Are we still able to debate fairly?

[JayneWonders]

What is resolution in some of the debates we have here, though? A lot of our discussions are exchanges of opinion and the resolution is just that no opinions change, we just learn a bit more about what other folks here think. This isn't like a Oxford debate where there will be "winner" based on how they presented their case.

In fact, I don't think most of what happens here qualifies as "debate". It is more discussion and exchange of ideas. Rarely do we see people presenting a case and then carefully defending it as in a proper debate.

Understood. I was discussing the more informal discussion as refenced in definitions re debate.
Sample definition

Debate Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

DEBATE meaning: a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something often + on, about, or over often + on, about, or over

www.britannica.com

Also, i should say we don't actually phone anymore. Or rarely. Most times it is a teams call which is VoIP and in all likelihood recorded/transcribed in some log somewhere. As a side note, there is a reason we sometimes do switch to our personal cells. I may start a thread on this

I feel we do see entrenchment here.

 

[Spirit Wind 7]

Yes, Mandella... they are 'waves'. Short ones, so need more cell towers along their pathway.

 

[Mendalla]

Yes, Mandella... they are 'waves'. Short ones, so need more cell towers along their pathway.

Shorter than conventional radio. It's in the short end of radio or maybe the microwave band which sits just below radio. And only high-band, which is mostly not yet in use, uses frequencies significantly outside the range we experience now. Mid-band, for instance, is in the 1-6Ghz range where Wifi and things like cordless phones also sit (2.4 Ghz and 5Ghz). Low-band is under 1Ghz, similar to current cell technologies like 4G. And even high-band is still longer than ultraviolet, visible light, and infrared, all of which we live with day to day. So until high-band becomes widespread, not much change in what we are exposed to now.

Anyhow, this is off-topic. My point was that referring to "radioactivity" in this context is the kind of misuse/abuse of technical words that does not contribute to a meaningful debate/discussion. We could really do a whole thread on this subject in Earth & Our World.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

I am interested in how people would define mental health.
For me, someone who thinks that if he is mad about someone or something, he has the right to shoot down as many people in a mall to which he has no connection , is not mentally normal. On the other side, someone who is mad at someone and goes and beats him up about it, might still act in a relatively ”normal” way, though not socially acceptable. I would guess, that the latter example would probably happen today as often as it might have happened 100 years ago ( 200 yrs ago, the other might have been shot more often), but that a shooting spree like it happens in the US today on a almost weekly basis , would not have been as frequent as 100-200 years ago ( with the exception of killing people in war or killing indigenous). So, maybe the violence has moved from a group action to an individual motivated action? Do male humans “need” violence? (Almost all shooters except for the one last week were male) while females need internet ”bitching”?

 

[Northwind]

If I notice a series of three posts with someone else with no apparent evolution of the discussion or start of resolution, I will try to review the whole discussion. If I do not see a path to resolution, i will try to declare my concern and cease to participate.

That's a good policy.

@JayneWonders brought up a good point about written vs in person or phone discussions. It's easier to ascribe more into written conversations because of the lack of non-verbals. Still, there's an entrenchment in real life discussions at times it seems. The status of the relationship, the environment or even audience can have an impact. A recent conversation with a park neighbour was interesting. I'd heard of her political views and knew to avoid that topic. I don't generally go there in casual conversations anyway. She brought up her project which involved a campaign to encourage the separation of the west from Canada. I was politely clear about my views of the premiere of her province. I think there was something in my body language and even the room. No anger to be clear. Suddenly the conversation changed likely because she realized I would not be convinced. Last summer a similar conversation with friends didn't go so well. Hubby and I were bombarded with views and our attempts to disagree were met with mockery and digging in.

 

[Mendalla]

Do male humans “need” violence?

I would be careful about generalizing something like this. Only a subset of males behave like that or subscribe to "gun culture" and militarist fantasy groups. I am certainly not in that group. Ditto women "bitching on the Internet".

