I really, really enjoy debating and discussing ideas and issues. I've always found it enlivening to drill down to the core of the beliefs that we hold and philosophies that we adhere to. I've always been interested in ultimate questions and examining given assumptions.
The reality of life is that not every operates from the same ethical and philsophical framework. People who see things through differing lenses are bound to arrive at different conclusions, and this what often stirs debate and discussion.
The reality of life is that not every operates from the same ethical and philsophical framework. People who see things through differing lenses are bound to arrive at different conclusions, and this what often stirs debate and discussion.
Sometimes, I've debate and discussed in a productive manner. Sometimes, I have fallen short of engaging in a productive manner. It turns out that I'm not perfect; but I do try to at least be aware of when I've missed the mark and to own up to it.
In reflecting on the instances when discussion and dialogue went well, the following thoughts occurred to me.
* We can agree to disagree with those of different beliefs.
* However, dehumanization need not be tolerated. Beliefs which deny the full humanity of all (and thereby deny equal protections to those deemed less-than-fully-human) are necessarily inferior ethically to those which recognize the full humanity of all. The negating of someone’s existence goes well beyond differences of opinion.
* Someone’s continued and unrepentant use of dehumanizing rhetoric and bad faith arguments are legitimate grounds for ending discussion with them, but never for completely writing off those that utilize them in their entirety. The future is not fixed - and though it is more rare than one would hope - people do change their minds.
* Be discerning about who is able to engage in intellectually honest dialogue and who is unable to, and then proceed accordingly.
* Fact check what you say before putting it out there. Having accurate and verifiable citations from trustworthy sources helps bring objective clarity to otherwise subjective discussion.
* An effective approach to stated opinions that don’t hold up to scrutiny and fact-checking is to ask clarifying questions. Why does the party that offers untenable and disprovable opinions believe that what they claim is the case? This can be helpful to getting down to the nitty gritty of the fear that is steering the ship.
* Impact always takes priority over intent. Whether on not one intended to cause offense with a statement; if its impact made the recipient feel badly, an apology for that causing that impact is the appropriate response.
* Assertively stating and defending one’s beliefs doesn’t mean one has to be disagreeable. Being assertive is the healthy middle ground between being passive and being aggressive.
* Good faith debate is only possible with intellectual honesty. It's often the case that many things that we believe to be true are based merely on what we wish to be true or what we feel should be true. Good faith debate requires moving beyond unexamined and rote statements of opinion.
* Ignorance is not an excuse. Beliefs held for ideological reasons - but lacking an awareness of the negative impacts their resultant policies have on marginalized groups - are not a carte blanche; even if there was no intent to be harmful.
