I never said it was. I think outrage is appropriate for a Presidential lie that has led to over 100,000 deaths... and that's just for starters -- there's 50 years of history regarding US interventionism before that with many more unnecessary deaths to be outraged over. What’s your response to that sort of carnage and deceit? Some folks in this forum have chosen denial, and at least one other has determined it’s acceptable -- I have chosen outrage. Feel what ever you think is appropriate, but don’t ignore it whatever you do.Walden wrote: Perhaps the ignorance is in assuming that there is only one valid emotional response.
JGilder vs. IrTradRU ...
-
jGilder
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:25 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
You give the impression that all of America is one of the following:jGilder wrote:I never said it was. I think outrage is appropriate for a Presidential lie that has led to over 100,000 deaths... and that's just for starters -- there's 50 years of history regarding US interventionism before that with many more unnecessary deaths to be outraged over. What’s your response to that sort of carnage and deceit? Some folks in this forum have chosen denial, and at least one other has determined it’s acceptable -- I have chosen outrage. Feel what ever you think is appropriate, but don’t ignore it whatever you do.
(1) Uninformed.
(2) Head buried in sand.
(3) Agrees with you.
(4) Wicked Republican.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
Now, aren't you simply agreeing with Walden? It sounds like you consider outrage the only valid emotional response. Or at least, it doesn't sound like you consider the other responses very rational. Is this more or less your stance on the matter?jGilder wrote:Walden wrote: Perhaps the ignorance is in assuming that there is only one valid emotional response.
I never said it was. I think outrage is appropriate for a Presidential lie that has led to over 100,000 deaths... and that's just for starters -- there's 50 years of history regarding US interventionism before that with many more unnecessary deaths to be outraged over. What’s your response to that sort of carnage and deceit? Some folks in this forum have chosen denial, and at least one other has determined it’s acceptable -- I have chosen outrage.
And in any case, what constitutes denial? If I'm in the popcorn thread talking about popcorn, is that an act of denial?
Caj
-
s1m0n
- Posts: 10069
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:17 am
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: The Inside Passage
I'll buy that. Or a mixture of 1, 2 and 4.You give the impression that all of America is one of the following:
(1) Uninformed.
(2) Head buried in sand.
(3) Agrees with you.
(4) Wicked Republican.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
jGilder
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:25 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Nope, I said it's the response I choose because I think it's appropriate. I clearly suggested one could choose for themselves whatever they consider to be appropriate.Caj wrote: Now, aren't you simply agreeing with Walden? It sounds like you consider outrage the only valid emotional response. Or at least, it doesn't sound like you consider the other responses very rational. Is this more or less your stance on the matter?
Denial is what some have chosen to do in response to being presented with the facts. If you're on the popcorn thread and someone tells you that corn grows on a cob, and proves it, and you insist it doesn't -- that would be denial. But I haven't been on the popcorn thread, so I have no idea what you guys might be discussing over there.Caj wrote:And in any case, what constitutes denial? If I'm in the popcorn thread talking about popcorn, is that an act of denial?
-
jGilder
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:25 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
If that's your perception of what I've been talking about then I'm not at all surprised that you don't agree with me -- let alone even understand what I'm saying.Walden wrote: You give the impression that all of America is one of the following:
(1) Uninformed.
(2) Head buried in sand.
(3) Agrees with you.
(4) Wicked Republican.
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
I'm going to risk poking my head in here.
JGilder, first let me repeat my statement that I am sympathetic to most of the information you're reporting in the political discussions. I take a stance similar to yours on most of the issues that come up, so I feel I can take the liberty of addressing this point directly to you, though it does apply to others, as well.
I think there's something in the way you're going about this that has an element of self-fulfilling prophecy. Or, to put it bluntly, you're systematically shooting yourself in the foot, and here's how:
You often couch your comments in terms that have an edge of condescention, dismissiveness, agression, etc. that pretty much ensures that your debating partner(s) will be offended.
In other words, you're presenting two messages simultaneously:
1. "Here is some information I believe is relevant to what we're discussing."
2. "You're _________ (fill in the blank: wrong, stupid, ignorant, in denial, immoral, corrupt, etc.)"
If you really want to change someone's mind, you have to figure out how to engage them. The only way I know to do that is to treat them with respect and give them every possible reason to want to remain in a conversation with you. And I mean conversation, not an exchange where two people are shouting or sneering past each other and neither one's hearing the other.
If you really believe what you're saying is important, and if you really believe you can make a difference by trying to inform people, then logically, you already respect them enough to believe they might be able to understand what you're driving at.
However, if you approaach your readers in ways that are sure to turn them off and drive them away, then one has to be suspicious of how serious you really are and how much respect you really have for the information you purport to convey.
If you really believe it's crucial to inform people, and convince them if possible, then I would suggest that you carefully take stock of how you are presenting your information. I would suggest that you take a look at every post you have made and try to figure out how you can present "just the facts, Ma'am" in terms that will make the facts as clear as possible, without even a nuance of disrespect or condescention towards your readers.
"You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
Quite seriously, I would like to ask that you try to decide what you want out of these discussions. If the information you're presenting really is important to you, then you will do that information much better service if you can find ways to present it without sticking it full of hooks and barbs that make it impossible for your audience to swallow.
On the other hand, if you don't consider the information itself to be important, but rather, the excitement of a pitched argument is the real objective, than you're doing a pretty good job as it is, and I wouldn't recommend that you change a thing.
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Jerry
JGilder, first let me repeat my statement that I am sympathetic to most of the information you're reporting in the political discussions. I take a stance similar to yours on most of the issues that come up, so I feel I can take the liberty of addressing this point directly to you, though it does apply to others, as well.
