Civil Discussion

I blame a lot of it on the deteriorating educational system. 70 years ago in a 1 room school house with no running water or central heat and out door toilets, we were taught "debate" and introduced to it at the 3 rd grade level. We were given a subject, prepared for it, and until we stood up, didn't know which side we were to defend. I don't know about anyone else, but it influenced the way I view the topics that occur in life. The subjects we were taught were based on the classics, and though my grand father said they were dumbed down, we read the translations and not the Latin, much of our education was at least based on literature and poetry. Everyone I knew as a child had a common educational viewpoint and while there were vigorous political and other arguments, they were civil. I will admit that the education I received was "white European based" and was defined by the scores you achieved on your work and what you were taught and how far you went was based on your abilities, not the lowest common denominator. I got hooked on Frost, Whitman, Longfellow, etc in about the 4 th grade and never looked back. I saw a Moslem black woman activist screaming on tv today about how horrible things were in the US and how we had to change our culture and all I could think of was how well she would have fared as a Christian woman speaking like that in Mecca, the religious center of her religion. Couldn't happen, only true believers are allowed to enter Mecca and if the mob doesn't stone you for blasphemy, you will be immediately deported.

 

Many of the rules of Civil Conversation are already obsolete when typing. One must allow another to finish a complete discourse without interruption. Even Bold Italics aren't any louder than normal type. It is rather easy to stick to the point of debate (or relevant subsequent affects), without name calling etc... The most difficult part of internet communication is relaying the message in a manor that allows the reader to perceive/comprehend what you are attempting to debate.
When it comes to face to face conversation: I once had a woman screaming at me that she had the right to freedom of speech and could use any words at any level of volume because it was a Constitutional Right! So I very softly explained to her that I had the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Suddenly the entire conversation became Civil. Wonder why?

 

Actions have always spoke louder than words. JMHO.

 

Sometimes I think people do not know the meaning of civil. Often I wonder if the definition has changed. Like other words, with time they change. My Grandma use to say people were gay. She meant they were happy but try calling someone gay today, it may not go over as a compliment. She also used to say the neighbor kid was queer acting but she just meant strange. Civil discourse is an old fashion term. So saying both sides need to want to be civil, one must understand what civil means.

 

"We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it." - by Captain Ramsey, "Crimson Tide" (1995)

 

Seems like to many people, for whatever reason, are trying to put lipstick on a pig, it doesn't make the pig any prettier and the pig may not like it. I find that the facts do not support many of the proposals being made and when I try to ask for information to find the errors in my reasoning, I am called all kinds of names and attacked, but receive no information.

 

I have run online forums for many years. This one is one of the more open, freedom of speech forums I have had the pleasure of being a part of. Still, I feel people sometimes cross the line in things they post. Since becoming a member here, there has only been one member, whom I have had any extended issues with. Aside from that, I would like to think I get along, pretty well, with everyone.

On my personally owned forums, my rules are much more strict than here. I only allow limited freedom of speech. The reason being, while many can self moderate on a smaller scale, when the population grows on those such forums, someone decides they want to cross the line, whether by personal attack or other unnecessary statements. Maybe it works better here, because more folks are of a like mind? Not sure, honestly. I know I have gotten far too many keyboard commandos on my sites, over the years. I never minded showing them the door. Even had one guy who was the single largest donor ever, on the site. He thought his donations would make him impervious to banning. He found out otherwise. I have banned personal friends from my sites, guys I have known for years. With me, it wasn't personal. I chose to run my forums a given way and would not deviate from that.

With that said, many times in the past, when a member was banned by staff, those who came to me directly would often ask that I look into the issue. Quite often, it was something that could be sorted, and was, by me personally. I have tried to be fair and impartial to members of my sites.

Now, all of you just shut up.

 

In my experience, if you are truly willing to start with discourse, the civility follows naturally. This is what is lacking today. Too few are interested in discourse or discussion, or even debate. More often than not it's about pontificating and getting validation.

I can't even blame it on the media or politicians, although they are contributing factors to be sure. It is a personal decision and as such, ultimately personal responsibility.

I admit there are things I have a hard time discussing, and so civil discourse is difficult and I fall victim to incivility. Other times, I enjoy the process even if I'm diametrically or violently opposed to the contrary stance.

I can not say with any certainty that I have ever had a civil argument. I know for a fact, that I have never been on the receiving end of a diatribe or rant or vent against or about something I agree with or hold dear that was civil.

 

I'm not sure I argree with this as a valid hypothesis. Some people fall into this, but not all people that are insecure in their personal lives are like this. And some people I have seen act this way do so out of an overblown ego. Seems the ones that irritate me the most are the one that think they can't be wrong so they refuse to listen to other points of view.

I have a dear friend that has this problem. The trouble is he is almost always right. He also spends a lot of time with idiots that drive him batty! That bleeds over into his off time. He can see reason if you present it correctly, it just takes time. And never from direct confrontation.

 

Some other forums I am on have special subforums for the more controversial issues, called things like "The Minefield", "The Powderkeg", etc. Still, basic rules of decency apply. It is very bad form to flame someone or insult them, etc.

 

In my experience having debates with liberals there are several key rules.
1. Unless you know the topic in detail, just don't debate that. Never argue or debate something unless you are certain you know far more than your opponent.
2. You need to study and equip yourself with details and statistics with the source so you can answer question 1 in the affirmative.
3. When debating, you must stay very calm and low key. Seldom make statements, rather ask them lots of questions that walk them to a logical conclusion that is not their starting point but is yours.

This takes practice and study. Watch some YouTube videos by Ben Shapiro, D'nesh D'sousa, and the like. Take notes, memorize their facts and the sources. Study the books of Mark Levin and other.

So, for example, when they comment that Trump is anti-immigrant, ask, "what makes you think that?" If you get a reply he hates people from other countries that aren't just like him, then calmly ask, "If he hates immigrants so much, why did he marry one? Why had he hired immigrants in his casinos, " They won't have a good answer. When debating welfare ask, who has welfare or socialist policies even lifted out of poverty? You'll get an answer that it has helped millions, but ask them, was that tge question? The question is how many and who has ever been lifted up out if poverty by those programs? They may give names and examples but they will always be stories of people succeeding in a capitalistic way. Point that out.

This is hard and requires practice and preparation to be good. Understand and remember you can never convince them of the legitimacy of your position. But with enough challenging questions you can get them to wonder about their own position. That is the win. Only then do you start getting them to see another perspective.

 

I agree that it's worth learning from those who are effective at debating, though I'm not so sure that Shapiro or D'Sousa are stellar examples to learn from.

Zinnia Jones, is, however, worth learning from...



Reason and rational arguments.........using deductive arguments



and inductive and abductive arguments

 

You can lead a horse to water, but that won't make 'em a duck.

Personally, I've never used the 'ignore' feature. Reading or listening will give you insight as to the type of person you are dealing with. I subscribe to the "live and let live" philosophy, and consequently, am never out to change anyone's mind. If someone want to live an illogical and irrational life, so be it. I have absolutely no problem walking away from a conversation.