Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading an article on rhetorical devices. For those that might not know (or maybe it's just me ), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I began to wonder if perhaps the constant conflict here is not a differ in views, but a lack of tact when presenting views. From the atheist's perspective it seems that we're obviously right. And when we're obviously right, that makes others obviously wrong which means that they're ignorant. So, instead of dealing with a different view and a different lifestyle, we're dealing with ignorance. The thing many of us seem to fail to recognize is that who we too often view as our opposition likely has the same view of us.
Imagine if we all wrote with the intention of persuading instead of proving the other wrong? I would think we could have great discussions. A core principle of rhetoric is to attempt to understand your audiences position so that you can communicate your position effectively. Imagine if we all did this in each post? Imagine how many people who find the religion section to be a toxic zone would now be inclined to join in the conversation?
I wonder who would join in to test this theory? Thoughts? Opinions?
Rhetoric is obviously important. Not just presenting a sound case, but presenting it so that people will want to read on.
It is also very important to ber able to field the other side, be aware of the tactics and how to counter them as well as the arguments and the counters.
And the thing to keep in mind is that you arer never going to convince the other side, so it is a question of those looking in.
And, as soon as it seems that the audience isn't big enough to be worth the effort, stop wasting it.
It is also very important to ber able to field the other side, be aware of the tactics and how to counter them as well as the arguments and the counters.
And the thing to keep in mind is that you arer never going to convince the other side, so it is a question of those looking in.
And, as soon as it seems that the audience isn't big enough to be worth the effort, stop wasting it.
What I'm going for here is that perhaps the answer isn't to counter the argument in the typical city-data convention. Maybe what we're missing is that if we communicated effectively, on occasion someone would change their minds.
How could I ever change my mind to agree with a person that I called ignorant? What if instead of calling them ignorant, I had followed the principles of rhetorical writing in discussing with them? In other words, I had attempted to see the world from their eyes and attempted to write my persuasive piece with that in mind? Then, if I should ever be wrong, I'd think it would be a lot easier to say "Oh, you know what? You are right!".
What I'm saying is that instead of beating and battering our opponents until they can't bear talking with us anymore, we actually attempted to discuss and persuade. I'm not convinced that we have many actual examples of this to know what the outcome would be.
I was reading an article on rhetorical devices. For those that might not know (or maybe it's just me ), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I began to wonder if perhaps the constant conflict here is not a differ in views, but a lack of tact when presenting views. From the atheist's perspective it seems that we're obviously right. And when we're obviously right, that makes others obviously wrong which means that they're ignorant. So, instead of dealing with a different view and a different lifestyle, we're dealing with ignorance. The thing many of us seem to fail to recognize is that who we too often view as our opposition likely has the same view of us.
Imagine if we all wrote with the intention of persuading instead of proving the other wrong? I would think we could have great discussions. A core principle of rhetoric is to attempt to understand your audiences position so that you can communicate your position effectively. Imagine if we all did this in each post? Imagine how many people who find the religion section to be a toxic zone would now be inclined to join in the conversation?
I wonder who would join in to test this theory? Thoughts? Opinions?
I have said this many times,,,, "It's almost impossible to persuade an Atheist to become a believer, and a believer to become an Atheist by online discussion/arguments/debates in forums like this".
The best thing we can do is to explain our logic, and reason as to why we believe or don't believe in attempt to better understand each other and live together in harmony.
The problem starts when one camp dismisses or rejects the logic/reason/intelligence of the other group.
We need to understand that Logic/Reason/Intelligence vary from person to person. We do what we think is right for us. And faith or not having faith is a personal choice. Live and let live should be the baseline in our discussions.
I was reading an article on rhetorical devices. For those that might not know (or maybe it's just me ), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I began to wonder if perhaps the constant conflict here is not a differ in views, but a lack of tact when presenting views. From the atheist's perspective it seems that we're obviously right. And when we're obviously right, that makes others obviously wrong which means that they're ignorant. So, instead of dealing with a different view and a different lifestyle, we're dealing with ignorance. The thing many of us seem to fail to recognize is that who we too often view as our opposition likely has the same view of us.
Imagine if we all wrote with the intention of persuading instead of proving the other wrong? I would think we could have great discussions. A core principle of rhetoric is to attempt to understand your audiences position so that you can communicate your position effectively. Imagine if we all did this in each post? Imagine how many people who find the religion section to be a toxic zone would now be inclined to join in the conversation?
I wonder who would join in to test this theory? Thoughts? Opinions?