I think there's something in the way you're going about this that has an element of self-fulfilling prophecy. Or, to put it bluntly, you're systematically shooting yourself in the foot, and here's how:
You often couch your comments in terms that have an edge of condescention, dismissiveness, agression, etc. that pretty much ensures that your debating partner(s) will be offended.
In other words, you're presenting two messages simultaneously:
1. "Here is some information I believe is relevant to what we're discussing."
2. "You're _________ (fill in the blank: wrong, stupid, ignorant, in denial, immoral, corrupt, etc.)"
If you really want to change someone's mind, you have to figure out how to engage them. The only way I know to do that is to treat them with respect and give them every possible reason to want to remain in a conversation with you. And I mean conversation, not an exchange where two people are shouting or sneering past each other and neither one's hearing the other.
If you really believe what you're saying is important, and if you really believe you can make a difference by trying to inform people, then logically, you already respect them enough to believe they might be able to understand what you're driving at.
However, if you approaach your readers in ways that are sure to turn them off and drive them away, then one has to be suspicious of how serious you really are and how much respect you really have for the information you purport to convey.
If you really believe it's crucial to inform people, and convince them if possible, then I would suggest that you carefully take stock of how you are presenting your information. I would suggest that you take a look at every post you have made and try to figure out how you can present "just the facts, Ma'am" in terms that will make the facts as clear as possible, without even a nuance of disrespect or condescention towards your readers.
"You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
Quite seriously, I would like to ask that you try to decide what you want out of these discussions. If the information you're presenting really is important to you, then you will do that information much better service if you can find ways to present it without sticking it full of hooks and barbs that make it impossible for your audience to swallow.
On the other hand, if you don't consider the information itself to be important, but rather, the excitement of a pitched argument is the real objective, than you're doing a pretty good job as it is, and I wouldn't recommend that you change a thing.
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Jerry
-
jGilder
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:25 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Thanks Jerry, but I disagree. If you review the discussions you'll find that the information I provide is attacked by people who in most cases haven't heard about the details that I present. The problem starts when they attack the information rather than discussing it or investigating it themselves. In most of these cases the source is attacked without substantiation and unnecessary time is spent defending the facts instead of moving on with the topic. It's not long before what could have been an interesting discussion dissolves into something pointless.Jerry Freeman wrote: I think there's something in the way you're going about this that has an element of self-fulfilling prophecy. Or, to put it bluntly, you're systematically shooting yourself in the foot, and here's how:
Even though you say you sympathize with me I’m suspicious of your motives and it appears disingenuous since your critique is in public and aimed only at me. I think if you were sincere about helping me you would have contacted me privately regarding this matter. If you were going to address it in public it should have been balanced with a critique of all sides.
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
If you will allow me, I would like to suggest that you take more time to study the matter.
There are definitely members of this board, and I count myself among them, who are sympathetic to what you're trying to do, and who find the information you're posting interesting and useful.
However, I have to stand by what I'm telling you. You're shooting yourself in the foot by encumbering the information with a style and a tone that drives people away from you. When you drive your debating partners away from yourself, you lock them out of the information you are trying to present, and thereby you do the information and them a disservice.
Of course people will attack information that's unfamiliar or inconvenient. If they're truly incapable of absorbing it, then there's no need for you to exert yourself in extended argument with them and you can feel satisfied that you've done your duty by having exposed them to it at all.
On the other hand, if they are capable of absorbing the information, even if their first, instinctive response is hostile, your only chance to inform/convince them will be if you remain patient and respectful, and respond to their questions and objections with as much kindness and politeness as you can muster.
It can take a long time. You might be talking to someone for months or years before you've significantly influenced their point of view. To insist that it's their fault that the discussion has fallen apart because their first reaction was negative is, in my opinion, to reveal a lack of commitment on your part to really engaging and convincing people through an extended, serious exchange.
Best wishes,
Jerry
There are definitely members of this board, and I count myself among them, who are sympathetic to what you're trying to do, and who find the information you're posting interesting and useful.
However, I have to stand by what I'm telling you. You're shooting yourself in the foot by encumbering the information with a style and a tone that drives people away from you. When you drive your debating partners away from yourself, you lock them out of the information you are trying to present, and thereby you do the information and them a disservice.
Of course people will attack information that's unfamiliar or inconvenient. If they're truly incapable of absorbing it, then there's no need for you to exert yourself in extended argument with them and you can feel satisfied that you've done your duty by having exposed them to it at all.
On the other hand, if they are capable of absorbing the information, even if their first, instinctive response is hostile, your only chance to inform/convince them will be if you remain patient and respectful, and respond to their questions and objections with as much kindness and politeness as you can muster.
It can take a long time. You might be talking to someone for months or years before you've significantly influenced their point of view. To insist that it's their fault that the discussion has fallen apart because their first reaction was negative is, in my opinion, to reveal a lack of commitment on your part to really engaging and convincing people through an extended, serious exchange.
Best wishes,
Jerry
I believe this is an unhealthy game: 'Bait and Bash.'
It's played this way.
You say something provocative, then, when somebody
responds, bash them. Or if they try to be reasonable
try to get them into a quarrel and then bash them.
The goal is to bash people.
There is just one skillful response, namely,
don't take the bait, don't respond.
It's played this way.
You say something provocative, then, when somebody
responds, bash them. Or if they try to be reasonable
try to get them into a quarrel and then bash them.
The goal is to bash people.
There is just one skillful response, namely,
don't take the bait, don't respond.