Hi, spiral - "I happen to think that such enquiry is totally natural under the circumstances and that blind acceptance, leaves one well, blind."
Absolutely. Without question! Further, the ability to engage in that debate is fundamental to the democratic process.
But any proponent of responsible debate, of the process of argument, realizes that the process must have rules.
If, for instance, you make an argument for some point of view, and back it up with evidence, and the case is convincing, then you would (quite naturally) expect me to accept it - and if I was opposing it, to concede the point.
The concept of debate finds perhaps its highest expression in our courts, where the process is formalized.
At the beginning, and end of the case, lawyers are allowed to make wide-ranging statements in argument. Nowever, between arguments lies evidence: and there are strict rules about what constitutes "good" evidence: good evidence is scientific in its basis. (Do a search for law texts on evidence, and The Rules of Evidence.)
The whole process is governed by the rules of logic.
In the end, one must present a convincing combination of good evidence, supported by sound argument, which is predicated on good reasoning.
Now I am not suggesting that chatlines should be governed by such formality. But I find some of the outrageous statements that are offered (and accepted) fail even the most elementary tests of good reasoning, and what constitutes good evidence.
These things find their embodiment, for instance, in the Socratic and Platonic dialogues; centuries ago we knew how to evaluate the truth of an adversary's case.
Imagine the Monty Pythonesque result if our courts ran this way...
Judge: "If I understand your argument, counsel, you are saying your client is innocent of murder, by reason of a conspiracy."
Counsel: "Yes, your Lordship."
Judge: "And who are the conspirators?"
Counsel: "Well, that's a bit dodgy, your Lordship. It's a conspiracy, you see."
Judge: " Do you have any statements by these 'conspirators' against your client?"
Counsel: "Well, not exactly statements, but I have some newspaper articles that say some pretty nasty things about my client."
Judge: "Do you have any evidence of meetings or collusion between these parties to effect this murder?"
Counsel: "Well, I do have a list of places where they met. I don't really have any proof that they discussed my client. But everybody knows that they hated my client."
Judge: "I see. And do you have any proof of that?"
Counsel: "Well, I do have a witness who overheard a conversation in a bar, in which the subject was some office gossip...Not exactly proof your Lordship, but pretty suspicious, you'll see."
And on, and on... you get the idea.
_________________________________
The ability to spin a pretty phrase, an adroit and illogical shift away from the question (or answer), and do a conversational pirouette away from the issue gives many posters the ability to demonstrate a style that is all flash, and no substance. They reinforce this dazzling display with a patina of intellectual superiority, and indignant outrage at the foibles and mistakes of their leaders. They claim the moral High Ground, and sprinkle damnation on the heads of the lesser beings.
They are, in a sense, thread bullies, dazzled by their self-portrait of moral and intellectual ascendancy.
They are better than those they judge: those poor, stupid, corrupt, incompetent politicans (and by association, those who put them in power).
Yet, as I pointed out in my post, we often place our politicians in grey areas, with slippery edges. We sometimes ask them to reconcile hopelessly antagonistic positions. Our politicians are, like us, human, and fallible.
You can tell the Thread Stars, wielding the whip of indignant outrage, consistently, throughout their posting history. Their instant response is the putdown, the instant witticism that conceals the intellectual vacuity of their answer.
______________________________
I posted (emphasis added):
"Where America has gone wrong, she has not suffered for lack of criticism; nor should she."
There's a great number of posters, of whom you are one, who are attempting to deal with the questions in sincerity, and with a desire to become better informed.
Many of the questions that we are struggling with do not have an answer: at least, not a nice, clean obvious one.
In that sense, the thoughts posted here are a microcosm of our politicans' debates. But they must take these questions a step further: they must transmute them into policies and actions, that will have consequences.
Let's hope they don't have to probe for content in the narcissistic babble of Thread Stars. Above all, the debate should be responsible.
Best regards,
Jim |
