posted
I see tern and that's fine. I respect your desire not to do it. I really didn't mean for you to rewrite the entire essay, simply the two or three concepts in which you felt insulted but which could also be alternately interpreted. I was essentially hoping that you would go through this process so that you would see how the alternate wording would affect you. Posting it is unnecessary.
My goal has been to try and bridge the places from which we find ourselves. I think that there has been fantastic dialog here in the Hatrack community and for me, in my life, it's unique. I very much hope it continues. I know (from the Transformation of Beliefs thread) that many of us have grown as a result of these discussions. There is one aspect [though] that seems to derail the dialog and the debates. It's a singular focus on the conveyance of an idea. It's this focus that seems to dampen the discussion and any debate of the material points.
The spirit of debate is essentially what I'm speaking of. When an essay is put forth, parts of the essay will hold important pieces for us to analyze, parts of the essay may cause us to feel insulted and in some parts of the essay we may find ourselves in complete alignment. I submit, the statements in question do get some people's dander up. However, isn't this the spirit of debate. In the "Transformation of Beliefs" thread it was clear to me that in order for people to make changes to their beliefs it was essential that they have a jarring experience.
I further submit, it is essential that people open themselves up if in fact they are to make changes to their belief system. If the concepts behind the statements in question were made using words which didn't challenge anyone would most people really pay attention? Honestly, I don't think so. Just take a cursory look at the threads. One thing is very clear. When there is opposition (or complete agreement however that's not pertinent here), there is a debate, a lengthy, heated debate which goes on for pages. And these topics grow very quickly. Just look at the Relax thread for example.
I think that, in the spirit of debate, we need to evoke in the opposition their passion on a subject or else there is no debate. Furthermore, isn't it true that when someone reacts strongly to a topic that they will in fact take time and effort to analyze what they feel and think?
I posit that when someone [reacts] strongly to something they then have something they need to understand within themselves. We need to explore that and uncover what it is because, and I firmly believe this, people who are sure of and comfortable within their own mind, body and soul will not be insulted by anyone's generic comments.
The act of focusing on a couple of the statements which may be interpreted as insulting is anemic to the debate. Just as anemic to the debate as soft speaking every point in the essay. I assert, that the act of pouncing on a couple of statements, in fact, does more to dampen the spirit of debate then the very statements some find to be insulting. For example, if we looked at the following:
There was man driving a sports car very fast down a small side street . A large dog ran in front of the car and the man swerved to avoid the dog. The man lost control of the vehicle and the car careened as it smashed into the corner of a building and burst into flames.
Now a pedestrian stands in front of the burning vehicle frantically waving his arms and shouting "Wow! Did you see that big dog!"
We can easily see this misses the entire point of the event. I believe that redirecting the thread to be about interpreted insults is tantamount to derailing the debate. Instead of the participants expressing their ideas and concepts they have already been led down a decided path, one that some have well thought through and ultimately rob the participants of their own experience.
I used to believe that SSM were about two people of the same sex getting married. Now I know that SSM is about the community at large, not just the people getting married. My eyes have been opened and I'm very thankful for that knowledge because I believe we all benefit when we know and understand more, when we are all more enlightened. If the thread which talked about SSM instead focused on a statement which some found insulting I am sure I would still be in the dark. If anyone feels jarred by something they've read, why not construct an opposing essay in response, in hopes of enlightening the world?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that, in the spirit of debate, we need to evoke in the opposition their passion on a subject or else there is no debate.
I think you write here an erudite defense of trolling. What is the distinction between "evoking passion" and "insulting?" Is it the motive behind the act, or is it the way the reader chooses to interpret the words? (And if the reader is capable of making that choice, has passion really been evoked?)
I want to clarify that I don't disagree with the basic premise: that essential to the act of persuasion is engagement of the reader. I'm uncomfortable, though, with the subtext I'm reading into what you've said.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the distinction between "evoking passion" and "insulting?" Is it the motive behind the act, or is it the way the reader chooses to interpret the words?
Both.
quote: (And if the reader is capable of making that choice, has passion really been evoked?)
For some yes, for others no. Doesn't it depend if they have questions in their own mind about what is being debated? Especially questions which they may not yet have, until that very moment, even realized they had.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem I'm having here is the default assumption that the primary purpose of discussion, even debate, is persuasion, and that therefore persuasion at all costs is a valuable goal in and of itself. Am I correctly interpreting you on this one?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the problem I'm having here is the default assumption that the primary purpose of discussion, even debate, is persuasion, and that therefore persuasion at all costs is a valuable goal in and of itself. Am I correctly interpreting you on this one?
The primary purpose of debating, not discussion in general, IMO, is for people to seriously consider the topic at hand. So seriously that it challenges their beliefs. This will make them either change their beliefs or it will make their beliefs even stronger and most importantly they will know why they think and feel a particular way. Why they believe what they believe. The people who go through this process will have improved their integrity. Vis-à-vis people who fail to go through this internal debate will not have improved integrity.
Then when posed with a similar statement which may be interpreted as an insult, those who have the improved integrity will be able to say "Nope, that's not me." because they know full well, intellectually and emotionally, why it's not them. The words no longer hold any power against them.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, people, cut the man some slack. If every post I wrote was dissected, argued about, re-dissected, chemically analyzed, poked, prodded, and finally converted to a field for open nuclear warfare, I'd never post *anything* here.
Yes, this part was poorly phrased. I misunderstood it myself:
quote:I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
Oh well. We're talking about a post here, not the fourth draft of a master's thesis. He made a phrasing mistake. Give him the benefit of the doubt. This could have been kindly pointed out, as in "Some people might take this to mean...." And we could all perhaps lighten up a bit. I find that giving the benefit of the doubt can do wonders, even in those cases where it isn't necessarily deserved. And Card, I think, deserves it.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tim: (snip) I used to believe that SSM were about two people of the same sex getting married. Now I know that SSM is about the community at large, not just the people getting married. My eyes have been opened and I'm very thankful for that knowledge because I believe we all benefit when we know and understand more, when we are all more enlightened. If the thread which talked about SSM instead focused on a statement which some found insulting I am sure I would still be in the dark. If anyone feels jarred by something they've read, why not construct an opposing essay in response, in hopes of enlightening the world?
I assume you are talking about a previous thread here about SSM - do you have a link for that specific discussion? I'm new here and I am curious about what has been said in the past and the conclusions reached, if any.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, as a newbie I found this thread very interesting. I came over from Ornery.
My two cents worth:
The hardest part of this thread was the personal dialog between old adversaries. That added nothing to the discussion and was difficult to slog through in looking for the meat of the debate.
Otherwise, thanks for the brain food.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *beats head against wall* Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I've said it three times now: I consider it enormously offensive to rewrite someone else's words for them. It's quite possibly the most offensive thing I can imagine doing to a writer.
If you're really, really desperate to hear how I would have made the same points that OSC made, contact me via email and I'll drop you something. Privately. But I'm baffled that anyone would believe that this would be acceptable.
It's not like you're rewriting Ender's Game.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
