Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to The Gentleman across the aisle does make some valid points.......

As does my esteemed colleague
Robert — (archived)

It's proper to disagree on degree, because it means that we have agreed on the common ground of the problem and its range of workable solutions. All that's left is the finetuning.

It's important also because extremist rhetoric is disenfranchising. I've too often been on the receiving end of inflammatory rhetoric that accuses me of being disloyal and unpatriotic for not agreeing with a particular ideological position. That tactic is obviously meant to deny my status as an American citizen and exclude me from the debate, and deny the legitimacy of my point of view. Yet, if we agree on the "problem space" and a range of solutions, we are undeniably on the same side, and both intent on finding what's best for America.

Sometimes people who've sampled the HabitableZone report back that it's a place where everybody just loves to hear (read) themselves talk (write). I admit that there's pleasure in the writing, but I like to think that it's more than just finding a clever turn of phrase. There's pleasure too in constructing logical arguments, crafting the words to make the points, and in arguing my case through the words. One post could be a self-indulgence, but a whole series of posts between two or more people forming a debate is what makes it an art form.

Classic oratory is a celebration of that pleasure, and it imposes a useful discipline on the speakers. When the time to speak is limited, it sharpens the focus and disciplines the thinking. I try to translate that into the written form by working endlessly to pare down my verbosity. Miles to go with that one...

The rules of oratory make a useful contribution to debate, and perhaps we should try to model our own debates on them. Not as rules for the Zone, but if, as in this case, we're in the mood to exercize the self-conscious civility as well as the rituals of yielding the floor and cooperating to construct a debate, then we should certainly give in to the impulse.

"Constructing the debate"...that phrase resonates, because there's an extra satisfaction in cooperating to construct an intellectual edifice that might stand as evidence that our minds passed this way. Too often we destroy our own debates with acrimony and scorched-earth win-at-all-costs tactics. We leave behind smoking craters where we might have constructed towers of ideas.

I'll be looking for more opportunities to have high-oratorical debates like this. I can tell that you will be too.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (84 posts)