One of the most frustrating things in the world to me is the inability or refusal of some people to see or to admit that there are reasonable arguments for both sides of any major controversy. I can't stand it when someone insists that they are "obviously" correct, and says that they can't see any way anybody could reasonably disagree with them.
The way I see it, people are pretty smart, as a rule. Whenever there is an issue with two dedicated, well-represented opposing points of view, I figure that there have to be good arguments on both sides. Otherwise, almost everybody would soon gravitate to the side with the only good arguments. That is, if your point of view is "obviously" correct, then, by definition, almost everybody will accept your point of view. If not, how can it be obvious?
I have felt very frustrated by several statements I've read on hatrack recently that show that some people here truly can't see any reasonable arguments supporting the position that opposes the one they hold. When you take this stand, you are essentially saying that you are "obviously" right, and you are also saying that those that hold the opposite opinion are either stupid, uneducated or dishonest. This is insulting, and I believe it cannot be true of any widely-held opinion.
Politicians are the worst at this. All of their rhetoric is full of assertions that their positions are "obviously" correct, and none of them are willing to admit that their opponents could possibly have thought out their positions, or that they are being honest about them.
When you hold a firm opinion on a controversial issue, are you able to articulate and understand the argument(s) on the other side? Do you think doing so is an admission of doubt or lack of confidence in or dedication to your own position?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't see how anyone could disagree with your post.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry. I had to say that.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Yes, UULG. You're obviously right. :)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I like to think I don't go down this path very often. I put a lot of effort into not being an ideologue, because as much as I enjoy them I have a great dislike of pretty arguments.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This has frustrated me to the point of considering starting my own popular philosophy movement called, "The Third Way."
Its prime belief, when forced to choose between two paths, always take the third way.
The Third Way is found by listening to what both sides have to say, determining what their arguments are, wade through the name calling and bitterness, and find which path answers both sides.
When some one demands, "You are either with us or against us." you respond, "No, I'm taking the third way."
For example, the question of the movie "Passion of Christ."
I listened to both sides, those who sought to save Mel Gibson's right to religious expression, and those who feared and those who feared the lunatic fringe would abuse this movie to cause violence.
I think the third way was the path taken, to bring this issue out into the open and make sure there was plenty of discussion about how wrong such an abuse of Christ's story is, while not forcing Mel Gibson's religious statement to be watered down by those fears.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
On the one hand, there are the conservatives. On the other hand, there are the liberals. On the gripping hand, there's Dan.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hey, AVR, Get a grip.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
All right. How's that? . . . . . . . PS: AVR? Something to do with audio/visual recording equipment?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:The Third Way is found by listening to what both sides have to say, determining what their arguments are, wade through the name calling and bitterness, and find which path answers both sides.
This is exactly why I admire your responses on many of the controversial posts, Dan - you do try to see and respond to both sides. Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I disagree completely, UoULG.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:When you hold a firm opinion on a controversial issue, are you able to articulate and understand the argument(s) on the other side? Do you think doing so is an admission of doubt or lack of confidence in or dedication to your own position?
Absolutely. How can I argue my side if I don't understand the other side. This is why I don't understand why people who are Biblical creationists often don't want their children learning evolutionary theory. How can they know what they believe if they don't know the facts of what they are denying? And the opposite is true, too - I've come across evolutionists who don't want their kids learning anything about the positions of creationists; I don't think evolutionists can deny creationist arguments without correctly understanding what those arguments are. (Oops. That'll probably open a whole new can of worms. But that's my example and I'm sticking to it. )
And no, I don't think being able to articulate the other side (sides) of an argument means that I don't hold my own opinions firmly enough. I just means that I understand what those who disagree with me are saying. I certainly don't think that acknowledging that there is another side (reasonable or not) to an issue means that I don't hold my opinion sincerely and firmly.
[ February 26, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Whenever there is an issue with two dedicated, well-represented opposing points of view, I figure that there have to be good arguments on both sides. Otherwise, almost everybody would soon gravitate to the side with the only good arguments.
Um... like the Civil War?
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Um..both sides in the civil war had good arguments.
