modes of discourse
12 Nov 2005 09:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouThere's no two ways around it. If this needs to be explained in such clear pixels, then so be it, but I'm annoyed enough by being exposed to muddy logic recently that I figure, eh, what the hell.
See, there is opinion and there is fact. Opinion is based upon a belief, which may or may not have anything to do with reality. Facts are based upon evidence and observation of the world around us, and are testable. It is a fact I have a car, which I know by walking outside and kicking the tires. It is my belief that it will still be running at 200K, but this is based only on conjecture, cobbling together evidence (it's run so far), experience (I keep it up), and a great deal of optimism. It is not a fact that it will reach 200K, because I cannot prove—yet—that it has travelled 200K miles and not died. With me so far?
Let's review a discussion between two people where an opinion is being communicated. A simple belief that's at the heart of many religious systems, for instance. Person A says, "I believe God created the world." Person B, who may or may not believe the same, responds: "Okay." Exactly how is Person B going to debate a belief? I've never come up with a way. Long experience has taught me it's pointless, just as much as you can't talk a person out of being a racist, or bigot, or anything else you might find personally reprehensible (not to say A's belief necessarily is, but one would assume that B feels so if "talking A out of it" is even entertained).
This is an opinion, a statement of belief. So far, it's a simple exchange of convictions; it amounts to one person saying it, and the other listening. The key here is that if one is to debate the opinion or belief, arguing on the merits is almost impossible. What, truly, would one say: "I don't think you really believe that"? How can another know? One could say, "science has demonstrated evolution is the best theory for the evidence we've found," but this is not debating the merits of the person's statement. It's taking one possible ramification of the opinion—but when we're dealing with opinions, the facts really aren't necessary, because the opinion may exist independent of facts. If, however, one says, "but evolution is the best theory, given the evidence!" this would be a straw man attack (picking one detail), because attacking on the merits is, as I already pointed out, damn hard to do in this case. One can genuinely say, "this is my belief, don't confuse me with the facts," and it isn't intellectually dishonest. It's a belief. It's independent of facts or evidence or reality; sometimes it's just a gut thing.
Now, if Person A says, "I believe God created the world because there are so many unexplained points in evolution," this is another matter altogether, to an outside observer. First, A has now introduced merits upon which B can argue: whether or not existing science can answer the points that A is saying are holes. Second, A is no longer stating simply an opinion of conviction, but introducing justification for that conviction, as if the simple statement of A's own belief is somehow not enough. After all, deconstruct the statement: A is essentially implying (even if unintentionally) "there are holes, therefore I believe God created the world, but if science filled those holes..."
Does everyone see the danger for a person, holding an opinion, to try and sustain with facts, and the impression given? Is this not clear to anyone else? Look at it from the outside. Here, I'll try an alternate example, which might put more people in B's spot than A's, to help understand how this appears.
A is Hindu. A does not eat red meat, because cows are sacred. A says, "thank you for offering me the hamburger, but I don't eat red meat." B says, "oh, okay." End of discussion. Now, what if A turns to B and says, "I have never eaten red meat, because it's against my religion, and I would never eat red meat, but it's also extremely dangerous for you, because it contains fats that can clog your arteries, cause a heart attack, and kill you. Even one bite!" Can we really blame B for feeling a bit taken aback, with a thought bubble appearing of, "what the hell do you care? you just said you've never eaten it, and never will!"
A's statement of belief—I will not eat red meat—has warped into revealing something that A may not have intended, but it's there in the language. To we outside observers, I'm sure you now see what A appears to be saying: "I'll never eat that, but I absolutely must convince myself that it is a Bad Thing to do, or else I might have to admit that I might—just once—like to try it. But I wouldn't, as long as I keep myself convinced that it's bad." In other words, A's belief is no longer strong enough to maintain the convictions, but must be bolstered by all possible negative evidence to prevent any risk that A might ever want to stray from what has been accepted as an article of belief.
Part of the reason I mention this mode of discourse is because it's something I consider quite dishonest and manipulative. To say, "I'd never do that, but here are all the very bad things about doing that, which is why I say it's a bad thing to do," is often—especially if our Person B is not anticipating a major discussion or perhaps just not paying a great deal of attention—a statement that will prompt a specific response: B now feels as though the onus is on B to defend. Keeping in mind that B has no such personal belief that prevents such behavior: this means B has no truly deep emotional attachment to doing that, or even not doing that. But A, for whom it's a point of belief, most likely does retain a deep emotional attachment to being seen as someone who'd never do it. It's no surprise that A cannot therefore let up on the argument, at all, nor allow even the remotest acknowledgement of positive benefits, let alone that the positive may outweigh the negative. It's simply out of the question, and all because a statement of belief is not strong enough.
