- Posts: 15383
- Thank you received: 163
Is This Possible?
16 Sep 2011 11:38 #35
by Nobody that matters
The fact that the discussions would not run far before falling into the typical labelfest is all Bush's fault.
Or maybe Carter's.
We should have a debate about that.
The serious threads should start with this picture:
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Replied by Nobody that matters on topic Is This Possible?
Martin Ent Inc wrote: People not being able to face each other probably cannot/will not carry a debate very far without bringing in their left vs right, blah blah fault etc.
The fact that the discussions would not run far before falling into the typical labelfest is all Bush's fault.
Or maybe Carter's.
We should have a debate about that.
The serious threads should start with this picture:
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 Sep 2011 12:42 - 17 Sep 2011 12:44 #39
by BuyersAgent1
It might be useful to think of the issue as one being presented to a mediator or arbitrator.
The fundamental notion is that the ideas themselves are elevated among the status of any particular participant. It may be easier to think about this in regard to the resolution of a legal dispute but actually, the numbers of people involved in a "public" or "political" discussion make the topic vastly important. The rules of participation usually are that the members don't throw fruit or livestock at opponents, which merely creates the distraction of controlling that behavior, but try to address the actual issues instead.
What moderation should do is provide an invisible Authority or faux Tribunal that is to be treated with respect. In turn, the Authority/Tribunal figure should be a diplomat and not have an independent agenda of being a tyrant or weeny, or personally invested in the outcome of the dispute (via "community friendships" or whatever).
The modern way to resolve legal disputes isn't to play Russian Roulette with a Judge and Jury. It's for both sides to agree on a private "moderator" in advance, treat that person with dignity and respect in appreciation of the issue that is at stake, and abide by the outcome of his or her decision. Here's the catch: it costs $$$$$$$$$.
Still, this manner of resolution acknowledges that some of those who choose to become trained at being Judges are inherently "judgmental" over others, sometimes can't focus on the real issues, and become part of the problem themselves.
I used to infuriate (mainly, one of) our kids by pointing out an article in the newspaper, and once I got them to connect with "a side," becoming Devil's Advocate for the "other side of the coin." On one occasion, frustrated Dear Daughter exclaimed, "So what's the right answer?!" to which I responded, "The difference between the "right side" and the "wrong one" is always just a matter of relative degree." Not what she wanted to hear at the time, as everybody is always looking for The Right Answer and especially kids getting grades for knowing what it is.
As adults, we're supposed to progress and evolve into the fundamental reality that a lot of what we believe is (how is this spelled?) caca-doodie. Our minds are made to flexibly evaluate different perspectives. Or, they should be anyway.
Replied by BuyersAgent1 on topic Is This Possible?
HEARTLESS wrote: I fart in your general directions.
It might be useful to think of the issue as one being presented to a mediator or arbitrator.
The fundamental notion is that the ideas themselves are elevated among the status of any particular participant. It may be easier to think about this in regard to the resolution of a legal dispute but actually, the numbers of people involved in a "public" or "political" discussion make the topic vastly important. The rules of participation usually are that the members don't throw fruit or livestock at opponents, which merely creates the distraction of controlling that behavior, but try to address the actual issues instead.
What moderation should do is provide an invisible Authority or faux Tribunal that is to be treated with respect. In turn, the Authority/Tribunal figure should be a diplomat and not have an independent agenda of being a tyrant or weeny, or personally invested in the outcome of the dispute (via "community friendships" or whatever).
The modern way to resolve legal disputes isn't to play Russian Roulette with a Judge and Jury. It's for both sides to agree on a private "moderator" in advance, treat that person with dignity and respect in appreciation of the issue that is at stake, and abide by the outcome of his or her decision. Here's the catch: it costs $$$$$$$$$.
Still, this manner of resolution acknowledges that some of those who choose to become trained at being Judges are inherently "judgmental" over others, sometimes can't focus on the real issues, and become part of the problem themselves.
I used to infuriate (mainly, one of) our kids by pointing out an article in the newspaper, and once I got them to connect with "a side," becoming Devil's Advocate for the "other side of the coin." On one occasion, frustrated Dear Daughter exclaimed, "So what's the right answer?!" to which I responded, "The difference between the "right side" and the "wrong one" is always just a matter of relative degree." Not what she wanted to hear at the time, as everybody is always looking for The Right Answer and especially kids getting grades for knowing what it is.
As adults, we're supposed to progress and evolve into the fundamental reality that a lot of what we believe is (how is this spelled?) caca-doodie. Our minds are made to flexibly evaluate different perspectives. Or, they should be anyway.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.192 seconds
sponsors
