My response to Michaels post on "framing"
posted here because he insists on using MT4 (which is a complete waste and doesnt' let me respond in anyway shape or form.......) at any rate you should check out his blog as he and I agree on about 90% of all issues....
IMHO
you find where you agree first. Then move to points of contention. If you show 'respect' for the other persons view "and" acknowledge where you agree or at least 'understand' the others faith, belief etc...you have a far better dialogue.
I have zero time or thought, to the points of view of the radical secularists. Why should I treat them any differently than they treat me? I also have zero time and concern for the radical right.
However, I also think if your goal is to "convince" that you are missing the larger picture.
Most people who are interested in sharing their point of view are rarely interested in hearing yours. 50% of communication is listening, and it is the most important part.
Popular Posts
-
I don't know what is wrong with me. Three years ago a colleague encouraged me to watch the HBO series "Entourage". He was pe... -
These guys get a bum rap from we "progressive, leftist, socialistic,....highly intelligent, Bush disdainers. But they toss out the p...
-
Serious question now. If this photo was in the morning paper, would you be surprised? Is he not that obnoxious asshole you always new growin... -
I learned who Tony Snow was when he used to fill in for Rush Limbaugh. Then I saw him on Fox News...and now he works at the White House. It... -
I frequent a few "nut bag" right wing blogs. Already this morning they are talking about "positioning Palin" to run for... -
just trying to get my layout to behave....I have been away for so long that I have forgotten how to do this stuff.. .
2 comments:
I mostly agree. The "mostly" is because I think you teeter near the edge of a slippery slope where you disregard or discount arguments based on something other than the argument itself. The anti-evolution crowd, not to mention the young earth creationists, pick and choose their science. When it comes to science, you have to evaluate it on the science and the opinions of scientists. You can't say, oh they're mean so I'm going to ignore their facts and substitute the facts of my choice.
The "convince" part deals mostly with this. I am not trying to convince people to be atheists. I am trying to convince them that science is no threat to religion but it cannot be subservient to religion. There are two many religions for it to be reasonable that science would not contradict them. If science contradicts your faith, your faith is wrong. Science has never sought to contradict faith, it just goes along on its merry way. Unless you believe the Bible is infallible, literal truth, science has probably never contradicted your faith. Science studies nature, that's all. Oddly enough, some people need convincing of this.
granted, however those that believe the Bible is literal are not your audience anyway.
They shut out your argument before you can even get started.
Science is continued discovery.
segue': where do you stand on Scientology? Valid or bullshit?
Post a Comment