As for the mental health question, I think any kind of proclivity to violence is first and foremost damaging to civilized society, whether mental illness is involved or not. That ranges from punching someone in the face to pushing the big red button. And I would argue that humans don't seem to need mental illness to do any of that. If someone who shoots up a school or whatever survives (often they kill themselves or are killed by police) and is found mentally fit to stand trial, then I would be prepared to say that mental illness was not involved. They were simply violent a**holes. Suggesting the mentally ill are at risk of violence, vs. a specific shooter might have been mentally ill, takes us back to old stigmas that we are supposed to be getting rid of.

And certainly, to bring things back around, gaslighting people in a debate or discussion by questioning their mental health should be no-go territory.

 

[Northwind]

For me, someone who thinks that if he is mad about someone or something, he has the right to shoot down as many people in a mall to which he has no connection , is not mentally normal.

That's a good point. Does that make him mentally ill though? We're too quick to label the issue as a mental health problem rather than looking at the big picture. There are factors involved in a lead up to a shooting that are involved. What factors led to that person feeling the need to do that? Could there have been supports in place? Those supports can include both formal and informal supports.

 

[Northwind]

I think any kind of proclivity to violence is first and foremost damaging to civilized society, whether mental illness is involved or not

And further to my point above, a proclivity to violence can be a symptom of a damaged or "sick" society.

 

[Northwind]

Damn. I wrote most of a post and it disappeared.

This morning I woke up to two stories that happened in Metro Vancouver. The first was at a trans rights rally in Vancouver. A group opposed to trans rights disrupted the event. It seems people feel that it's okay to outshout their "opponents" and that they believe the loudest is the rightest. We're seeing that behaviour in where decorum was the custom, including the US House of Representatives. To be clear, the right to protest needs to be protected.

Trans Rights Rally


The other incident was an altercation on a bus where a man was slashed in the neck. There may very well be mental health issues involved. Few details have been released at this point. Still it's a concern

Altercation on Surrey bus

 

[JayneWonders]

Violence or a physical attack, even verbal attacks in crowds is removed from the original question...
Are we still able to debate fairly?

The violence question is a good question, and you can see that lots of sociologists and statisticians have attempted to answer it, comparing societies today and 100 years ago, or population types.

I'm curious, though, can we debate a topic?
When was the last really good debate that you had?

 

[Northwind]

Violence or a physical attack, even verbal attacks in crowds is removed from the original question...

I've experienced verbal attacks in person. I suspect if we hadn't known each other and if the conversation had been online, he would have been calling me names and telling me my perspective was stupid. Fortunately he had enough manners to not go to that level.

I absolutely believe we can have debates or discussions of opposing views. I had a great conversation around the campfire a couple days ago. We didn't agree on everything and we listened to each other.

I believe we can debate fairly, even online. Both parties need to be acting in good faith. Both need to be able to see the other person as a person, not just an opponent. Both parties need to be speaking a similar language or be willing to adapt and hear what the other person is saying. Name calling is not part of fair debate.

 

[Spirit Wind 7]

I wonder what we can learn from Consensus? Many First Nations use this as their way in making decisions.
There is debate before this can be accomplished. I have experienced this here a long while ago and it was a new thing.
But we all agreed to use it and it was hard, but worked.
I like the idea of debate toward consensus, especially in some decisions.

 

[Northwind]

Working towards consensus is a great thing. It is hard work and all parties need to be willing to work together

 

[ChemGal]

Things that help with having a fair debate, backing up statements to a reasonable degree.
Pointing our fallacies, or poor behaviour in a debate (name calling, lying, ad hominem attacks).

Name calling and lying shouldn't be part of a debate. There can be difficulties with what gets said in private vs public spaces. With online there are other factors too such as deleting, and excluding people from areas. There can be good reasons for that in online spaces but care is needed with how they are used as it can turn into unfair debate.

 

[Carolla]

I'm curious, though, can we debate a topic?
When was the last really good debate that you had?

We have a few friends with whom we can have more in-depth conversations - that often include divergent personal opinions or starting points. They are respectful, curiosity driven kinds of conversations.

