Discussions, arguments, and making indefensible statements

[Mystical_Seeker]

I’ve noticed some patterns and some conditions that seem to correlate with discussions moving more toward arguments or standoffs, v. moving toward exchange of ideas that may or may not result in partial or full agreement. I prefer the latter, but I love to watch for tiny details in the former so that I may not leave myself quite so open to attack when I write stuff.

For example, the difference between an “argument”:

A: “I say this.” B: “oh yeah, prove it.” or
A: “I say this” B: “you are wrong. blah blah blah states that …” or
A: “I say this” B: "you only said that because "

v. a “debate” or “discussion”

A: “I say this.” B: “you say this, maybe that is so, but I say that.” or
A: “I say this.” B: “you may be right but that doesn’t mean …” or
A: “I say this.” B: “ok I see what you are saying. I don’t disagree with that part of it.”

My preference for having a debate/discussion would be the second set. I contend that the form of the statement that A makes, can influence the chance it has of going toward one of the first set v. the second.

OK enough meta-metadiscussion…

If I am quite sure the other person is the only one in the room whose thinking is skewed, I might say, "most Catholics would agree with me."

This leaves it wide open for “prove it.” I did not take a survey or locate any research to cite, that “most people” agree with me.

Now if I had said, “a lot of Catholics agree with me.” then it can be countered as “that doesn’t mean they all do,” but it is immune to “prove it” attacks. If one should be leveled by an amateur who doesn’t see this, or who does see it and plays it anyway, I can reply with: “Every one I know IRL agrees with me.” and optionally add as a counterattack to suggest, “what a stupid thing to say.” There is no effective counter to that.

Safer yet, "I know several Catholics who would back me up."

I have to go afk for a bit, I’ll leave it here to see if anyone is interested; I have more examples in mind if it isn’t clear what I’m getting at.

MS

 

[Joe_5859]

You bring up some interesting “meta” points.

It reminds me of this book that I really enjoyed: How to Defend the Faith Without Raising Your Voice: Civil Responses to Catholic Hot Button Issues

One of the key components of the strategy the book recommends in discussing things with people you disagree with is to first find the common ground. Even when it comes to issues that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, etc.) there is always some underlying positive presupposition that we can agree with, whether it be concern for others, the fact that love is a good thing, etc.

So we want to recognize that good inkling and lift it up. Then we can move the discussion towards how the Catholic position satisfies that positive impulse even better than the counterview.

I generally try to avoid appeals to what “all”, “most” or “some” Catholics are thinking as something to bolster my argument. I do agree that it’s better to be precise if one is going that route (as it is easy to poke holes in such statements that are generally anecdotal). But since our Catholic faith is not ruled by popular opinion, it can often be irrelevant and usually only side-tracks the conversation.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

You bring up some interesting “meta” points.

It reminds me of this book that I really enjoyed: How to Defend the Faith Without Raising Your Voice: Civil Responses to Catholic Hot Button Issues

One of the key components of the strategy the book recommends in discussing things with people you disagree with is to first find the common ground. Even when it comes to issues that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, etc.) there is always some underlying positive presupposition that we can agree with, whether it be concern for others, the fact that love is a good thing, etc.

So we want to recognize that good inkling and lift it up. Then we can move the discussion towards how the Catholic position satisfies that positive impulse even better than the counterview.

I generally try to avoid appeals to what “all”, “most” or “some” Catholics are thinking as something to bolster my argument. I do agree that it’s better to be precise if one is going that route (as it is easy to poke holes in such statements that are generally anecdotal). But since our Catholic faith is not ruled by popular opinion, it can often be irrelevant and usually only side-tracks the conversation.

I loved this post! Thank you for adding to my enjoyment of this day!

I’m checking on the “look inside” at amazon now …

MS