I don't think I'm cut out for the emotional debates

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DaveBj

Guest
rant on

I tend not to get involved with the really emotional debates on these forums. Until recently, I haven’t thought too much about that, except to remind myself that I don’t really enjoy the confrontational aspect of debating. However, I allowed myself to get involved in a Facebook discussion on abortion, and I’m finding that such activity may literally not be good for my health.

A “Facebook Friend” of mine posted a Leonard Pitts oped about people who are (negatively) bringing race into the presidential campaign. I commented that I had plenty of non-racial reasons not to vote for the incumbent, chief of which was his blanket support for abortion on demand, and things just took off from there.

I have not identified myself as a Catholic, or even a Christian; rather, I am basing my argument on science, logic, and American law. Briefly, I argue that if the human zygote/embryo/fetus is to be subjected to random killing, it first must be proven (not just assumed) to not be a human being. If it cannot be proven to not be a human being, then it must be assumed that it is possible that it is a human being, and if so, then under the principle of “presumed not guilty (of not being human) until proven guilty,” it must be afforded the same protection given to other entities known to be human beings.

The response has been to ignore the proposition altogether, and instead, to sling ad-hominem attacks (“no scientifically literate person believes,” which is only a couple steps removed from “you must be dumber than a sack of rocks”), to invoke false dilemmas (the “population explosion”) etc. Unfortunately, I am not able to just brush off the fact that these people seem to be unable to engage in a reasoned discourse with someone who opposes their views. It actually affects me physically, in the form of increased heart rate, and probably increased blood pressure as well. If I engage in debate before going to bed, I can forget about getting to sleep for an hour or two. If I engage during my morning web-time, then I arrive at work with a bad attitude.

I dunno. We’re supposed to provide a witness for righteousness, and I guess if providing a witness causes a little physical suffering, we need to just “offer it up.” I just hope, if the agitation brought on by the debate causes a heart attack in the middle of the night, that the Good Lord will take the reason into account.

rant off

Now I feel better. A little.
 
It is exhausting.

When I first came to CAF I would write these novellas with internal citations in MLA format to other members, very emotionally charged, and I felt like I had accomplished something. Then after a couple of years you start seeing things getting argued over and over. The big picture suddenly unfolds. The same kind of threads keep popping up, and when I see them now I’ll have a look to see who is arguing the position that I argued the last time, and suddenly I’m less inclined to emotionally overreact. All emotionality is a show. Well, mostly all. Most of the time it’s our pride. “I know the right answer and I’m going to beat it into you.” At least that’s how I choose to see it, that I’m the one that needs not to get pumped up. Because it feels good to think that I’m fighting for God; it’s very bittersweet romantic to play the martyr sometimes and I think not enough people can admit that to themselves. Once you do, then you can have a laugh at yourself and begin to argue the truth because it’s the truth; there’s no need to get over emotional.
 
Dave, the above post shows that you do debate well. 🙂
And also that you have a compassionate heart.
Altogether, a very good person.
No, it’s not always fun to have both those capacities.
I hope you can find strategies to protect your own peace and recover from these debates.
Spoken by someone who also sometimes endures stress over these things!
Does it help to pray and make an act of trust in the Lord?

Anyhow thanks for sharing, including your thoughtful discussion within the rant’.
I found you made an enlightening point for the abortion debate that I’d not thought of previously.
Thanks for that! 🙂
 
Why don’t you focus on CAF on giving encouragement to others. There are a number of prayer requests and some of the situations are truly very difficult. Not everything on here has to be a debate although that sometimes seems to be the norm. Some subjects are very emotionally charged. When I look over different posts, if I think that i can’t post something that is helpful or if I post, I might become uncharitable then I stay away from it. Just a thought.
 
Hi Dave,
I’ve appreciated your contributions to the forum. You have a gift for clear presentation and a commitment to helping others. What a wonderful combination.
I wonder if it might be easier on your blood pressure to post and then unsubscribe when dealing with some topics?
People would still be able to interact with your ideas and would have some protection from those who are struggling to be charitable.
Sometimes peole need a bit of time to work their way through arguments. You may well be planting seeds that will not bear furit in the short term, but in the long run, your quiet approach may give someone who is hurting over abortion histories the space needed to begin to address their hurt.
I hope you will continue to post and I hope yo will not feel obligated to stick with a thread from post #1 through #731.
May God bless you and all who read your posts. Amen.
 
DaveBj said:
rant on

I tend not to get involved with the really emotional debates on these forums. Until recently, I haven’t thought too much about that, except to remind myself that I don’t really enjoy the confrontational aspect of debating. However, I allowed myself to get involved in a Facebook discussion on abortion, and I’m finding that such activity may literally not be good for my health.

A “Facebook Friend” of mine posted a Leonard Pitts oped about people who are (negatively) bringing race into the presidential campaign. I commented that I had plenty of non-racial reasons not to vote for the incumbent, chief of which was his blanket support for abortion on demand, and things just took off from there.

