For Your Consideration... On Debate

A few points to consider as we move forward with this conversation, if you will.

1. A debate and a discussion are two very different things. If you are debating, you are expected to present your arguments in a logical fashion and support your argument with evidence. In a discussion, there is no implicit expectation of logical or factual reasoning. Freedom of speech does not exist in debate. There are very particular rules about what speech is allowed and when you can use it. Lawyers understand this very well.
2. Considering the last point, it is up to both (or more) parties involved to be clear about whether this is a discussion or a debate. Debates have rules; discussions do not.
3. Once an interaction has been established as a debate, winning or losing (yes, debates are a contest with a winner and loser) is often determined more by how one responds to their opponent's arguments as much as how they present their own. It is possible to win a debate without ever presenting any evidence of your own so long as you are able to contradict any evidence presented by your opponent. Defense attorneys in the U.S. do this all of the time.

So, are we having debates in this Temple or are we having discussions? It is pretty evident to me that nearly every interaction here is a discussion. We need to be mindful of this as we interact with those who disagree with our opinions or don't understand how a conversation is making us feel. It is on each one of us, individually, to accept that until this is a court of law or a scholastic debate tournament, our expectation for any conversation to go the way we want it to should be checked with a dose of reality.

MadHatter,

So essentially, because you are incapable of seeing things as gray, because for you they have to be black and white then I am wrong?

That sounds like a personal failing to me, not my error.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter,

So essentially, because you are incapable of seeing things as gray, because for you they have to be black and white then I am wrong?

That sounds like a personal failing to me, not my error.

When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

MadHatter wrote:
When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

Were it not for your father, would you construct and use a Day of the Dead altar? You see the whole thing of me deconstructing and then reconstructing my sentence was to elaborate on the meaning of what I said and make it clear. This is called a contingency. Your access to the Day of the Dead altar is contingent upon your father.

If you wanted it in black and white, if you wanted me to throw out nuance and anything worthwhile about drawing up meaningful distinctions, I'd simply say that yes, it is your culture. Your father raised you with a value for this altar and therefore it is just as much a part of you as it was for your father or his father or his father's father. This isn't some radical shift from what I said earlier, it's exactly what I said before without nuanced distinction of the contingency. I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:
When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

Were it not for your father, would you construct and use a Day of the Dead altar? You see the whole thing of me deconstructing and then reconstructing my sentence was to elaborate on the meaning of what I said and make it clear. This is called a contingency. Your access to the Day of the Dead altar is contingent upon your father.

If you wanted it in black and white, if you wanted me to throw out nuance and anything worthwhile about drawing up meaningful distinctions, I'd simply say that yes, it is your culture. Your father raised you with a value for this altar and therefore it is just as much a part of you as it was for your father or his father or his father's father. This isn't some radical shift from what I said earlier, it's exactly what I said before without nuanced distinction of the contingency. I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie in some cases there is not any room for nuance. Some things are or they are not. Yes, you might consider that too crass or blunt but I tend to be a very upfront person. I don't mince words nor do I beat around the bush. So I appreciate the clear up. Further, my intentions here have never been to upset you but to get you to think about how your own actions can cause others to feel exactly as you claim people are making you feel. That's all my goal was and nothing more. Oh, and the insults are beneath you Jamie you are far better than that, further, I think I have extended you the courtesy of being civil so I would ask you do the same.
So I will close with these three things:
1. I hope you understand my clearing this up here and not via pm was out of respect for your telling me not to contact you which to me meant no more PM
2. I never intended to insult you, twist your words, or anything else I simply wanted you to think about how we are all guilty of doing things unintentionally that hurt others or make them feel less than welcome
3. I hope you understand that no matter what you think of me that I for one respect you and value the challenge you present to much of my way of thinking. Growth to me only happens when pushed and you are a prime source of that challenge for me here and I respect and appreciate it. So I truly hope you don't lever leave.

Jamie Stick wrote: Buckle up, kiddo, this bus is taking you to school.

Today's lesson: how to read a sentence. Class is now in session.

Jamie Stick wrote: I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie, it is statements like this that seem to highlight the disconnect between a desire for "friendly debate" and actually participating in adversarial discussion. Injecting emotionally charged statements into an otherwise clearly stated point damages the credibility of the speaker. It is also detrimental to making a point when we attack others for their inability to understand it rather than explaining it further or moving past it altogether.

