Comments on: Sense and civility

By: Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen

Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:27 +0000

Ivo, thanks for the response. The point I am trying to make is that you, not only have to understand the other persons positions, but that the contest for ideas some ideas win and others do not. In fact, it is a staple of trade union education to role play the bosses position. Thanks for an interesting post.

By: BenzoL

BenzoL — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:00:55 +0000

very philosophical indeed. Like it but not through my keyboard )

By: Ivo Vegter

Ivo Vegter — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:53:34 +0000

@ Ebrahim: Sure, I value people who can take a firm stand too. The point, however, is to read the qualifiers and caveats and not make unfounded assumptions about the person presenting the argument.

When someone starts by qualifying: “This is the argument I believe X was trying to make”, one can surely have a discussion about the merits of that debate without being accused of accepting its most extreme and one-sided version? Or when you say, “There is an interesting argument that X, because Y,” one can surely debate its merits without necessarily accepting it?

In fact, it’s a long tradition in debating societies that sides in an argument are arbitrarily assigned. You get to defend whichever side you draw, whether you agree or not. Your conviction, after all, is entirely irrelevant to the validity of an argument.

And even when someone does state their conviction, it seems more productive to argue the merits of the case if you disagree than to resort to schoolyard insults, moral outrage or simplistic labels.

@ Positive: That’s an excellent name for a blog, but only because of the similarity (and implied reference) to “diabolical”.

By: Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen

Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:42:59 +0000

Ivo writes “it does not improve the quality of discussion, on a blog or anywhere else, to assume that those who present an argument for debate necessarily accept it”. I would hope that people entering into public debate believe what they are saying, and get organised to convince society. Simply making a debate for the sake of controversy is fine, as it might just get us thinking. However, in the battle of ideas and of how our society develops, intellect without conviction, is simply not enough.

By: Rory Short

Rory Short — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:55:53 +0000

Ivo good post!

In any social context there are many elements some useful elements and some not so useful elements and some downright destructive elements. We need to recognise that and then seek to identify the useful elements in any situation and support them.

By: Positive

Positive — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:03:17 +0000

It is a pleasant change to follow mature reasoning and appreciation of arguments put forward, with no personal attacks or shallow, cheap shots. We are getting into dialogue mode here. How about changing blog to diablogue?

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:52:35 +0000

Nobody agrees with a position they KNOW to be wrong. You agree with it if you know it’s right.

And if you don’t quite know it’s right, but think that it might just possibly be, pending further investigation, you’ll reserve your judgement until you DO know for sure.

Then it IS right. No ifs, buts and maybes.

However, someone else may be equally convinced that it (whatever that is) is WRONG.

That person is wrong of course. He has to be, if you are right.

By: Alisdair budd

Alisdair budd — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:10:59 +0000

Unfortunately these days argumentation is usually used to deny reality or “prove” unreal propositions. In a psychotic construction of fantastical propositions disguised as logical progression.

Such as “Zimbabwe had a free and fair election.” or “Madonna didn’t buy her baby from Malawi.”

The length of argument usually depending on how much money you have to pay someone else to put up with it, or how desperate you are not to give in and admit you have made a mistake or are lying.

By: Icarus

Icarus — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:23:04 +0000

OK, so you _can_ have your cake and eat it.

Or simultaneously agree and disagree with a position.

But that still doesn’t make it right, or wrong.

By: Brent

Brent — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:30:42 +0000

Good article and wellreasoned, start on a high plane an dmos tpeople follow at that level and hopefully som eexceed it.

We need to learn to judge and comment on the message not judge on who the messenger is striving to do and say the right thing not the good correct thing

Brent