I have not identified myself as a Catholic, or even a Christian; rather, I am basing my argument on science, logic, and American law. Briefly, I argue that if the human zygote/embryo/fetus is to be subjected to random killing, it first must be proven (not just assumed) to not be a human being. If it cannot be proven to not be a human being, then it must be assumed that it is possible that it is a human being, and if so, then under the principle of “presumed not guilty (of not being human) until proven guilty,” it must be afforded the same protection given to other entities known to be human beings.

The response has been to ignore the proposition altogether, and instead, to sling ad-hominem attacks (“no scientifically literate person believes,” which is only a couple steps removed from “you must be dumber than a sack of rocks”), to invoke false dilemmas (the “population explosion”) etc. Unfortunately, I am not able to just brush off the fact that these people seem to be unable to engage in a reasoned discourse with someone who opposes their views. It actually affects me physically, in the form of increased heart rate, and probably increased blood pressure as well. If I engage in debate before going to bed, I can forget about getting to sleep for an hour or two. If I engage during my morning web-time, then I arrive at work with a bad attitude.

I dunno. We’re supposed to provide a witness for righteousness, and I guess if providing a witness causes a little physical suffering, we need to just “offer it up.” I just hope, if the agitation brought on by the debate causes a heart attack in the middle of the night, that the Good Lord will take the reason into account.

rant off

Now I feel better. A little.
Click to expand...
I feel for you, my friend.

Facebook is, unfortunately, a bit of a “hive mind” when it comes to such things. One person replies, then tells his “friends” to get in on the act, and before you know it, the swarm of “liberal” defenders is on its way! :confused:

I have also written posts / essays about homosexuality and abortion, addressing both issues from the scientific as well as the moral angle. In both cases, ad hominem responses (“You’re so narrow-minded and know nothing about women’s issues!”, “With that kind of attitude, how do you live?”, etc.) have generally been the rule, rather than the exception. I tend to ignore the more intemperate replies, engage in debate where someone is honestly searching, and use humour when I can… 😃

Take care! It’s not worth losing sleep or your health over.
 
Dave, you doing it a lot better than I do.
When I debate, I go for odd tactics.
 
I signed off that particular FB thread last night while I was still on good terms with my friend, and successfully resisted the temptation to comment on followup posts. Slept much better last night.

On CAF I tend to keep things more lighthearted, precisely because, like Nom, I’ve seen the same thing argued over and over (I’ve been a member since the forum started). I also tend to lose interest in a thread when the number of posts goes over 100; my attention span has been getting shorter as I get older 😛

Thanks for the encouragement. Y’all are FRE-YUNDS! 😃
 
Trishie said:
Dave, the above post shows that you do debate well. 🙂
And also that you have a compassionate heart.
Altogether, a very good person.
No, it’s not always fun to have both those capacities.
I hope you can find strategies to protect your own peace and recover from these debates.
Spoken by someone who also sometimes endures stress over these things!
Does it help to pray and make an act of trust in the Lord?

Anyhow thanks for sharing, including your thoughtful discussion within the rant’.
I found you made an enlightening point for the abortion debate that I’d not thought of previously.
Thanks for that! 🙂
Click to expand...
I concur with, Trishie, you sound like a good person, like your intentions are well and sincere.

I can get caught up emotionally in some threads or topics. I can get my pride caught up into some of them as well.

But what I’ve found among a great many “liberals” is that they often think they are the only ones that use logic and defer to the body of science when coming to a conclusion. Both liberals and conservatives seem to think they hold a monopoly on truth as well.

I remember getting really heated over some graduate student of English that’s public school teacher in California (he’s also atheist) upbraiding me for “questioning everything biological” because I stated it’s possible the theory of evolution is wrong but I doubt it and stating in a separate thread that I doubt homosexuality is genetically inherited.

Dave, I’m almost certain one of my biology books stated that human life begins at conception. From my standpoint I think it is logical and correct to conclude that biological human life begins at conception. Whether human life begins at conception philosophically is another question. But law, philosophy, and life sciences are not one and the same.

One problem is that mainstream society - especially for political liberals that might be social liberals as well - have not reconciled their love of reciting all things genetically heritable - and human - at conception with their staunch defense that human life does not begin at conception. They lessen the role of god they call “genes” when it serves their purpose.

The liberal often uses pseudoscience and has superstitious beliefs about the beginning of human life that one might say results from magic. Human life magically appears. And what is known as the human genome is fictitious. Mind you, the liberal is not entirely wrong on that maybe, and I’m not a geneticist but my understanding is that the “human genome” is something of a misnomer. That there is really only a genome of life. I believe this is what bio-mathematician Ian Stewart states in his book The Mathematics of Life.

Anyways… know that debating with most liberals over issues of abortion or when life begins using dispassionate logic and science if not law as well will only be futile. Debating online can often end in bad feelings anyways because words just hang on the screen (for days, months, years), and we can’t see the other person’s body language and they can’t see ours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top