For Your Consideration... On Debate

There's this idea that people should debate ideas and it's a staple of this Temple that we debate every topic under the sun. But what should I think and feel when the debate is on a topic that directly affects me or the ones I love? How should I feel when people voice their belief that I don't belong in a woman's bathroom or worse, that I am not a woman? Suddenly it doesn't strike me as a friendly debate among peers, but a grave threat to my existence and a desperate need to defend my very right to it.

How should I feel when I offer scientific evidence and the well-researched opinions defending myself and my loved ones but if someone else states a popular yet unproven opinion, they are considered to have an equally valuable opinion?

Concept adapted from this blog entry (not my blog).

You have created what equates to a false dichotomy here. In particular that blog entry has definitely done that. There are way more choices and nuances and philosophies in any debate than just a posturing "I'm correct because of facts" and "you are wrong because not facts" interaction. What is the reasoning behind the positions (more than two most times) and what facts have been presented ON BOTH SIDES that support those reasons. Now I understand about prejudicial bias and that's not what I am supporting here, but worldviews and different life philosophies lend themselves to a myriad of diverse opinion and possibilities and to dismiss ones entire being or makeup based on a single position is just folly in my opinion. Some of my best friends have opposite political worldviews based on their life experience and I respect their right to have those opinions even though I do not agree with them. But to segregate yourself off from those people because you do not agree with one stance is just over compensation I think. Instead, talk to those people and find our why they believe as they do and then work with them to come to a better understanding about the issue, that is the true path to reconciliation and compromise I think.

Seriously? How is that constructive? I was trying to take your condescending post with a grain of salt and give an honest and serious answer and you come back with more condesention. Nice, seems to be your style so figure it out for yourself. Hope you find what your looking for but i doubt you will until you sort your own personality flaws.

I feel (not think, this is a matter of biased perception more than researched scholarly understaning), that the real issue is not that people have contrary opinions based on whatever - we people are generally dumb anyway. For example, if I were to say that you are not a woman, that doesn't make you any less of a woman. I'd just be more of an idiot (and that is my right as well).

The real issue though, is that my idiotic opinion is adding to thousands of other idiots who are now out there making your life impossible.

So debate seems perfectly ok to me, as long as we don't jump the gun and turn our opinions into policy of any sort. But that happens, doesn't it?

End of pointless rant. :huh:

First of all, I will say you are giving people's opinions far too much power over you, your thoughts, and emotions. Someone who believes you are not who you say you are, has no power over your existence or your perception of it unless you let them. Why should you care what they think? People are free to be wrong and bullheaded if they like, and you are free to dismiss them. I know I came here far more bull headed and a pretty big jerk and have grown better for people like yourself having challenged me and forced me to question if I am as right as I thought.

Further, Jamie, you say that such talk is a threat to your existence. Well in a PM you basically said that my father's culture is not my culture because well we are not blood-related. How should I take that? Should I get mad or feel threatened because you told me the man who raised me and taught me what it is to be a man did not pass his culture on to me? You are as guilty as anyone of this faux pas.

Should we try to remember that people's feelings might be hurt or they might feel like they are less than welcome because of our words? Sure of course and I am as guilty as anyone of being tactless at times. However, those who hold opinions you disagree with will never come to change their minds if we do not debate and expose ourselves to ideas that challenge our world view.

Finally, you said that a researched opinion is held as just as valid as a nonresearched one. Just as valid to whom? Certainly not to me so long as you post the proof to back it so I know it's not just a claim to research. So it might be just as valid to some but not to all. Further, they have just as much right to voice their opinion as you, just because they didn't research it as well as you might have does not mean there is nothing to be learned from their words.

Jamie Stick wrote: There's this idea that people should debate ideas and it's a staple of this Temple that we debate every topic under the sun. But what should I think and feel when the debate is on a topic that directly affects me or the ones I love? How should I feel when people voice their belief that I don't belong in a woman's bathroom or worse, that I am not a woman? Suddenly it doesn't strike me as a friendly debate among peers, but a grave threat to my existence and a desperate need to defend my very right to it.

