I have different opinions than my brother about politics and climate change. I will respond to his comments and then let him ramble on with his response. I don't respond and change the subject when he runs out of steam. If he keeps going back to the controversy I have phone troubles and turn it off lol
@ManueB I consider myself conservative on most topics but i also know that it would be unwise to take that approach on everything. A lot of people just can't agree to disagree when it comes to discussing certain topics. Certain people i can discuss politics with and certain ones i cannot. My youngest is a liberal and we can discuss politics and most anything calmly. Certain people in both parties are so one sided that you can't have a logical discussion.A long rambling post about debating ideas, especially politics.
Putting it in spoiler so you can feel free to skip if not interested !
I’ve said before I can appreciate, if not enjoy, listening to people I disagree with explaining why they think this way. It's more the case when their opinion has been thought about and is at least a bit knowledgeable. I also said we disagree politically with most of our local friends, including those who came over for the weekend. We’ve known them for a very long time and usually we manage to stop discussions before they become arguments. I’m interested in phase 1 of the debate : explain why you think like this, give information, sources, facts, ask questions. What I truly hate is phase 2 : when it gets to i’m right and you are wrong and why can't you just see it since I said this and this and that.
So in this case, we disagreed over the war in Ukraine. I’ll explain briefly both sides point of view, but it's not what I want to get at. They strongly disapprove of France’s support to Ukraine while we approve with reservations.
What we agreed on : The support of NATO and our country France to Ukraine is not driven by humanistic considerations but economic and geostrategic.
Putin is a ruthless leader who doesn't tolerate dissent but he has built the Russian country back economically from the disaster it was in after the fall of communism, and especially due to Eltsin's terrible mandate. Until the war he had a massive support of the Russian population and he is still very much approved of.
It is understandable that under the circumstances Ukraine decided to go fully into war.
What we disagree on :
We find Putin is the aggressor in this story and his motives is driven by nostalgia for the old big CCCR. We think Ukraine has the right to remain an independent country and to enter NATO if it wishes. We think NATO is there to support imperialist economics, but has no interest in war.
They think NATO is the aggressor, as any country on the Russian frontier adhering to them is a direct military threat to Russia. They believe Putin is acting as a real statesman, with a vision for his country, and putting the Russian population's interest before his own. While they don't agree with the way he deals with political opponents, they think it's a sort of collateral damage to a strong leadership.
After a lot of moderate discussion, checking historical facts, and explaining positions, the discussion degenerated into the type of heated argument I hate. When we got deeper, it turns out we disagree on things that I would call core personal values, and those things don't depends on facts. Do you believe economical welfare is so important for a population, that it can justify the sacrifice of some freedom of thought and action, or not ? Or to come back to chickens, like @Perris stated it, are you ready to let one of your individual chicken die because you want to preserve collective health / environment, or not ? I think the answer each of us has to that type of questions, will not change or move through heated arguments. These values are built for each of us through a whole life and while they may evolve, this will happen through life experiences and specific events. They make us who we are.
So I hated how our discussion turned out and I think I'm less and less able to debate controversial points, as it is very rare that the discussion remains on the simple exchange of information and ideas without trying to convince the other party, and when it switches to trying to convince, it's just one step to "how can you be so stupid to not think like I do". It's why I was very glad @Perris made an article on DIY feed instead of just replying to opponents. And it's why I prefer reading medias to TV or radio.
I know some of you believe it's important to stand strongly for your opinions. Do you feel like having debates, even overheated ones, can actually be helpful to convince people ?
Is there a better way to deal with this than just cutting off further discussion?
I think our friendship will survive but honestly I believe we won't be seeing each other for quite a while.
Hooray on this!!
I find this paragraph enlightening. Something I believe: "Give me liberty, or give me death."
I don't think it's helpful anymore. The news is so convoluted and manipulative that you really need to research a great deal before any meaningful debate. Most people don't have time for that. I don't debate or try not to. I am also a terrible debater. I tend to listen, whichever side it comes from. I am interested in different perspectives. Occasionally I push back if I find it necessary and fruitful.
I've been in these types of debates and the few and only times they've been transformative is when there's a lot of trust already and I invite the opponent to state how strongly committed they are to one of their foundation concepts and then we go on a slow reasoning journey with me asking questions in a very kindly and supportive tone and checking that I have understood the answers correctly - the trust placed in me must be strengthening all the time. The last question is something like, "so that point is not coherent with the foundation concept that you put so much confidence in. Which one will you abandon: the foundation concept or the point you just made?" That's when resistance may arise if the person sees their ideology as a house of cards. But if it there's enough trust, it's possible to change someone's mind. The overall strategy is to help someone to correct themselves.
how very Platonic
It takes time and care, and I'm rarely so invested in someone else that I'd undertake it, but once or twice there were cousins I care about who were heading in the wrong direction. Blasting them with one high dose of loving inquisition got the job done, except for that one time when it didn't but there's no reasoning with some people.how very Platonic
Pour enough good whisky down them and the topic won't seem worth the effort eventually
Well, the man could knock up a good debate.how very Platonic
Do you/have you read JS Mill and J Locke?I would call them constructed with extreme care rather than knocked up