I do have Hindu friends, who do not eat cows. We have eaten together at restaurants where beef is served, and my friends have ordered non-beef dishes. My friends are devout in ways that far exceed many of my non-Hindu friends, but never once have they said a word about me eating meat. As a matter of fact, I have eaten with one couple, ordered beef, and been asked, "how is it? is it any good?" to which I've said, "oh, yes, it's excellent." And their response is a smile. The fact that I am sitting in front of them doing something that in every way violates their beliefs—if they did the same as I—does not impinge on them, because they are not me. They are not eating meat, but they can let me enjoy it while they enjoy their own food. My eating meat, or even meat in and of itself being edible and yummy despite having heart-attack-causing possibilities, does not change nor impose on their belief that they will not eat meat, no matter how good—or bad—it may be.
Is it any surprise that I see those friends as being worthy of respect for their strong convictions, even if their belief system is not one I share? Is it any surprise that those Persons A I've met—who endeavor to convince me that activities counter to their beliefs are inherently, independently Bad Things—gain nothing but a roll of my eyes? First, I have no emotional investment in the subject, the majority of the time. (This is not to say I won't get emotionally heated when an argument is illogical, because such does piss me off.) Second, if it is a strong conviction, it's masked by this weak language, which most certainly does not garner my respect, but my disdain.
I would like to say that I don't get why people feel it necessary to bolster their statements of faith, but I do, sadly, get it. Three-year olds do it: "fine, if you won't let me have the cookie, I don't want the cookie anyway, I hate gingerbread!" Even if this is not the person's intention, I'd expect any person with the ability to self-examine would be cognizant of the behavior and either firm up their convictions, or sit down and question why they still have them, if they must so desperately convince themselves, and those around them.
There's a second part to this, which is important when debating with me. Keeping in mind that opinion is exempt from debate—once A has stated it's an opinion, B can either respect this, walk off with a disgusted look, or be really stupid and try to convince A otherwise.
To pick an innocuous example, let's have A say, "I believe that dying my hair is a good experience. I'm proud that my hair has been every shade of the rainbow." There are ways B can reply, and one is to simply say, "I believe that one should only dye one's hair to cover gray, and only the shade one was born with." This is not a debate so much as an exchange of two different beliefs. As long as A never kidnaps B and forces B to dye his hair blue, or B never sneaks into A's house and steals all the hairdye, there is no conflict. That only arises when one of the two decides that the other's behavior somehow demeans the first's belief: "You're doing that just to flaunt that you believe differently from me!" And when it's such an innocuous example, can you see how ridiculous such a response sounds?
Now, what if B instead replies, "you should never dye your hair blue, because that's a bad color, and it doesn't actually occur in nature." This is called a straw man; ignoring, of course, that B is attempting to argue against an opinion, which as I've already stated is usually a moot venture. B has selected one minor aspect of A's statement, and attempts to slice that apart; upon doing so, declares he's therefore correct (and thus that his opinion is somehow more-right than A's). It's especially egregious if B goes whole-hog and throws in value judgments: "that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard..."
Replying to a straw man argument is a tough one, not because it's hard per se, but because it's also just as pointless as refuting an opinion in the first place. There's nothing to be gained, because the person has already demonstrated their inability to argue to the merits of the case—and thus it's a good chance that even a refutation of the straw man will produce another sidestep to a new straw man.
But what can make this mode of discourse particularly like a train-wreck is an additional element I've not specified in my example so far: if only one of the two has personal experience with the topic under consideration. I have never, for instance, sky-dove. I personally am of the opinion that it's the most idiotic thing I can imagine to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. However, if I attempt to argue—be it as a straw-man ("you say high adrenalin moments are good, but you can get that jumping out of planes, and that's dangerous! people die!") or even if my dissent is on the merits ("it's dangerous, because if your chute doesn't open, you'll die!")—and I have no personal experience, I'm probably going to end up looking like an idiot. That's because this is not a debate based on independently-verifiable facts (this math problem gets you this answer), but has at its heart two opinions. You can form an opinion about something from a distance, but you don't quite hold the high ground when you speak with no experience. I wouldn't blame A in the least for having to stifle the urge to pat me on the head and say, "someday you'll understand."
