I think you make excellent, valid points to support the intellectual side of discussion. I think there is also an emotional side to discussion when we share our own personal experiences. This is not my own idea, it comes from a paper that I read last night, but I believe it is an important truth. An essential part of the human experience seems to be to have the opportunity to share our own personal experience and truths with others who will acknowledge it. The process of sharing with others who will listen has an affirming, even healing capacity. The paper that I read makes this point to highlight that this process of sharing personal experience is the active ingredient behind the beneficial effects of most psychotherapy, as well as, on a broader level, truth and reconciliation commissions.

That's true, and it's an important point I had not thought of at all.

Kappa,  I t hink of the emotional and experiential parts of a person's argument as the lens through which they see and picture the topic or premise of an argument.  Additionally, which discipline a pereson studies necessarily influences a point(s) of view.  Some people talk about frame(s) of reference.  I believe that there is always more than one.  Rarely is a person completely black or white about an issue, and I think that is part of what you wrote aboout above.

When in a discussion, I do make an effort to be charitable, in the logical sense, and try to see and understand the many sides of an issue.     That siad, in serious dialogues and dispuations I am very strict about conduct, and I am  going to call out informal fallacies, false premises, etc.  I demand supporting premises with evidence and I provide it.  If I do not do so, it is my bad and I, in return, should be called on it.  I try to not be emotional, but  I am human and of course emotion does at times enter into a debate.  I do believe that is poor form.  If my premise(s) are unsound, then I have to go back and try again, analyse where and why I hav e broken down.   I expect the same of others, and I realise that at times, perhaps I should not have that expectation. 

I am very serious here in wc in areas of religion, ethics and morals, and etiquette.  I find it difficult to lower my standards in order to appease someone else.  I do not think that I should hve to do so, but on occasion I realise that we may not have started with the same ground rules.

I do find that emoticons often do help to convey feeling and help the intent of the writer  online - it is far more difficult tobe precise and concise online than when speaking , when  body language, voice inflection  and gestures enhance  the spoken word.

Paraphrasing, I think Twain wrote, I am sorry the letter is so long, I did not have much time to write it.  :)

Of course some may say that I cross the line all the time, but it is my personal desire to never hurt anyone in writing or speaking.  That is not how I want to be remembered, here and in real life.

I don't think we disagree. - except perhaps on the appeasing part. I suppose I don't thinkg of it as appeasing. What can happen is that people will not get the message you are trying to give - sometimes because we don't give it very well, sometimes because of differences in the way we look at things, any number of reasons. I would not tell someone something I didn't believe in order to get their agreement - that would be appeasing and, for that matter, lying. I just think we need to be aware of how people hear what we say.

Even a simple statement like I am hungry could be heard as poor guy, get him a sandwich - or - I am greedy and think only of myself. We sometimes have to take care that people really get the message we are trying to deliver.

graeme

because we are better in community than alone.

Damn right.. Another good one I missed.

I know this is a generalisation, but since I joined wondercafe I've noticed that males are more concerned with the intellectual side of discussion, and females are more open to the emotional side - particularly when it involves self-disclosure.

Also, in one of Shakespeare's plays (Julius Caesar?) I seem to remember that even when we argue from an intellectual standpoint, it's our emotions that drive the stance we take.

Qh, agreed, In fact, what appears to be intellectual is often an elaborate cover for the emotional. I suspect most of us are really emotional more often than intellectual.

amen to all of this....

for my part (oh- I'm female, sharing personal sentiment! lol)  - I have found the discussion to really have developed my understanding around issues, to recognize the many facets I would never have discovered on my own, and so my ability to argue, discuss, question has been better developed through these discusssions.  The other benefit I have found in these discussions with you brilliant people, is that I do have a brain, it does work and sometimes it is right!  That confidence & encouragment has made me a better leader in my church, and a better parent, and a lot of things...  (now, the humility when I've been wrong or unenlightened has helped as well )