Also, I have to dissent with respect to Chris' position. If you hold a position because of your religious views, while it is helpful to know, it effectively closes the debate. There's no point putting forward any views on the opposing side because, as you say, you'll never change your position, and there's no point you putting forward arguments because the other person obviously doesn't share your interpretation of the religion and that's what is central to your position. This doesn't take into account the fact that some people will take a criticism of their stance as a direct criticism of their beliefs and be terribly offended by it. I'm not saying you're wrong to hold those views, but it's something that I think should be avoided in debate for the reasons I gave.
I think that many of these forum debates aren't binary, more of a roundtable discussion. I think you can have a lively and interesting debate even without much chance of swaying the other from his position. Debate is an excellent tool for clairfying your own thoughts on various subjects. I may not have shifted my stance in major ways, but I have in minor. I have also learned many new things while searching this wonderful information hub hiding amongst the Noosphere.
|
I think that many of these forum debates aren't binary, more of a roundtable discussion.
I have to respectfully disagree. I have found that they start that way, but then there is a segment on the boards, tht consist of people on both sides of the ideological spectrum, that take over and it degenerats into trying to get the other side to give in and admit that their side is right. I think most of us know who those people are, and I have noted a direct corolation between when they enter a thread and when it devolves into a flame war.
I think most of us know who those people are, and I have noted a direct corolation between when they enter a thread and when it devolves into a flame war.
Yes, but I think that if you* refuse to rise to the bait, try to answer with a measured response instead of taking a more strident tone you take the 'high road'. Remember that the only way to thwart a troll is not to feed him.
Stick to your philospohical stand with calm and measured posts and your point will be much better received than the bleating partisan who will eventually be discounted.
If you do not want to intrude in a heated thread, but you have something to contribute, start your own thread. That was the whole point of this thread: Bringing up a point in the whole 'I miss' series that I felt needed to be addressed seeing the tone of some posts in the previous threads.
*The generic you, not you personally David.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also, I have to dissent with respect to Chris' position. If you hold a position because of your religious views, while it is helpful to know, it effectively closes the debate. There's no point putting forward any views on the opposing side because, as you say, you'll never change your position, and there's no point you putting forward arguments because the other person obviously doesn't share your interpretation of the religion and that's what is central to your position. This doesn't take into account the fact that some people will take a criticism of their stance as a direct criticism of their beliefs and be terribly offended by it. I'm not saying you're wrong to hold those views, but it's something that I think should be avoided in debate for the reasons I gave.
{As an aside, it is passing strange to have a string of comments, all signed by people using what passes as their real name...)
Paul, explaining the religious purpose behind a view doesn't close off discussion; it re-routes it. Instead of us all wondering: "I can't understand why FizzWidget is so up-in-arms about ethical treatment of animals", once FizzWidget admits to believing in a pantheistic reincarnation, and in particular that his deceased aunt came back as a spiny anteater, then we can address his concerns.
Those of us who share his beliefs may try to engage him on that level. --And that's a crucial engagement. For an incendiary example, if someone claims "I believe America must die because I'm a muslim," then it's critical that other muslims be able to say, "I don't understand that to be an Islamic position."
And those of us who do not share that faith should be able to ask whether its strictures ought to apply to us. And we'll never know to do that, unless the religious source of the position is made explicit.
And lastly, I don't want to make a distinction between a position I hold solely because of my faith, versus a position I hold that's consonant with my faith, even though I have other reasons to maintain it. I don't consider that a cut-and-dried distinction.
And who's to say I'll never change my mind on a faith-based position? I've done so several times in my life, but only because someone was willing to address the issue on the right level.
|
Whatever happened to the concept that people could hold differing views on political subjects but could still debate their differences in reasoned measured tones? And possibly come to a middle ground that might not totally satisfy either, but at least showed cooperation?
Whatever happened to respecting people of the opposite side's opinions? When did we get so polarized that politicians of both sides are demonized regularly by the supposed newsreporters of the day? When did the partisan pundits win?
ummm seriously? How about around 1820 and the Missouri Compromise? Eventually devolving into a war over something that should have been debated. The civil war didn't end in 1865, it just ceased formal hostilities. I can say that the Civil War is starting to come to a close now, and might be over in about another 100 years.
Bipartisanship ended before it began. It's a myth of American culture.
ummm seriously? How about around 1820 and the Missouri Compromise? Eventually devolving into a war over something that should have been debated. The civil war didn't end in 1865, it just ceased formal hostilities. I can say that the Civil War is starting to come to a close now, and might be over in about another 100 years.
Bipartisanship ended before it began. It's a myth of American culture.
If you believe that Krome, why even bother posting? If bipartisanship is a myth there's no point in airing your ideas, because the other side won't listen.
And the events leading up to the Civil War WERE debated. Ad Nauseum. From the framing of the Declaration of Independence to the firing on Ft. Sumter. It's when debate broke down that hostilities erupted. So yeah, there's two threads on this very forum going ATM discussing that little piece of unpleasantness, so the debate rages on.
If you close your mind to discussion and debate, then it doesn't work. That much is true. I'll also add to my above list of hot-button phrases: 'umm, seriously?' Not condusive to constructive debate, Krome, in fact it makes you sound very patronizing and snarky.
The more we marginalize and demonize the other side of debates, the less we listen to what they have to say. And that is OUR loss and OUR failing.
I agree. Oneof the first rulsof debat that I taught my students is that you always frame your argument from a "this is where I stand" position rather than a "this is where you stand" position. I do think it is okay to say "I see you saying this and this and doing this, is it safe to assume that you are coming from this position," because then you are asking the person to explain their position rather than telling them what there position is. The biggest thing I hate in debates however is when someone says, "I believe X" only to have one or more persons tell them "You say you are Republican/conservative/Democrat/liberal/etc. so you don't really believe that," or "it's safe to say you believe that, but do you really?" I take the position that, unless someone has proof that the person in question doesn't actually believe what they say, then I accept their statement of belief at face value.
I think you are on to something here David. I think that discussion works better when you define your own stances, rather than saying you know how the other person feels.