I'll start with an example between two adults with some experience in logical, intelligent communication patterns. A says, "my interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that it covers personal right." B says, "I don't agree, and I can counter your interpretation with points 1, 2, 3, and 4." A says, "I see those points, and raise you 5, 6, 7, and 8." B then replies, "nope, you still haven't convinced me, so we'll just have to agree to disagree; my belief that my interpretation is correct has not changed." And A wraps it up with, "neither has mine; we'll just not see eye-to-eye on this point."
Here's a version of that where the discourse goes bad. Let's say that A explains, "I believe people should have access to training in proper gun handling." B opts for the straw man approach: "but machine guns kill people, and this is terribly wrong, and it's stupid to think people should ever use those." Not only is this not answering to the merits but it's also a strawman as well as ad extremis: B has picked the most controversial point (which may or may not have been intended by A, even), attacks it with vigor, and is doing so laden with opinions masquerading as facts. I say "masquerading" because normally, when one counters with an alternate thesis, one presents evidence to support the claim; these value judgments ("terribly wrong" and "it's stupid to think") are in the slots accorded to Evidence 1 and Evidence 2. It's no surprise that A might look at B a bit askance: again, how does one argue opinion, which those value judgments are clearly (regardless of whether A, or anyone, agrees with them, they're still value judgments).
Furthermore, if B then posits personal experience as justification for his straw man attack ("I had a college roommate whose sister died because of a staple gun attack!"), B is opening himself up wide, because now his personal experience is part of the merits of the argument, should A choose that course. The wise thing, of course (and thus naturally rarely done by most, including me) is to just remind B of the merits of the argument ("dude, you're off-topic of my point"), and to ignore B's attempts to argue illogically. If A, however, argues logically and to the merits (both of the original point, as well as to the straw man and to the issue of personal experience), it doesn't give B many options, because B has taken what had never been more than an exchange of opinions and turned it into a value-laden attack. B can either be an adult, and say: "let's try this again; I'll answer the merits of your argument", or B can say, "well, it's just my opinion."
That second alternative, in my opinion, is called a retreat. It is the back-forth movement of someone who would've struck with value judgments and declared moral victory over someone else's belief statement, and when called on their muddy and emotional attack, backpedals into hiding behind the protection offered non-debatable opinions and beliefs. I call it a retreat because it's the movement favored by someone who lacks either discourse skills in logic or conviction in his/her opinions to just bloody well say at the outset, "here are the merits of your point, and I will answer those, but I draw a distinction to these minor details, and believe differently" — or even, more simply, "I disagree, and I believe [insert explanation here]."
If it's purely a statement of B's own conviction—be it for religious, social, or personal reasons—then keep in mind that no defense is needed. No facts must be presented, really. Instead of all the unhappiness and tension in such an emotionally-laden clash between two beliefs, B could skip that, starting and finishing with the simple response, "this is my opinion."
There is a way B can really look like an idiot, and that's to place a value judgment on one's own opinion, dispute it as fact, and then declare A to be narrow-minded for refusing to accept B's value judgment. Thing is, an adult, knowledgeable in mature discourse (and most likely without emotional attachment to the topic at hand, which does muddy things) has no problem accepting someone else's opinion. Again, there is no way to reasonably counter a statement of belief; it's a personal decision. But if B declares that "all blue hair dye is bad" (value judgment) and refuses to acknowledge that the preface of this statement is I believe but insists it must be it is a fact that, B should be prepared for two reactions. One is a complete lack of respect from the adult in the conversation: because if B won't respect A's opinion (or even A's original statement of fact, if it's an opinion-based response to a fact-based statement), just how does B justify demanding respect in return? And second, B certainly shouldn't be surprised when A's response is also: "just who are you trying to convince, anyway?"
The more you argue your opinion and try to justify it, the more you insist it's a fact and "more than" an article of faith... the more I wonder just whether or not it's truly a conviction for you, and the more I wonder why you must cleave to it so dearly that you must alter any facts that contradict your point of view, just so you can declare my position somehow morally inferior to yours. Who are you trying to convince? If it's your opinion, or your belief, or your faith, just say it is—this does not make it less valid as an opinion, just more personal—and let that be enough.
