In our house, we have a rule: You have the right to disagree with and be annoyed by anything someone else says, just as soon as you can accurately repeat back to your opponent the thing they said.
I would say that holds true for these fundamentalist Muslims, too. Can they first repeat Benedict’s arguement back to him, accurately? It means reading the speech though, with an honest attempt to comprehend his meaning, and then saying, “this is what you said, Benedict - do we have the right of it?”
If they can do that, then yes..they have a right to be annoyed, if they like. Annoyed. Just like Catholics get “annoyed” when they feel they have been treated obnoxiously at the hands of, say, Hollywood. Annoyed does not mean killing, burning, calling for blood and death or converting people under a sword.
Those sound like okay rules to me. Anyone else?
Friday, September 22, 2006
Excellent Principle
The Anchoress:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
And the next question--after asking whether one can repeat the other's argument correctly--is, "Can you humorously portray yourself?" I can make fun of myself and fellow conservatives (deservedly so in some cases). Can liberals really do the same? Next, can you argue the other person's position so effectively that an insightful, logical person unfamiliar with your identity and ideology could not discern to which position you personally subscribe? This is a mainstay of forensic debate. It ferrets out driveby sophistry and polemics pretty quickly. Again liberals, let me see your stuff.
Post a Comment