11–20 of 66 posts
I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."
The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…
The author's merely pointing out the obvious - being emotional about complex issues is a childish and counter-productive thing to do.
Well, maybe that's not so obvious, but you know.
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…
As information, I had given up on your comment persuading me of anything before the first comma. It's really that easy.
If the fact that you disagrees with the first clause in an argument is enough for you to conclude the rest of the discussion is unable to make you change your opinion, I'd argue that is a much more significant barrier to open dialogue.
What I've learned after a lot of pain is that you can't convince anyone of anything. I've poured years of my life into shitty organizations to try to "fix" them and gotten nowhere. The people that disagree with you will find ways to slowly peel back all your achievements. In a badly run organization the problem isn't the outdated machines and processes or the shitty products. Those are symptoms of shitty people and m…
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…
The civil rights movement included winning court cases, getting laws passed, and convincing politicians that they should support it. It didn't happen at a barrel of a gun.
More recently, same-sex marriage happened by winning court cases and a lot of work to change public opinion.
It's way too soon to give up on persuasion. Don't support thuggery.
I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…
That's one point of view. Another might argue that MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest, say. Yet another might invoke Gandhi or Mandela.
Is civil disobedience a form of force? Yes, I suppose it is one of the possible meanings of 'force'.
However, if that is what you mean, then how is this opposed to being polite and understanding?
Compare your statement of "dragging people kicking and screaming" to MLK's attitude[1]:
> The decision prompted King to write, in a statement, that though he believed the Supreme Court decision set a dangerous precedent, he would accept the consequences willingly. "Our purpose when practicing civil disobedience is to call attention to the injustice or to an unjust law which we seek to change," he wrote—and going to jail, and eloquently explaining why, would do just that.
Or even to Lincoln's[2] (who wrote this at a time when victory in the war was pretty certain):
> With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Your error is in assuming that being polite and understanding means you are to apply exactly no pressure of any kind in furthering your goals. It is not so. Non-violent protest and even self-defense can be done either politely just as well as adversarially. If you ask me, Lincoln waged war yet was more understanding of his enemies than many civil protesters are today.
[1] http://time.com/3773914/mlk-birmingham-jail/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_second_ina...
The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…
But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.