How should I feel when I offer scientific evidence and the well-researched opinions defending myself and my loved ones but if someone else states a popular yet unproven opinion, they are considered to have an equally valuable opinion?

Concept adapted from this blog entry (not my blog).

Feel however you feel. There are only SOME things in our control. Here from Epictetus

1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions

Buckle up, this is going to be long.

Jamie Stick wrote: How should I feel when I offer scientific evidence and the well-researched opinions defending myself and my loved ones but if someone else states a popular yet unproven opinion, they are considered to have an equally valuable opinion?

I don't think that happens very often. More often it's a matter of one person presenting "scientific evidence" and the other person saying a) that isn't scientific, b) that is scientific, but it doesn't prove your point, or c) the science is flawed.

This happens tons with arguments that use studies from the social sciences because they are so imprecise. Even the ones that have been replicated many times often take place under very specific circumstances. And ethnographies, case studies, and other unrepeatable studies are even more subject to doubt.

In these case, having "scientific research" backing your [general you] opinion isn't an end all be all. That doesn't mean that you're wrong just because you found a study that you believe supports your opinion, but it also doesn't mean that your opinion is completely and utterly proven while arguments to the contrary are completely and utterly unproven. Science is more complicated than that.

Jamie Stick wrote: Suddenly it doesn't strike me as a friendly debate among peers, but a grave threat to my existence and a desperate need to defend my very right to it.

As for feeling threatened by views that seem to put your life and wellbeing at risk, I know where you're coming from. I really do. It's hard to face those kind of things. It's even harder to try to remain impassive when you do. People in debates often treat being emotionally involved as compromising good judgement and voiding your argument. It does compromise your judgement, but it doesn't void your argument.

One thing that helps is to recognize that people with an opinion that can lead to your suffering don't necessarily hold that suffering as a goal. Sometimes because they don't see it. Sometimes because, while that opinion is associated with other opinions and people that will threaten you, that opinion itself isn't really the source. Not every Republican wants to force young girls to give birth to their rapists' child, for example (not saying you think that). Some of them just think state governments should have more say in local affairs. Implying that a person holds opinions they do not or would take actions they would not just turns up the heat and makes it harder to be heard. Taking a step back and separating out the different views a person can hold on different issues can be helpful.

Another thing is to realize that the person you're debating with isn't hurting you right now. While they may think "better safe than sorry, keep trans folks out of my bathroom" they are not, right now, at this moment, assaulting a transwoman in the men's restroom. Debating with them is your chance to prevent that from happening (either at their hands or the hands of another). When I put my focus on doing the best I can in the debate, presenting my views with clarity and masking my emotions to prevent dismissal, I can change more minds.

On that note, when you're debating with somebody in a public forum like this, the person you're talking to isn't the only person seeing it. You're fairly unlikely to change the mind of the person you're talking to (at least right away). But onlookers who aren't entrenching themselves in their opinions can be swayed much easier. But, like I said earlier, many people think emotional involvement voids your argument. So doing all you can to keep your head and your words clear is the best bet.

It's a hard thing. I won't pretend I'm a master at it, either. But those are just the ways I approach issues like this.

Jamie Stick wrote: How should I feel when I offer scientific evidence and the well-researched opinions defending myself and my loved ones but if someone else states a popular yet unproven opinion, they are considered to have an equally valuable opinion?

Maybe depends on how you define 'value' in that last sentence. I guess the most anyone can ask is trying to look at the other opinion on its arguments own relationships with its own parameters, explore those arguments and then take or leave anything which is useful in expanding ones own views and opinions. The concept of right, wrong, correct, incorrect is probably better associated within some context such that it can be more functionally considered instead as 'accuracy', if relevant. It's natural to compare another opinion with our own to assess it, because its how we often best understand the topic - but it might not be the best way... at least not initially.

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” -Sam Harris