Sunday, September 24, 2006

More about civil debate

There's a fascinating thread over at The Big Question, where Eric introduced a discussion about how we might avoid the fever swamps of political extremists and engender real, two-way discussion. He concluded:

If there is to be any communication across the divide, people of good faith on both sides have to find each other, find a way to exchange views, try to learn from each other, and use evidence and logic to define their differences down to the philosophical nub.
Chances are this does not lead to a magic moment when all join hands and sing kumbaya. But it does mean we can still converse, still challenge the other side and defend one’s own, still hear the best facts and arguments that are inconvenient to our pre-existing beliefs and, in the best cases, consider whether those facts and arguments require us to rethink what we think we believe.

Amongst the many thoughtful comments from readers, I liked this one:

On a serious note, unfortunately the nutty extremes of each party become the mascot of said party. coulter, michael moore, o’reilly, sheehan. perhaps if the media cease printing the diatribes of these extremists, it would approach normalcy again.
–Howard Weaver

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous8:08 PM

    so the modes of community reporting become lamp vs. mirror vs. "funhouse mirror"

    which really isn't all that fun.