See, there is opinion and there is fact. Opinion is based upon a belief, which may or may not have anything to do with reality. Facts are based upon evidence and observation of the world around us, and are testable. It is a fact I have a car, which I know by walking outside and kicking the tires. It is my belief that it will still be running at 200K, but this is based only on conjecture, cobbling together evidence (it's run so far), experience (I keep it up), and a great deal of optimism. It is not a fact that it will reach 200K, because I cannot prove—yet—that it has travelled 200K miles and not died. With me so far?
Let's review a discussion between two people where an opinion is being communicated. A simple belief that's at the heart of many religious systems, for instance. Person A says, "I believe God created the world." Person B, who may or may not believe the same, responds: "Okay." Exactly how is Person B going to debate a belief? I've never come up with a way. Long experience has taught me it's pointless, just as much as you can't talk a person out of being a racist, or bigot, or anything else you might find personally reprehensible (not to say A's belief necessarily is, but one would assume that B feels so if "talking A out of it" is even entertained).
This is an opinion, a statement of belief. So far, it's a simple exchange of convictions; it amounts to one person saying it, and the other listening. The key here is that if one is to debate the opinion or belief, arguing on the merits is almost impossible. What, truly, would one say: "I don't think you really believe that"? How can another know? One could say, "science has demonstrated evolution is the best theory for the evidence we've found," but this is not debating the merits of the person's statement. It's taking one possible ramification of the opinion—but when we're dealing with opinions, the facts really aren't necessary, because the opinion may exist independent of facts. If, however, one says, "but evolution is the best theory, given the evidence!" this would be a straw man attack (picking one detail), because attacking on the merits is, as I already pointed out, damn hard to do in this case. One can genuinely say, "this is my belief, don't confuse me with the facts," and it isn't intellectually dishonest. It's a belief. It's independent of facts or evidence or reality; sometimes it's just a gut thing.
Now, if Person A says, "I believe God created the world because there are so many unexplained points in evolution," this is another matter altogether, to an outside observer. First, A has now introduced merits upon which B can argue: whether or not existing science can answer the points that A is saying are holes. Second, A is no longer stating simply an opinion of conviction, but introducing justification for that conviction, as if the simple statement of A's own belief is somehow not enough. After all, deconstruct the statement: A is essentially implying (even if unintentionally) "there are holes, therefore I believe God created the world, but if science filled those holes..."
Does everyone see the danger for a person, holding an opinion, to try and sustain with facts, and the impression given? Is this not clear to anyone else? Look at it from the outside. Here, I'll try an alternate example, which might put more people in B's spot than A's, to help understand how this appears.
A is Hindu. A does not eat red meat, because cows are sacred. A says, "thank you for offering me the hamburger, but I don't eat red meat." B says, "oh, okay." End of discussion. Now, what if A turns to B and says, "I have never eaten red meat, because it's against my religion, and I would never eat red meat, but it's also extremely dangerous for you, because it contains fats that can clog your arteries, cause a heart attack, and kill you. Even one bite!" Can we really blame B for feeling a bit taken aback, with a thought bubble appearing of, "what the hell do you care? you just said you've never eaten it, and never will!"
A's statement of belief—I will not eat red meat—has warped into revealing something that A may not have intended, but it's there in the language. To we outside observers, I'm sure you now see what A appears to be saying: "I'll never eat that, but I absolutely must convince myself that it is a Bad Thing to do, or else I might have to admit that I might—just once—like to try it. But I wouldn't, as long as I keep myself convinced that it's bad." In other words, A's belief is no longer strong enough to maintain the convictions, but must be bolstered by all possible negative evidence to prevent any risk that A might ever want to stray from what has been accepted as an article of belief.
Part of the reason I mention this mode of discourse is because it's something I consider quite dishonest and manipulative. To say, "I'd never do that, but here are all the very bad things about doing that, which is why I say it's a bad thing to do," is often—especially if our Person B is not anticipating a major discussion or perhaps just not paying a great deal of attention—a statement that will prompt a specific response: B now feels as though the onus is on B to defend. Keeping in mind that B has no such personal belief that prevents such behavior: this means B has no truly deep emotional attachment to doing that, or even not doing that. But A, for whom it's a point of belief, most likely does retain a deep emotional attachment to being seen as someone who'd never do it. It's no surprise that A cannot therefore let up on the argument, at all, nor allow even the remotest acknowledgement of positive benefits, let alone that the positive may outweigh the negative. It's simply out of the question, and all because a statement of belief is not strong enough.