You have such great information to offer, and you offer it from a rare and valuable perspective. I want to hear you, and it frustrates me every time these conversations turn into bickering. I believe it frustrates you as well, which was the point I took from the original post.

We are all guilty of becoming adversarial, and when we do we miss opportunities to further a constructive discussion. We miss opportunities to both teach and learn. I want to learn from you, Jamie, so don't give up even if we leave a lot to be desired in the way we communicate.

MadHatter,

You talk about respect, you talk about wanting to see me grow but I feel none of it from what you've done. This post wasn't
about racism, sexism, transphobia or any of that. This post wasn't me accusing anyone. It was me trying to explain, to build understanding, to bridge a gap so that people like you could understand where I'm coming from. Instead this became about racism and appropriation. Instead this became a private conversation dragged out into the public.

You say you didn't send me a message out of respect for me asking you to not contact me via PM, but there was a full hour between my statement in which I answered your question and me asking you not to contact me. In that time you composed three messages to me but not once did you ask for clarification or rephrasing.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter,

You talk about respect, you talk about wanting to see me grow but I feel none of it from what you've done. This post wasn't
about racism, sexism, transphobia or any of that. This post wasn't me accusing anyone. It was me trying to explain, to build understanding, to bridge a gap so that people like you could understand where I'm coming from. Instead this became about racism and appropriation. Instead this became a private conversation dragged out into the public.

You say you didn't send me a message out of respect for me asking you to not contact me via PM, but there was a full hour between my statement in which I answered your question and me asking you not to contact me. In that time you composed three messages to me but not once did you ask for clarification or rephrasing.

Jamie in the PM that we discussed that matter the last post from you was you asking me not to contact you which is why I didn't. It's that simple.

Further, you might not feel those things because I tend to be blunt and maybe I need polishing on how I approach things sure I'll grant that. However when your message comes across as saying that people are unsafe when they disagree with you on things you consider fundamental to your being well how else can it feel but accusatory.?
Also what I was trying to point out is that you often come across in the same manner in which you said others come across to you. I was trying to get you to think about the fact that you don't often intend to cause others to feel unsafe, unwelcome or any other negative emotions do you? Yet you have made me feel exactly that for a brief instant before I let it go. What I was trying to get at with that is that your intentions are generally good so maybe you should try to give people a little more slack and take some matters slightly less personally.

So you felt that it was appropriate to air out your dirty laundry, dragging me in in the process, on the very first post I made regardless of what the topic was?

You've taken upon yourself to try to educate me, to "teach me a lesson" as it were, but what gives you that right? Furthermore, you equate your feeling unwelcomed (which I am not disputing at this moment) to what I'm talking about, but what gives you that right? How are they the same?

You ask me not to take things personally, but this post was supposed to illuminate a reality that I live in which I can't not take these things personally. To do so would be to pretend that we're not talking about policies, ideas, and people who threaten me and my loved ones. Please explains to me why I shouldn't take that personally?

Jamie Stick wrote: So you felt that it was appropriate to air out your dirty laundry, dragging me in in the process, on the very first post I made regardless of what the topic was?

You've taken upon yourself to try to educate me, to "teach me a lesson" as it were, but what gives you that right? Furthermore, you equate your feeling unwelcomed (which I am not disputing at this moment) to what I'm talking about, but what gives you that right? How are they the same?

You ask me not to take things personally, but this post was supposed to illuminate a reality that I live in which I can't not take these things personally. To do so would be to pretend that we're not talking about policies, ideas, and people who threaten me and my loved ones. Please explains to me why I shouldn't take that personally?

No not regardless of the post. I felt that the situation had bearing on what was said. Its a matter of how some conversations can make others feel and that was an example of how we are all guilty of it. Some people say things that we take to heart but were not meant the way we take them. As we saw with my misunderstanding of your statement.

What gives me the right? The fact that this is a free forum and anyone can respond to the topic at hand in any manner they see fit so long as the response follows site guidelines. How are they the same its all perception of how things are said or meant. That is what makes them the same.

Finally, you say that you cant help but to take these things personally as they are a threat to you or those you love. How? How is disagreeing with your views a threat?