(no subject)

[avevale_intelligencer]

I've read some posts in which people try to set rules for debate. Obviously this is a very good thing, and the rules seem sound and solid to me and everyone should follow them.



I don't know everything. I don't know a lot about some things on which I have opinions. I have quite a full life and work reasonably hard, and if I were to give time to studying, seriously, the things on which I have opinions, I would have less time for any of the other things I either need or want to do. Some day I may have less work to do or more free time, and when that happens I will consider becoming a bit better informed.

In the meantime, I mostly have the opinions I have because I like them. They please me. They don't hurt anyone, as far as I know--in fact my opinions, in the context of the larger world, mean pretty much squat one way or the other. They do, however, give me a view of that world that I'm comfortable living in.

Having said that, I like to hear dissenting opinions, and what backs them up, and I'm not closed to the idea that my opinions might change, as long as I'm still comfortable with the resultant worldview. So sometimes I talk about my opinions, and sometimes that turns into a discussion.

This is NOT "debate." Debate would involve me first taking night courses in physics, politics, history, sociology, economics, theology, anthropology, philosophy and ancient Martian needlework, otherwise I would be breaking the rules. Can't do that. If I had to do that in order to talk about stuff, I would be forced to close this LJ down, or else just do meaningless superficial fluff and memes and such, which would bore me rigid.

So. If anyone isn't comfortable with me talking about stuff on which I am not an expert, please feel free to look elsewhere for meaningful debate.

Comments

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

[APPLAUSE]

A very sensible position.

[elorie.livejournal.com]

The problem...if you are referring to the links I posted to thinkmonkey's journal...is not people who like to talk about things they are curious about, but the ones who 1) when faced with someone who really is well versed in the subject, or with someone who can back up what they say, insist that they know just as much about it as that person and 2) get mad and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with that idea of elitism.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've done that. Sometimes I get upset in discussions, which kind of follows from talking about things I know little about, but I don't insist I know more than anyone about anything much. If I get too wound up I back down. As pbristow will doubtless confirm...

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Interesting thesis.

Where I come from, "debate" generally starts with someone else expressing an "opinion" (frequently phrased either as "fact" or as "Everyone knows that"). Someone else then takes up a different view, and discussion ensues. Finally I wake up, listen for 2 minutes, and take the most extreme and entrenched view I can in opposition to everyone else. There then ensues one of two things: 1) they stop and I can go back to what I was doing; 2) I get half an hour of free entertainment as they rant at me, and then they stop and I can go back to what I was doing.

It's fun being a Nyrond.