you called people HOSTILE you didn't say you felt such and such statement was hostile
Quite frankly, Howard, if you had responded to statements I made that you didnt' care for as opposed to attacking me personally - if you responded specifically to statements that I made as opposed to generalizing what you thought I meant, this little "misunderstanding" (which I take to mean as you attacked me personally under false pretences) never would have happened. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 8:32 AM Subject: RE: The Art Of Debate. > No, what I'm trying to say, I should be able to characterize a statement. > Characterizing a statement is not necessarily characterizing a person, or > criticizing a person. > > Take the Rumsfeld thread the other day -- to say that his praise of German > tactics was a praise of the Nazi's was, while inaccurate, not necessarily an > attack on Rumsfeld. But if you called him a Nazi because of his statement, > not only would it be inaccurate, it would be unfair. > > Part of the art of debate, which I think we both fell short on recently, is > not misunderstanding the other person and not drawing inference of personal > attack where there is none. A very dicey thing in e-mail communication. > > I'm not at all saying I was any where near to perfect in this regard at any > point in our discussion, just trying to clarify what I think on this > subject. > > H. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 9:08 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: The Art Of Debate. > > > 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 > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