I do have Hindu friends, who do not eat cows. We have eaten together at restaurants where beef is served, and my friends have ordered non-beef dishes. My friends are devout in ways that far exceed many of my non-Hindu friends, but never once have they said a word about me eating meat. As a matter of fact, I have eaten with one couple, ordered beef, and been asked, "how is it? is it any good?" to which I've said, "oh, yes, it's excellent." And their response is a smile. The fact that I am sitting in front of them doing something that in every way violates their beliefs—if they did the same as I—does not impinge on them, because they are not me. They are not eating meat, but they can let me enjoy it while they enjoy their own food. My eating meat, or even meat in and of itself being edible and yummy despite having heart-attack-causing possibilities, does not change nor impose on their belief that they will not eat meat, no matter how good—or bad—it may be.
Is it any surprise that I see those friends as being worthy of respect for their strong convictions, even if their belief system is not one I share? Is it any surprise that those Persons A I've met—who endeavor to convince me that activities counter to their beliefs are inherently, independently Bad Things—gain nothing but a roll of my eyes? First, I have no emotional investment in the subject, the majority of the time. (This is not to say I won't get emotionally heated when an argument is illogical, because such does piss me off.) Second, if it is a strong conviction, it's masked by this weak language, which most certainly does not garner my respect, but my disdain.
I would like to say that I don't get why people feel it necessary to bolster their statements of faith, but I do, sadly, get it. Three-year olds do it: "fine, if you won't let me have the cookie, I don't want the cookie anyway, I hate gingerbread!" Even if this is not the person's intention, I'd expect any person with the ability to self-examine would be cognizant of the behavior and either firm up their convictions, or sit down and question why they still have them, if they must so desperately convince themselves, and those around them.
There's a second part to this, which is important when debating with me. Keeping in mind that opinion is exempt from debate—once A has stated it's an opinion, B can either respect this, walk off with a disgusted look, or be really stupid and try to convince A otherwise.
To pick an innocuous example, let's have A say, "I believe that dying my hair is a good experience. I'm proud that my hair has been every shade of the rainbow." There are ways B can reply, and one is to simply say, "I believe that one should only dye one's hair to cover gray, and only the shade one was born with." This is not a debate so much as an exchange of two different beliefs. As long as A never kidnaps B and forces B to dye his hair blue, or B never sneaks into A's house and steals all the hairdye, there is no conflict. That only arises when one of the two decides that the other's behavior somehow demeans the first's belief: "You're doing that just to flaunt that you believe differently from me!" And when it's such an innocuous example, can you see how ridiculous such a response sounds?
Now, what if B instead replies, "you should never dye your hair blue, because that's a bad color, and it doesn't actually occur in nature." This is called a straw man; ignoring, of course, that B is attempting to argue against an opinion, which as I've already stated is usually a moot venture. B has selected one minor aspect of A's statement, and attempts to slice that apart; upon doing so, declares he's therefore correct (and thus that his opinion is somehow more-right than A's). It's especially egregious if B goes whole-hog and throws in value judgments: "that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard..."
Replying to a straw man argument is a tough one, not because it's hard per se, but because it's also just as pointless as refuting an opinion in the first place. There's nothing to be gained, because the person has already demonstrated their inability to argue to the merits of the case—and thus it's a good chance that even a refutation of the straw man will produce another sidestep to a new straw man.
But what can make this mode of discourse particularly like a train-wreck is an additional element I've not specified in my example so far: if only one of the two has personal experience with the topic under consideration. I have never, for instance, sky-dove. I personally am of the opinion that it's the most idiotic thing I can imagine to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. However, if I attempt to argue—be it as a straw-man ("you say high adrenalin moments are good, but you can get that jumping out of planes, and that's dangerous! people die!") or even if my dissent is on the merits ("it's dangerous, because if your chute doesn't open, you'll die!")—and I have no personal experience, I'm probably going to end up looking like an idiot. That's because this is not a debate based on independently-verifiable facts (this math problem gets you this answer), but has at its heart two opinions. You can form an opinion about something from a distance, but you don't quite hold the high ground when you speak with no experience. I wouldn't blame A in the least for having to stifle the urge to pat me on the head and say, "someday you'll understand."
I'll start with an example between two adults with some experience in logical, intelligent communication patterns. A says, "my interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that it covers personal right." B says, "I don't agree, and I can counter your interpretation with points 1, 2, 3, and 4." A says, "I see those points, and raise you 5, 6, 7, and 8." B then replies, "nope, you still haven't convinced me, so we'll just have to agree to disagree; my belief that my interpretation is correct has not changed." And A wraps it up with, "neither has mine; we'll just not see eye-to-eye on this point."
Here's a version of that where the discourse goes bad. Let's say that A explains, "I believe people should have access to training in proper gun handling." B opts for the straw man approach: "but machine guns kill people, and this is terribly wrong, and it's stupid to think people should ever use those." Not only is this not answering to the merits but it's also a strawman as well as ad extremis: B has picked the most controversial point (which may or may not have been intended by A, even), attacks it with vigor, and is doing so laden with opinions masquerading as facts. I say "masquerading" because normally, when one counters with an alternate thesis, one presents evidence to support the claim; these value judgments ("terribly wrong" and "it's stupid to think") are in the slots accorded to Evidence 1 and Evidence 2. It's no surprise that A might look at B a bit askance: again, how does one argue opinion, which those value judgments are clearly (regardless of whether A, or anyone, agrees with them, they're still value judgments).
Furthermore, if B then posits personal experience as justification for his straw man attack ("I had a college roommate whose sister died because of a staple gun attack!"), B is opening himself up wide, because now his personal experience is part of the merits of the argument, should A choose that course. The wise thing, of course (and thus naturally rarely done by most, including me) is to just remind B of the merits of the argument ("dude, you're off-topic of my point"), and to ignore B's attempts to argue illogically. If A, however, argues logically and to the merits (both of the original point, as well as to the straw man and to the issue of personal experience), it doesn't give B many options, because B has taken what had never been more than an exchange of opinions and turned it into a value-laden attack. B can either be an adult, and say: "let's try this again; I'll answer the merits of your argument", or B can say, "well, it's just my opinion."
That second alternative, in my opinion, is called a retreat. It is the back-forth movement of someone who would've struck with value judgments and declared moral victory over someone else's belief statement, and when called on their muddy and emotional attack, backpedals into hiding behind the protection offered non-debatable opinions and beliefs. I call it a retreat because it's the movement favored by someone who lacks either discourse skills in logic or conviction in his/her opinions to just bloody well say at the outset, "here are the merits of your point, and I will answer those, but I draw a distinction to these minor details, and believe differently" — or even, more simply, "I disagree, and I believe [insert explanation here]."
If it's purely a statement of B's own conviction—be it for religious, social, or personal reasons—then keep in mind that no defense is needed. No facts must be presented, really. Instead of all the unhappiness and tension in such an emotionally-laden clash between two beliefs, B could skip that, starting and finishing with the simple response, "this is my opinion."
There is a way B can really look like an idiot, and that's to place a value judgment on one's own opinion, dispute it as fact, and then declare A to be narrow-minded for refusing to accept B's value judgment. Thing is, an adult, knowledgeable in mature discourse (and most likely without emotional attachment to the topic at hand, which does muddy things) has no problem accepting someone else's opinion. Again, there is no way to reasonably counter a statement of belief; it's a personal decision. But if B declares that "all blue hair dye is bad" (value judgment) and refuses to acknowledge that the preface of this statement is I believe but insists it must be it is a fact that, B should be prepared for two reactions. One is a complete lack of respect from the adult in the conversation: because if B won't respect A's opinion (or even A's original statement of fact, if it's an opinion-based response to a fact-based statement), just how does B justify demanding respect in return? And second, B certainly shouldn't be surprised when A's response is also: "just who are you trying to convince, anyway?"
The more you argue your opinion and try to justify it, the more you insist it's a fact and "more than" an article of faith... the more I wonder just whether or not it's truly a conviction for you, and the more I wonder why you must cleave to it so dearly that you must alter any facts that contradict your point of view, just so you can declare my position somehow morally inferior to yours. Who are you trying to convince? If it's your opinion, or your belief, or your faith, just say it is—this does not make it less valid as an opinion, just more personal—and let that be enough.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 13 Nov 2005 05:13 am (UTC)(Or English longbowmen vs. French men at arms, for that matter. It's even more difficult to do this than the other.
no subject
Date: 13 Nov 2005 06:27 am (UTC)(I'm no more likely to get into some historical debates than I am to get between a PC person and a Mac person. There is simply nothing to be done but hope they call truce before blood is shed.)
no subject
Date: 13 Nov 2005 09:45 am (UTC)