Hi,
Well, first of all, most people are incapable of distinguishing an argument from a discussion. A discussion is two sides trying to determine some glimmer of truth. An argument is two sides each trying to prove the other wrong. Thus, many discussions devolve into arguments as each side pays more attention to forwarding their own point of view and less to understanding the other's.
Also there is the fact that idealism and pragmatism will often collide. In a discussion, it is the idealism that dominates. In life, pragmatism wins out. So, just as a personal example, I am a complete believer in freedom of speech in any form and would take that standpoint in a discussion. However, I can and do live under the puritanical censorship laws of the USA and do little more to forward my position than cast the occasional vote. On the 'importance vs. immediacy' plane, freedom of speech ranks high on importance, but low on immediacy -- or, in other words, I have a life to lead and my own problems to solve.
Of course, one of the factors that drives discussions to arguments is that the subject being considered is either a matter totally of opinion (e.g., the existence of god) or of untestable fact (e.g., the best way to handle the drug 'problem'). With no subjective empirical information to root the discussion, each side puts forth arguments based on 'reasonableness'. However, such arguments are not usually very convincing since they usually have lost originality and the counter arguments are well known. The discussion, at that point, should normally just die down (hence the wisdom of the LL's 'no hot topic' rule). If the discussion goes beyond the stock arguments, usually all that is left is for each side to bring out more farfetched and controversial arguments. At that point, the irritation on each side caused by the idiocy of the arguments of the other brings the whole crashing down and an argument ensues.
This is not to say that a 'middle ground' is the best solution. There are some things that can be matters of degree (e.g., the already mentioned 'drug problem'). There are others that are pretty much binary, such as using 'In God We Trust' as our national motto. It is possible to take a centrist position on the first. The only centrist 'position' possible on the second is, "I don't care." And indifference is a big filter in determining who will post.
Of course, in discussing this topic, the most divisive event in recent memory comes immediately to mind namely the recent presidential election. On the one hand, it is hard to conceive how one could be centrist in deciding whom to vote for. It's not like one can give 45% of one's vote to one side and 55% to the other. But the real tension was caused, to a large extent, by the media sharks looking for a meal and the political pundits, both humorous and vitriolic, who quenched the flames of bitterness by dousing them with the oil of self-interest. And that takes everything full circle. To muzzle the media and pundits so that an election can be a rational event would require reducing their freedom of speech. Only by inflicting one injury on the nation can another be prevented. Or by education the nation so those shrill bigoted and ignorant people will not be an acceptable norm for out âinformationâ sources.
There. Hopefully Iâve added some small light to the original topic and vast heat to many others :)
--Pete
Well, first of all, most people are incapable of distinguishing an argument from a discussion. A discussion is two sides trying to determine some glimmer of truth. An argument is two sides each trying to prove the other wrong. Thus, many discussions devolve into arguments as each side pays more attention to forwarding their own point of view and less to understanding the other's.
Also there is the fact that idealism and pragmatism will often collide. In a discussion, it is the idealism that dominates. In life, pragmatism wins out. So, just as a personal example, I am a complete believer in freedom of speech in any form and would take that standpoint in a discussion. However, I can and do live under the puritanical censorship laws of the USA and do little more to forward my position than cast the occasional vote. On the 'importance vs. immediacy' plane, freedom of speech ranks high on importance, but low on immediacy -- or, in other words, I have a life to lead and my own problems to solve.
Of course, one of the factors that drives discussions to arguments is that the subject being considered is either a matter totally of opinion (e.g., the existence of god) or of untestable fact (e.g., the best way to handle the drug 'problem'). With no subjective empirical information to root the discussion, each side puts forth arguments based on 'reasonableness'. However, such arguments are not usually very convincing since they usually have lost originality and the counter arguments are well known. The discussion, at that point, should normally just die down (hence the wisdom of the LL's 'no hot topic' rule). If the discussion goes beyond the stock arguments, usually all that is left is for each side to bring out more farfetched and controversial arguments. At that point, the irritation on each side caused by the idiocy of the arguments of the other brings the whole crashing down and an argument ensues.
This is not to say that a 'middle ground' is the best solution. There are some things that can be matters of degree (e.g., the already mentioned 'drug problem'). There are others that are pretty much binary, such as using 'In God We Trust' as our national motto. It is possible to take a centrist position on the first. The only centrist 'position' possible on the second is, "I don't care." And indifference is a big filter in determining who will post.
Of course, in discussing this topic, the most divisive event in recent memory comes immediately to mind namely the recent presidential election. On the one hand, it is hard to conceive how one could be centrist in deciding whom to vote for. It's not like one can give 45% of one's vote to one side and 55% to the other. But the real tension was caused, to a large extent, by the media sharks looking for a meal and the political pundits, both humorous and vitriolic, who quenched the flames of bitterness by dousing them with the oil of self-interest. And that takes everything full circle. To muzzle the media and pundits so that an election can be a rational event would require reducing their freedom of speech. Only by inflicting one injury on the nation can another be prevented. Or by education the nation so those shrill bigoted and ignorant people will not be an acceptable norm for out âinformationâ sources.
There. Hopefully Iâve added some small light to the original topic and vast heat to many others :)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?