From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 22:04:16 MST
Hal writes
> From the rhetorical perspective, moving to questions of coercion hurts the
> process of discussion. People become defensive and accusatory. Some are
> afraid their rights will be taken away by force. Others are worried
> that they will be compelled to allow criminal injustice to go unanswered.
A novel idea!
> I would encourage people to step back from the question of what should be
> allowed and to try to focus the discourse on questions of what personal
> actions we would choose in various circumstances. Life is not easy,
> there are many hard questions facing all of us.
I'm game. (For a while, at least ;-)
> Building up the positions and arguments given by others should happen as
> often as tearing them down. People should present arguments on both sides
> of every issue!
I think you are positively dreaming here---but I would be
very happy to be wrong. I'll will follow suit.
> I would encourage debaters to write a posting making the best arguments
> they can for the position in some dispute which they think is weaker. Do
> it as a test of your intellectual integrity and argumentative abilities.
> Don't undercut your posting by saying that you don't really believe it,
> because that is your ideology riding you. It is kicking in the spurs
> and tightening the leash around your neck, afraid you might escape its
> mastery. Make the arguments be true and honest and consistent. You don't
> have any need to apologize for speaking the truth, even if you believe
> that on balance there are opposing arguments that are more persuasive.
> Anyone who participated in competitive debate in school knows that you have
> to be able to argue both sides equally well. It is a good exercise for
> seeing issues clearly, uncontaminated by ego and ideology.
>
> Hal
Quite interesting.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST