There has been a controversy in our community about what is civil discussion. Some seem to feel that any regulation of speech is a violation of some basic right. They do not seem to believe in the existence of "verbal abuse". They limit the idea of "attacking the man" as a logical fallacy only to when a person does this who is "losing" and then makes it personal. If one is "winning" the argument then it is ok to slander and attack the person who is "losing" the intellectual argument. Some see that any call for civil discourse is to make a group a "church" and makes it "religious".
Others believe that civil discourse is one of the basic ingredients to effective dialogue in a civilized society. The first step towards the physical abuse of people who have different ideas is the verbal abuse of these people in a way that dehumanizes them. It is a call to intimidate others holding such views to be silent in fear that they may be treated in the same manner. It is based on the idea that attacking the person regardless if one is "winning" or "losing" the debate is a logical fallacy. It believes that the search for truth is best done not clouded by the defensive and angry emotions that are the normal response when someone calls us a name or attacks our being. The idea here is that we need to disagree passionately about ideas but to do so in an agreeable manner.
So what do you think and why? The why is the most important part.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can we define civil discussion?
ReplyDeleteCan we define uncivil discussion?
To post here you must belong to one of the groups listed.
ReplyDeleteGood idea Norman, might there be others wo would like to offer up subjects for discussion?
ReplyDeleteGreg Koukl had a good description of civility in an article on tolerance at Stand To Reason (str.org):
ReplyDelete"Be egalitarian regarding persons.
"Be elitist regarding ideas.
"The first principle is true tolerance, which might be called "civility." It can be loosely equated with the word "respect." Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth."
Anyone can send me something they would like to set out as an idea. I also have set up another discussion center at http://socratescafe.goboardz.com/forum.asp
ReplyDeleteHow about that which happened in Kansas last weekend re: George Tiller?
ReplyDeleteAnother would be sex based abortions that are occuring now in Sweden.
Then again, is it possible that Daniel Dennett believes that souls exist?
ReplyDeleteThen again, Ann Coulter, (who I'm no great fan) had an interesting article that contins the following.
ReplyDelete"According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion – which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade. In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life – and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller – only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans."
I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan but this column is "da Bomb".
Also contained in the article by Coulter "Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
ReplyDeleteThe official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?"
Very probing questions....
JC
JC, you've got to pay attention to wording. For instance, a "baby" is something that lives outside the womb. Also nobody like abortions, so it's easy to get misleading results in polls. Anyway our rights are not determined by poll.
ReplyDeleteYou should be aware that the right wing and religious extremists recruit these crazies to shoot abortionists just like Muslim extremists recruit suicide bombers. Then they disavow violence. You should be aware that the country with the lowest abortion rate is the Netherlands. This is because they have good sex education, universal health care, and access to birth control, all of which are opposed by the right wing here.
To say that a fetus has an "absolute right" to be born is saying that the woman has no rights. Ann Coulter? Bwaahahaha!
Ann Coulter? I admit, this is probably the first article I've read of her's in the last year or two but I think she brought up some good points. Before we continue, could you please provide a link or cite a reference to your statement "You should be aware that the right wing and religious extremists recruit these crazies to shoot abortionists just like Muslim extremists recruit suicide bombers" ?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you think that these bombers, arsonists, and doctor killers are each operating alone, and don't get support from a network of anti-abortion activists? Do you think Eric Rudolph lived in a tree for a year when he was evading federal agents? the guy who shot Tiller had Randall Terry's Assistant's phone number in his car when he was arrested. He was indigent, but he had money to travel around the country to attack abortion clinics.
ReplyDeleteThis is a classic terrorist operation. I think one would have to be in severe denial to not recognize it. The churches and religious zealots and the right wing talk media all egg these crazies on. Where have you been?
Here's an article that talks about some of the familiar faces.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/496/
Now about Ann Coulter, who you never read, but suddenly you find her brilliant words again. You didn't answer the question: if a fetus has an absolute right to be born, doesn't that mean that the woman has no rights? If you can't answer that, I'll take it as a yes, that you recognize that fact.
(BTW, have you seen any of the web sites where they debunk Coulter's books?)
Oh Jay, I only mentioned twice in my above commentary that I'm no particular fan of Coulter's. Insofar as the womensenews link you provided, I don't believe thses people are supported by a single, mainstream denomination (at least it doesnt say so in the article) and I am reminded of the words of Cardinal John J. O'Conner (NYC Diocese) when he stated publicly ""If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead" after the last spate of abortionist killings over a decade ago. These people appear to be a fringe group that you cited and don't have any sort of widespread support among the Christian community.
ReplyDeleteInsofar as your reference to "if a fetus has an absolute right to be born, doesn't that mean that the woman has no rights?" Alan Keyes addressed this in a recent article of his.
If a late term baby that is completely viable outside the womb, should it be aborted Jay? We're not talking first trimester here. We're talking about someone who has fingernails, eyelashes, sucking their thumb, just waiting for the delivery date and could be born easily through C-section.
Pardon the late response.
JD, You don't like Ann Coulter, and neither do I.
ReplyDeleteThen you send me to ALAN KEYES??!! Sorry I'm not going there. You didn't give me your answer.
Nobody I know is a fan of tale term abortions. I can't see a woman carrying a fetus for seven months, and then having an abortion for no reason. Tiller offered his services to women whose health or well-being was threatened by the fetus.
In any case, I think the desire of the mother is the last word on the issue. Fetuses are not babies, and this is a medical procedure according to the law. I might decide differently, but it's her body.
I recall about a year or two ago, Ann Coulter published an article that was good for little more than "shock value" and since then, I rarely read her work.
ReplyDeleteI can't see a woman carrying a fetus for seven months, and then having an abortion for no reason.
Jay, apparently you didnt look into the supposed "reasons" that Tiller aborted babies for, such as...
"Fox News, June 13, 2007, quoting psychiatrist Paul McHugh, who examined Tiller's records for court: "[T]hose records … were sometimes of a most trivial sort … saying … 'I won't be able to go to concerts,' or 'I won't be able to take part in sports.' …")
I guess they had "reasons" Jay but are these really important? It would appear that he was a man who was prone to "committing abortions throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever". Link
It was a shame that he was murdered by a mentally unstable man with a criminal record inside of a church. If he had chosen another field of "medicine" to practice, do you think he would have met such an end?
You made a good point:
ReplyDeleteI guess they had "reasons" Jay but are these really important?
No, they're not. A woman doesn't need a reason to abort her fetus. Her body, her right.
If you're going to appeal to authorities, you should find some legitimate authorities. Coulter and Keyes, to be kind, are comedy acts. McHugh is medical adviser to the Vatican. Are you following the politics of Tiller's records?
In your last paragraph, you take a shot at blaming the victim. Nice try. He should have chosen another profession so the Christian terrorists wouldn't murder him?
A woman doesn't need a reason to abort her fetus.
ReplyDeleteWould you agree that a better option would be that the woman (I'm talking about late term here) would be more humane by carrying the baby to term and then giving it up for adoption?
He should have chosen another profession so the Christian terrorists wouldn't murder him?
And just who were these Christian terrorists? I seem to recall Tiller was shot by a person of questionable mental stability who had a criminal record. One person cannot reasonably be held accountable for the actions of another. I don't recall blaming others when one of your co-religionists shot up the Holocaust Museum, leaving a security guard dead.
We're discussing about 0.5% of abortions, and I told you my solution, the woman decides. You have a better one? Who decides? (BTW, you still never answered my question about a woman's rights.)
ReplyDeleteWhat's more humane? It depends. Anyway, that's not the issue. Give the woman her rights, then talk to her about what's humane.
Abortion clinics and their staffs have been under attack for twenty years, from vandals, arsonists, bombers, and murderers. What does a terrorist have to do to get recognition from you? Tiller's murderer had support from and connections to ant-abortion groups, most of which are Christian.
As for von Braunn, who you refer to as my coreligionist, you never asked, but I usually describe my religious status as Jewish atheist. That may bear more discussion, nevertheless, I don't think the Holocaust Museum shooter would cop to that. I guess a white supremacist can be an atheist. He was more educated than most white supremacists. Do you think white supremacy is an atheist conspiracy? (Don't bother me while I'm chowing down on a fresh baby.)
Von Brunn? He was a Darwinist who thought that Christianity was a lie, thus the "co-religionist" tag.
ReplyDeleteTiller's murderer had support from and connections to anti-abortion groups, most of which are Christian.
Right Jay-bird, and just who were these fine upstanding Christians who supported him?
One question, do you consider yourself "culturally Jewish"? Just curious. Pardon the delay in responding but I was out of town for about a week.
Roeder was destitute. Yet he had money to follow the anti-abortion movement. He had connections to Operation Rescue.
ReplyDeleteYou don't think that assassins, vandals, bombers, and arsonists are terrorists? Please elaborate. (Ah, but you always dodge my questions.)
I don't think Christianity is a "lie." It's a mythology. It's best lessons are lost in the hands of zealots.
Judaism is a tribal identity. There is no doubt that I am affected by the culture, including the ethics. Also sense of humor, food preferences, speech patterns, intellectualism, etc. And to paraphrase my mother, "Next time they come for the Jews, they won't care that you're an atheist." This is instilled in most post holocaust Jews.
I am not a Darwinist. There are those who understand science and those who don't. In 150 years, no research finding has contradicted his theory. As soon as it happens, we throw it out. This is an example of, "application of the highest wisdom," one of the Zen teachings of Huang Po.
I am largely a humanist, and a citizen of the world.
I see...Just wondering...Therefore when you say "I don't think Christianity is a "lie." It's a mythology. It's best lessons are lost in the hands of zealots." what is the difference to you beteween the words "lie" and "mythology"?
ReplyDeleteYou don't think that assassins, vandals, bombers, and arsonists are terrorists? Please elaborate. (Ah, but you always dodge my questions.)
If I've been evasive it's unintentional Jay, I assure you. I don't condone any violence done in the name of God if that's what's your asking.
Yes, you are being evasive. I don't see how it can be unintentional. The question is: are assassins, vandals, bombers, and arsonists terrorists? And you didn't answer it.
ReplyDeleteA mythology is an allegorical narrative. A lie is a false statement made with intent to deceive. The dictionary is your friend, since most arguments are about what words mean.
The question is: are assassins, vandals, bombers, and arsonists terrorists? And you didn't answer it.
ReplyDeleteFrom yourdictionary.com, terrorism: 1.the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2.the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
All of the above mentioned by you can be such if their intentions are as defined by the dictionary definition of terrorism.
The reason I'm posting tonight Jay is because I came across a blog and I thought of you when I encountered it. I think he's a local guy who was previously Jewish. It's titled What's in your heart?. If you get a chance to check it out, let me know what you think of it.
Do you not have thoughts of your own? I and the dictionary know what terrorism is, but do you? You don't say.
ReplyDeleteDavid's blog is interesting and I can relate to some of it, but ultimately his metaphysical struggle is not mine. If he wants to help the poor and downtrodden, he should do it. Intellectualizing will not get him there. He seems to be carrying a lot of guilt. His pain is evident. I hope he finds what he's looking for, but I don't think he will. He sounds very smart though.
Hey, JD, here's a LTTE from Tiller's pastor describing the terrorism of Operation Rescue.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/886077.html
BTW, I have some inside knowledge of the hypocritical behavior of some of these abortion protesters when their daughters get knocked up. Then, it's a "special case."
I read he letter to the editor from Tiller's former pastor. Again, I don't condone violence as a tactic for solving this issue and I would not (nor the vast majority of self-described "Christians" would not) participate in a violent protest. Such acts are outside the mainstream. To assert otherwise is just untrue.
ReplyDeletePlease don't be peeved that I resorted to a dictionary reference to clarify what we are talking about. I've been involved with enough online discussions to know that it's important to agree on definitions. It eliminates wasteful dialog.
Oh, and no one group has cornered the market on "hypocrisy" in my opinion.
I agree it's important to define terms. Most arguments are about what words mean, avoiding the substance.
ReplyDeleteBut you still haven't stated your position on whether those who assassinate, bomb, burn, vandalize and harass abortion providers and their patients are terrorists. I didn't imply that this includes most Christians.
Charges of hypocrisy are generally limited to those people who want to tell others how to behave morally and then do otherwise. So those who want to impose their view of morality on others are particularly susceptible to this charge, while social libertarians are inoculated to it.
JD, How is this not terrorism?
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/20/terry-violent-convulsions/