Now i realize that most of you reading this are going to say to yourselves "well no kidding". If you find yourself saying that - then please
realize- this post isnt aimed at you
If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve our freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be
informed on the issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with alternative points of view.
The history of the development of civilization can be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies, there must be public
debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to some extent in this country.
However, we seem to have lost awareness of the importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second sound bite has created the
illusion that the important issues are all brief and cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public consciousness.
One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With all
this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.....[truncated]
source
please visit the link for the entire article. Its a VERY good read
I find this to be the most important part:
However, we seem to have lost awareness of the importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second sound bite has created
the illusion that the important issues are all brief and cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public consciousness.
and from the article its self, i really think this most applies to the decision 2008 forums:
Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or
religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem.
Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified
are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself.
There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters
presumably have some effect on his own life style.
It is unlikely that in an argument over the existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it would be easier to keep
attention centered on the problem itself than if the argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or conservative position was
preferrable in a political debate.
A suggested solution is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and
that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck
because ..."
A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:
- Liberal!
- Tax and spend!
- Conservative!
- Politically correct!
(The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
- All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or religions
- Baby killer!
- Socialist!
- Hippy!
- Fascist!
- Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument
(from the originally linked source)
In closing - and after much "soul searching" i've finally realized the over lying point of the many threads that complain about the problems we
face on the decision 2008 forums.
I've realized from this article that i share, that i too, was a big part of the problem, if nothing more than from the emotionalism aspect of things
I've learned much from this article, and hope that the rest of you (whom this is aimed at) could learn as well.
I propose that we all
Take the pledge (far too many have refused)
and we all realize the importance of denying ignorance. Especially when it relates to
The
Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses
Comments?
[edit on 8/19/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]
