use is “consideration of a question in open debate.”
None of us are automatically good or automatically bad because of our political views. There is the possibility that your neighbor is a good person even if we don’t agree politically. The difficulty I have encountered is to try to get people to even discuss an issue without using any labels or without condemning or ridiculing other people.
THIS WILL NOT BE A CONTEST OF WITS. You do not “win” simply because you come up with some fact I have not heard before. Anyone can do that. If this is really a search for understanding I won’t do it to you, and you won’t do it to me..
Message Thread:
« Back to thread