The "Art" of Arguing - what not to do ...

I find it interesting when people make their arguments not by arguing the ideas, but rather by using cliches and cliches and cliches. But let's not step into that quagmire. I also find it interestingly annoying when people use "famous" intellectuals to make their point.

"Oh Professor _______ said _______ , so I MUST be right since he agrees with me."

"What, you didn't read the latest article by ________ ? He basically said everything I have been saying, which shows that you are wrong and I am right."

To me, that is the same as choosing lines from the Quran and saying "Oh look, Islam is violent" since it is always possible to counter argue by choosing yet some other lines from the Quran and saying "No, Islam is peaceful".*

You can ALWAYS find a famous somebody who supports your point of view - but that doesn't make it the "truth".

If your ideas aren't self-sustainable, then there is the chance that your ideas are messed up. I used to envy people who were so sure about their ideas, but over the years I have learned that persistently insisting on an idea (without being open to other options) usually implies that the persistent individual has his** own issues to solve ... (please note the use of "usually", i.e. there are exceptions to this).

In general, there are a few rules of thumb to keep in mind when arguing for the sake of "changing" a mentality (that you THINK is wrong):

1 - Do not insist on quoting people who support your views. There is a very high chance that those you are arguing with will not listen once you start mentioning other names, simply because they can come up with their own names. And no, that doesn't mean they are stupid, because you'll probably do the same thing ... (note: this is not the case for an academic paper, in which more references are better)

2 - Do not use the same argument over and over again, like some energizer bunny that is stuck in a corner. If the "other guy" doesn't "get it", and if you are arrogant enough to believe that you hold the key to the "holy grail of truth", then find some other argument to persuade him. Shouting will not help. Being insultingly "witty" will weaken your argument (besides reflecting badly on you).

3 - Do not buy into propaganda. Admittedly, this is probably the most difficult "rule of thumb" to implement. I hinted at it in the meaningless interview post I had before, but if you need to use some quotes, do not quote Tayyar when arguing against Hariri, because you will only get half (if not a quarter) of the story. Likewise, you cannot just use Future TV or LBC when arguing against Hezbollah, because more often then not, they will distort the news so much that ... well, I can't think of a civilized metaphor right now, so let's just leave it up to your imagination. (note: these examples will eventually change ...)

-----

What is the point of all this? I can discuss the generalities and the philosophical pointlessness of the above, but in order to create a framework that most can readily relate to, let's just focus on one problem: The current "Great March 14" vs. "Evil March 8 and FPM" issue.

I think its time people acknowledge that hailing the oh (not so) great March 14 politicians as saviors of Lebanon and cursing the living hell out of Hezbollah/Amal/FPM is unhealthy (in more ways then one). They both have their bad and their good (though which way the scales tilt is up for debate). Foaming at the mouth whenever someone says a word that begins with "Hez..." or "Aou..." is immature. Likewise, cursing the &@#$ out of the March 14ers just for the sake of cursing the &@#$ out of them is also childish. (and no, I'm not saying that I am innocent of either).

You can call me indecisive for not "choosing" a side (although I'd prefer the more interesting "social constructionist" tag), but I won't and will not for one primary reason:

1 - I think its insane to choose a position based on an unrealistic and superficial black and white spectrum.

There is a large grey region that many seem not to want to touch.

Why?

Arguing only for black or white (or in this case: yellow, orange, blue, etc ...) implies that you have a large chasm you still need to cross - the chasm between being "righteous" and "all-knowing" to that of being "more in tune with reality".

Very little "good" will happen until we are able to cross that chasm ...

-----

*Lest the sectarian devils get hold of me for using the Quran as opposed to the Bible, you can replace "Quran" with "Bible".

**Lest the sexism devils get hold of me, you can replace all the "he" with "she" and all the "him" with "her".

***I take no responsibility for any inconsistency in the above argument. This wasn't me. I wasn't here.

posted by Lazarus, 11:18 PM