M
Mystophilus
Guest
When the Jewish legalist heard Jesus say that loving his neighbour was the second greatest commandment, he asked who this meant. Jesus replied with the beautiful parable of the Good Samaritan, in which it is the ‘race enemy’ of the fallen Jew who helps him.
Whatever flavour of Christian each one of us may happen to be, all are called to love our neighbours, even those who might be called enemies, as ourselves. However, in these fora, we all too often see behaviour calculated to “win” arguments rather than to express such love.
A lack of disclosure is one example: a poster will present only those data which obviously support her claim, deliberately omitting data which might raise awkward questions. In so doing, she deliberately deprives her audience of the resources which they need to form an accurate conclusion. Of course, once they do learn about this other data, especially if it can be acquired very easily from other sources, they quickly lose respect for the credibility of this poster. Likewise, when presented with data which contradicts his position, rather than admitting that he may have to reconsider some of his assumptions, a poster will try to impugn the data, the source, or his correspondent, in an attempt to bull his way through to a ‘victory’ in which his correspondent gives up any attempt to discuss the topic with him.
(This reminds me of my time living in China, when any piece of data which did not support the contention that ‘China is the best country in the world’ was censored, and any mention of one of the least of China’s flaws was met with the plaintive cry, “But why do you hate China?” I am sure that you can imagine what such an information blackout does for the effectiveness of their education sytem.)
Sheer impoliteness is another. It is impolite to say, “NO. YOU ARE WRONG.” This is impolite because it is a/ dismissive of another’s intellectual capacity, b/ confrontational, and c/ just plain arrogant. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; before you address the mote in your brother’s eye, remove the plank from your own. Fallibility is a hallmark of humanity, and it is high time that we acknowledged that. Even “That is not entirely accurate” is better, although it does not rate as highly as “I think that your statement might be incorrect.”
It is similarly impolite to say, “People-who-belong-to-this-church do Y bad thing”; more often than not, it is also incorrect, and would you really want to use the trademark argument of bigotry?
Repeating an argument does not make it more cogent. While I am on this, it might be useful to consider that a source provided by your church is less likely to be convincing than three or four sources provided by others who have no vested interest in proving your position.
Stating that “This is true because it comes from my church and that is false because it comes from yours” is neither respectful, nor convincing: if your audience believed that, they would already be in your church.
Assuming that only a fool believes something different from yourself is arrogant and naive, considering the number of great thinkers who have come from the various belief positions.
Consider, if you will, one last proposition. If your viewpoint is as true as you believe it to be, and I truly hope that it is, then it can never be disproved. As such, you have no reason to fear any source, any data, any admission of complexity, or variability. You have no need of recourse to tricks, dirty or otherwise. The truth is the truth, and will not change for aught any human says about it.
Your discussion will be more honest, more loving, and more valuable to all if it is a genuine enquiry into the truth of the matter, rather than an attempt to ‘win’.
However, perhaps I am wrong about this. Perhaps I am the only one who is fallible. Perhaps winning really is more important than loving our neighbours. Perhaps what we believe is only true if we can bludgeon others into giving up any attempt to argue with us.
I hope to God that this is not so.
Whatever flavour of Christian each one of us may happen to be, all are called to love our neighbours, even those who might be called enemies, as ourselves. However, in these fora, we all too often see behaviour calculated to “win” arguments rather than to express such love.
A lack of disclosure is one example: a poster will present only those data which obviously support her claim, deliberately omitting data which might raise awkward questions. In so doing, she deliberately deprives her audience of the resources which they need to form an accurate conclusion. Of course, once they do learn about this other data, especially if it can be acquired very easily from other sources, they quickly lose respect for the credibility of this poster. Likewise, when presented with data which contradicts his position, rather than admitting that he may have to reconsider some of his assumptions, a poster will try to impugn the data, the source, or his correspondent, in an attempt to bull his way through to a ‘victory’ in which his correspondent gives up any attempt to discuss the topic with him.
(This reminds me of my time living in China, when any piece of data which did not support the contention that ‘China is the best country in the world’ was censored, and any mention of one of the least of China’s flaws was met with the plaintive cry, “But why do you hate China?” I am sure that you can imagine what such an information blackout does for the effectiveness of their education sytem.)
Sheer impoliteness is another. It is impolite to say, “NO. YOU ARE WRONG.” This is impolite because it is a/ dismissive of another’s intellectual capacity, b/ confrontational, and c/ just plain arrogant. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; before you address the mote in your brother’s eye, remove the plank from your own. Fallibility is a hallmark of humanity, and it is high time that we acknowledged that. Even “That is not entirely accurate” is better, although it does not rate as highly as “I think that your statement might be incorrect.”
It is similarly impolite to say, “People-who-belong-to-this-church do Y bad thing”; more often than not, it is also incorrect, and would you really want to use the trademark argument of bigotry?
Repeating an argument does not make it more cogent. While I am on this, it might be useful to consider that a source provided by your church is less likely to be convincing than three or four sources provided by others who have no vested interest in proving your position.
Stating that “This is true because it comes from my church and that is false because it comes from yours” is neither respectful, nor convincing: if your audience believed that, they would already be in your church.
Assuming that only a fool believes something different from yourself is arrogant and naive, considering the number of great thinkers who have come from the various belief positions.
Consider, if you will, one last proposition. If your viewpoint is as true as you believe it to be, and I truly hope that it is, then it can never be disproved. As such, you have no reason to fear any source, any data, any admission of complexity, or variability. You have no need of recourse to tricks, dirty or otherwise. The truth is the truth, and will not change for aught any human says about it.
Your discussion will be more honest, more loving, and more valuable to all if it is a genuine enquiry into the truth of the matter, rather than an attempt to ‘win’.
However, perhaps I am wrong about this. Perhaps I am the only one who is fallible. Perhaps winning really is more important than loving our neighbours. Perhaps what we believe is only true if we can bludgeon others into giving up any attempt to argue with us.
I hope to God that this is not so.