At other times, with other people - I do encounter demeaning tones of voice which really put me off, and/or rigid positions and lack of willingness to entertain other possibilities. I will usually disengage from those interactions for the sake of my own health & peace of mind.

I saw this today & it resonates for me.

 

[ninj]

We have a few friends with whom we can have more in-depth conversations - that often include divergent personal opinions or starting points. They are respectful, curiosity driven kinds of conversations.

At other times, with other people - I do encounter demeaning tones of voice which really put me off, and/or rigid positions and lack of willingness to entertain other possibilities. I will usually disengage from those interactions for the sake of my own health & peace of mind.

I saw this today & it resonates for me.

I agree for the most part. I don't think some "perspectives" are legit though. LGBTQ rights, refusing the idea of a social contract when it comes to public health, racism etc. These are not "perspectives" and aren't worthy of any consideration IMHO. Indeed they are hateful ideas and are potentially so damaging to those dealing with those issues in practice.

 

[Spirit Wind 7]

I find in some areas they just shut it down. Too afraid of emotions and maybe too afraid of how they will reasct.

We need to learn the difference between reacting and responding.

 

[ChemGal]

I agree for the most part. I don't think some "perspectives" are legit though. LGBTQ rights, refusing the idea of a social contract when it comes to public health, racism etc. These are not "perspectives" and aren't worthy of any consideration IMHO. Indeed they are hateful ideas and are potentially so damaging to those dealing with those issues in practice.

Although there are times pointing it out for someone is helpful. Racist Halloween costumes come to mind, some people are just clueless. It may come out in a debate. And sometimes while the debate does nothing for the opponent, debating someone who is one of those things can be useful for the audience, depending on the specific issue.

 

[Luce NDs]

I agree for the most part. I don't think some "perspectives" are legit though. LGBTQ rights, refusing the idea of a social contract when it comes to public health, racism etc. These are not "perspectives" and aren't worthy of any consideration IMHO. Indeed they are hateful ideas and are potentially so damaging to those dealing with those issues in practice.

One has to wonder why some of these communications just shut down ... perhaps due to overwhelming phobia that 2 essences are contagious functions? Is fear a primal function? Especially if caught in the open with a traits that came from both your mother and father as in opposing sects? This may be temporal or something residing in the other side's thinking as a closed condition ... thus sacred trust not to be revealed except in extenuating situations ...

I like Jim Reeves rendition of Bimbo in that regard where bimbo is defined as a lighter haired person with certain vacancies. Thus we get the point that perhaps something is mist ... or departed in odd conditions of the death urge. Some say having sex with some folk may be like that ... like that ballad about Wolverton Mountain ... a hard climb ... one must appreciate peculiar southern gospel for what the real topic may be ... we just don't know because of extended metaphors and satyr-like presentation of that what's behind ... sacred donkeys? Small horses ... entertaining ... yet a ragged story ...

 

[Luce NDs]

One has to wonder why some of these communications just shut down ... perhaps due to overwhelming phobia that 2 essences are contagious functions? Is fear a primal function? Especially if caught in the open with a traits that came from both your mother and father as in opposing sects? This may be temporal or something residing in the other side's thinking as a closed condition ... thus sacred trust not to be revealed except in extenuating situations ...

I like Jim Reeves rendition of Bimbo in that regard where bimbo is defined as a lighter haired person with certain vacancies. Thus we get the point that perhaps something is mist ... or departed in odd conditions of the death urge. Some say having sex with some folk may be like that ... like that ballad about Wolverton Mountain ... a hard climb ... one must appreciate peculiar southern gospel for what the real topic may be ... we just don't know because of extended metaphors and satyr-like presentation of that what's behind ... sacred donkeys? Small horses ... entertaining ... yet a ragged story ...

Yet dark Ness remains a mystery about how that changed for those stoic on how words are preserved (perhaps canned)!

Inkiness goes on due to how little we know even tho' many profess to know eternity ... that's beyond eM! There many get right in tu it and experience small deaths ... thus does go on ... especially when night reins ... super eims?