No, you are missing my point ENTIRELY. The conclusion C that you can draw isnt' about the person who said A, its about A. You drew the conclusion that I must be C because I said A.
Kill the message not the messenger. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:40 AM Subject: RE: The Art Of Debate. > You don't know how many times I've made the same points when settling > disputes on lists I run (I've run several). > > However, I do want to draw one distinction -- in my own defense, since I'm > the example here -- If you say A and B, and I say that means C and C isn't, > um, totally nice, I think I have a right to say that without violating the > spirit of what you're talking about. In the example of our debate, I > consider denying rights to a person to be a hostile act. I did not intend -- > though that is what it wound up becoming, unfortunately -- an attack on you. > I was trying to make the point, initially, that all should be treated > equally. > > So, while I agree that this stuff should never become personal (one of my > cardinal rules, which I violated in this case), I do want to clarify that > what I meant to say wasn't exactly how it came across, but that doesn't > negate the validity of trying to communicate such things. > > The important thing is to try not to carry grudges, I think, from one debate > to another. Because misunderstandings, especially in a topic free > environment, are inevitable. > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:26 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: The Art Of Debate. > > > You know I just had a revelation about every argument that goes bad here on > this group - including this one - and I wanted to point it out to the group > because I know that it will happen again. > > Howard, I am going to use our discussion as an example because its fresh in > my mind and I am going to exagerate for the purposes of example, sorry if > thats harsh to you. I will be using other examples as well, so don't worry. > > A discussion about politics about principals about religion is a discussion > about those things. When one has an opinion about that or discusses an > opinion about it, its just an opinion. It should be responded to like its > an opinion, debated, discussed and argued against, for. However, this > opinion doesn't really tell you one thing about the person who has it. > Well, it does tell you one thing - it tells you that they have an opinion > about this subject. > > So, when I say I think having a school club that is religious is a violation > of church and state this may piss howard off, and he may feel inside that I > am a horrible prejudiced person (exageration - no offense intended, just > illustration) because of it. Thats his opinion too, but it doesnt' really > have any place in the discussion. What does have a place in the discussion > is why he thinks this isn't a violation of church and state, perhaps giving > examples of when there would be a violation of someones rights. And we can > debate the fine points until we are blue in the face and maybe learn to see > each others points of view a bit better...or maybe not. > > Instead, what happens often on this list is when someone gets an opinion > about me (based on my opinion) he decides to voice his opinion about me, > instead of discussing his opinion about the discussion. It turns into a > personal attack. I realize its because somehow that this person felt > personally attacked because his opinions were being attached, but quite > frankly he does himself and his opinion a great disservice by making the > argument personal. Opinions are not people - they are simply opinions. If > you want to convince me (and others) that my opinion is prejudiced and > bigoted the last way to do it is to call me prejudiced and bigoted. Better > to say, "well gee, i think your opinion is kind of bigoted and prejudice" > and then explain why. THIS is how we have constructive and interesting > discussions that can really change people's minds. > > Once someone is personally attacked and things are said about them instead > of their opinions then things go downhill quickly. Its one of the few time > I lose my temper (and its the reason I called Corrigan a schmuck ;-) ) - > once someone attacks me personally the opinion discussion ceases and it > turns into self defense and parry. I also tend to defend others when folks > attack them instead of their opinion. Despite the evidence to the > contrary, I DO NOT ENJOY THIS AT ALL. I do not. I am however, extremely > hung up on principle (i have to laugh, I just typed principal) and I cannot > let what I consider injustice drop. > > Another example I can think of was someone said something to the effect that > anyone who supported the war in afghanistan was a war monger and wanted to > kill all the women and children there - this really pissed me off because > once again it attacked the person and their morals instead of arguing the > point on hand. > > So if all of us could attempt to discuss our feelings about things instead > of discussing our feelings about each other, this would be a much nicer > place to argue. > > > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
