MQ: <<They don't use reason.>>
My father, who was a funny, wise man (at least in the abstract) used to playfully chastise me for ad hominem attacks when I started calling him (or his ideas) stupid (and worse) in the course of political discussions when I was a teenager. I have since (for the most part) reformed.
I am reminded of the definition of a conversation as having two parts: Talking, and waiting for the other person to stop talking. People have conversations for a variety of reasons though invariably, few are motivated by the desire to learn something. Most are motivated by the desire to defend their positions and build themselves up in their own minds (and the minds of others.).
It got me thinking about debates too. Winning a debate has little, often nothing, to do with having the smarter or more truthful positions. It has mostly to do with who debates more strategically. People use charisma, mockery, bluster, big lies, stamina, chicanery of all kinds... to win arguments. The big loser is usually the truth.
What to do? It reminds me of the old Chinese fortune cookie: Better to hold one's tongue and be thought a fool than to open it and prove it.
That would leave the world mighty quiet. Which might not be a bad thing. We could hear the birds sing...
Still, nobody forces me to come here to this thread. . I enjoy the jousting for the most part, getting to know the various characters. I always like a good joke. I have the sense that this is a pack of wise fellows (and gals) (and I do wish people would stop picking on CB Elaine).
But to sum up, I think of what Woody Allen said about God: The best you can say about Him is that he is an under-achiever. I think we also underachieve on this thread. The personal attacks are demeaning on both ends. Etc.
Sermon over. |
