On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:18:15 -0400 (EDT), lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU
wrote:
LH>Meta-arguments (arguments about a poster's style of argument) have
>been bubbling off and on here for several months and now seem to be
>at an angry boil. I have a suggestion.
>
>Those marriage-preparation books I read three years ago said that there
>are bad ways to argue, and "good" ways to argue. It is wrong to use
>phrases like, "You always do __________" or "You never do _________." It
>is much better to say, "When you did ___________, it made me feel
>____________."
>
>I think we can adapt those principles to our group. When another's choice
>of words really gets your goat, I suggest you preface your remarks with
>statements like, "I find your style unhelpful because it seems to me that
>______________." or "I perceived your arguments as being ______________."
>
>In short, describe your _perceptions_ of the other person's words (this
>allows them to alter their style and explain why the perception was
>unintended) rather than accusing them of some less-than-noble tactic
>(which forces them to become defensive). If one side of the argument
>starts doing this, maybe the other side will eventually start doing it,
>too.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will certainly bear them in mind.
But I would rather just debate the *issues* than personalities.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------