Why not write with the intention of sharing, realizing some people may not be interested in some worldviews?
What we tend to see on these forums is a lot of filibustering because some demand that we are all cookie-cut by the same factory or else you cannot play in the sandbox.
verb
verb: filibuster; 3rd person present: filibusters; past tense: filibustered; past participle: filibustered; gerund or present participle: filibustering 1.
act in an obstructive manner in a legislature, especially by speaking at inordinate length.
"several measures were killed by Republican filibustering" https://www.google.com/search?q=fili...utf-8&oe=utf-8
I have said this many times,,,, "It's almost impossible to persuade an Atheist to become a believer, and a believer to become an Atheist by online discussion/arguments/debates in forums like this".
The best thing we can do is to explain our logic, and reason as to why we believe or don't believe in attempt to better understand each other and live together in harmony.
The problem starts when one camp dismisses or rejects the logic/reason/intelligence of the other group.
We need to understand that Logic/Reason/Intelligence vary from person to person. We do what we think is right for us. And faith or not having faith is a personal choice. Live and let live should be the baseline in our discussions.
I don't know if it's necessarily impossible in general, but it certainly is how discussions tend to play out here.
And I agree with you. I don't necessarily want it to be all flowers and sugar and everyone is right so nobody's feelings are hurt. But I definitely think we should approach this like we really wanna have a conversation and not a brutal smackdown of our opponents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Why not write with the intention of sharing, realizing some people may not be interested in some worldviews?
What we tend to see on these forums is a lot of filibustering because some demand that we are all cookie-cut by the same factory or else you cannot play in the sandbox.
Yeah, persuading may have been the wrong word. I just mean that when you persuade someone your goal is to help the person adopt a new thought process, even if just for a minute. That's what I'd like to see happening.
Because, when it comes to it, everyone wants to be right and often times we don't want others to tell us we're wrong, especially with topics like religion. If we could debate in such a way that we are not entrenching ourselves in our positions, I think we could have much better discussions.
it is not about persuading
it is not about being right
it is about being understood
I do like and appreciate very much, however, that you are trying to raise the bar with regards to respectful communication, Skyler. Thank you for that.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-23-2017 at 03:24 PM..
I was reading an article on rhetorical devices. For those that might not know (or maybe it's just me ), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I began to wonder if perhaps the constant conflict here is not a differ in views, but a lack of tact when presenting views. From the atheist's perspective it seems that we're obviously right. And when we're obviously right, that makes others obviously wrong which means that they're ignorant. So, instead of dealing with a different view and a different lifestyle, we're dealing with ignorance. The thing many of us seem to fail to recognize is that who we too often view as our opposition likely has the same view of us.
Imagine if we all wrote with the intention of persuading instead of proving the other wrong? I would think we could have great discussions. A core principle of rhetoric is to attempt to understand your audiences position so that you can communicate your position effectively. Imagine if we all did this in each post? Imagine how many people who find the religion section to be a toxic zone would now be inclined to join in the conversation?
I wonder who would join in to test this theory? Thoughts? Opinions?
yeah, partly true for sure.
I don't think it matters in a forums. In person things go different. I can point trans as am example with me. In person we probably close the gap in our views quickly but in forums we can't. I am 1/2 the blame to me and I get all the blame from him.
I was reading an article on rhetorical devices. For those that might not know (or maybe it's just me ), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I began to wonder if perhaps the constant conflict here is not a differ in views, but a lack of tact when presenting views. From the atheist's perspective it seems that we're obviously right. And when we're obviously right, that makes others obviously wrong which means that they're ignorant. So, instead of dealing with a different view and a different lifestyle, we're dealing with ignorance. The thing many of us seem to fail to recognize is that who we too often view as our opposition likely has the same view of us.
Imagine if we all wrote with the intention of persuading instead of proving the other wrong? I would think we could have great discussions. A core principle of rhetoric is to attempt to understand your audiences position so that you can communicate your position effectively. Imagine if we all did this in each post? Imagine how many people who find the religion section to be a toxic zone would now be inclined to join in the conversation?
I wonder who would join in to test this theory? Thoughts? Opinions?
I'd leave. It's the scratching, clawing, and wiseazz snark that I like so much about this board.
I mean, com'on!..this is supposed to be the subject you don't talk about in "polite company", because it is so contentious!
Please do not sanitize this board with that boring "tact" stuff.
MOF ..I wish we had more free-rein and latitude to really get into it.
Imagine the posts y'all would write to me in response then?! Whoo-Hoo!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