[edit: the civil war is over]
[ February 27, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That's true. I mean, if I had a source of unlimited free labor, I would not give it up so easily either.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Yeah I mean the destruction of your entire way of life is certainly nothing get concerned about.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Yeah, but you really should try to see things from their point of view. Their ruthless exploitation of of others, um, I mean their "way of life," is certainly worth defending.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
And it's not like a great majority of Southern people's (75%) ways of life wouldn't have changed because they didn't own slaves.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Ah, but you see, it is the "principle" of the thing. It does not matter whether freeing slaves would practically impact the poor Southern farmers, the important thing is that admitting Black people are human will somehow cheapen the meaning of being human.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And there was absolutely no other reason for southerners to fight besides slavery. The Civil War had nothing to do with any other issue.
Come on. You're trying to pain southerners with the broad brush of bigotry and the vast majority of them didn't feel that way. Quite a few Confederates were outspoken about the fact that they opposed slavery, but fought anyway for other reasons. Beren, I know you know better than this.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Beren- while slavery was clearly the most important issue, it certainly was not the only one. Things that many of us take for granted today, like the idea that the federal government has a right to regulate the states, were not a given back then.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I was taught in history class that
1. RRR is correct, most Southern Whites did not own slaves.
2. Southern Whites did not hate their slaves. Before the slave revolts, Southern Whites believed that slaves were inferior beings they can exploit for labor, but at the same time, they see their slaves "benefiting" from the system because the Whites were civilizing them.
The White yeomen and indentured farmers sided with the plantation owners because the oppression of Blacks kept them one level higher on the totem pole. Damn, I wish I had my copy of McCurry with me.
Edited to add:
Oh wait, this book reviewer explained it much better than I did:
quote:As masters, albeit of small farms and families rather than plantations and slaves, yeoman farmers controlled their small worlds and their dependents just as the planters did theirs. As threats to slavery loomed, planter politicians developed a rhetoric of mastery that could be made to include non-slaveholders as well. Students of antebellum proslavery rhetoric will be familiar with the use of the family metaphor to describe slavery: slaves were family, they were depen dent, and so were women and children, and to strike at slavery was to strike at -- shall I say it? family values. Proslavery rhetoric frequently tied abolitionism together with feminism as challenges to the God-ordained authority of white men. McCurry makes it clear that this rhetoric was pitched to yeoman farmers, to whom the meaning was clear: an end to slavery meant an end to the privileges of the master for them as well as for their planter neighbors.
McCurry isn't necessarily right. If you have other points of view I would be interesting in hearing them.
[ February 28, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
As for the State's Right issue, I would have to agree that, if you examined the South's argument independently of its consequences for Black people, a lot of the South's arguments sound like a sensible distrust of the fedearl government. But is it possible to separate the States' Rights argument from slavery when the exploitation of Blacks is the main right they were looking to protect?
In 1956, in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown I, 19 Senators and 77 House Members from the former Confederate states signed the “Southern Manifesto,” promising resistance to the federal government on desegregation.
This document is filled with noble sounding language like:
quote: The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law...
We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.
The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States....
It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the "separate but equal" principle is "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment."
This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, traditions, and way of life. It is founded on elemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children....
This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding....
We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means....
In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrain from disorder and lawless acts.
This is a great piece of writing, and it had me pretty convinced of their position until I reminded myself that the "way of life" they want to defend involves treating Blacks like second-class citizens.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*Hands Beren a cardboard box, an exacto knife, some lightly steamed asparagus and a promise of a chocolate chip cookie for later if he only promises to breathe deeply and become one with the universe again* . . . . . . . Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Hey, I'm not Hagrid's Fluffy! You can't sooth me with your cooki...
OK, maybe you can. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*Chuckles before heading off to dreamland.*
I spend a large part of my day working with social justice issues - I understand, I really do.
I wish we could all feel confident enough in our beliefs, faith, ideas (whatever you want to call it) that we would not feel inclined to tear down the other person for the sake of our safety/security.
[Edited to say: I was NOT pointing fingers at anyone - just musing in a general sort of way.] Ah well - pipe dreams, indeed, I suppose.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)