Maybe I could add to this:  Can debate on even sensetive issues be helpful?

 ask Graeme, he loves a debate. 

People are frightened at the possibility they might be wrong. It becomes personally humiliating. That is probably heightened by the fact that we are living in pretty frightening times.

It's hard to escape that, so it may not be worth trying to escape. It might be more useful to focus on the ojective of the discussion. That is - not to waste time on discussing whether certain people are evil or dangerous, but to focus on handling the situation so that it can be resolved. It's not a matter of changing the topic but a matter of changing the aim. It's not to assign blame but to search for cures.

We can, for example, argue ourselves blue in the face over who is at fault in the middle east. For various reasons, some people will dig in for their favourite side no matter what the evidence, and accuse everybody else of being anti jewish or anti palestinian or having acne.

Indeed, even you did settle on who was wrong, that doesn't at all help to solve the problem unless you intend to argue for complete slaughter of the bad side.

Looking for a solution seems to get people thinking more constructively. (which, as I write that, seems a more Christian way to do t hings.)

So - for one topic -we are living at one of the greatest changes in history. For five hundred years, the west has dominated the world through various western countries. We have been able to enrich ourselves on the wealth and resources and markets of Africa, Asia and South America. Now, that is close to an end. How do we adjust to the change? How do we avoid them treating us as we treated them?

Or, rather than argue over the sins and virtues of liberals and conservatives and ndps and whatever (an exercise often bizarre in its assumptions), why not discuss the pinciples we would like to see represented in each of these parties?

Or, take any topic but examine it as a Christian problem. Rather than argue over whether torture is necessary or the invasion of Afghanistan is a good idea, work out christian rationales for each side of the issue.

When you challenge ideas people already hold, many of them will simply dig in. Too frightened to admit they might be wrong, they will ignore all evidence.  Better to focus on what can be done. it forces both sides to be realistic.

graeme

I should add that looking for solutions is the only useful route to go. For example, even if we all agreed that the middle east tension is caused by any one group- so what? If we decided in 1937 that Japan was the cause of all the world's problems, that wouldn't have solved anything. We would still have had world war two.

graeme

 Surely you've outgrown acne by now?   (kidding)

of course, some people remain sensitive, anyway.

graeme

Graeme,

I totally agree that people dig in to their own views regardless of the evidence.  People hold to belief systems out of choice, it seems.  Not to say that all belief systems are true, or that all are false.  I'm a believer in the fact that truth is knowable.

But, even with that said, I also think it is worth talking about any subject.  Words do have an impact on people's choice to believe in what is true over what is false.  Although, the choice is still in the hands of the individual.

So debate can be a very good thing, then.

Although, just like everything else in life, it can be used for evil as well.  Hmm.

Thanks for your posts.

 I didn't necessarily disagree with any of  your comments or facts and figures Graeme, we just had two completely dfferent adgendas.  You are obviously very well informed in certain affairs where as my scope was focused more on the origional topic. I also knew I was in over my head and should not have kept going up to the point of personal attack. My apologies.

 I'm willing to talk about pretty much anything short of my personal life.

no, no, no apologies. You were not in over your head. There were directions for you to go in accordance with your opening point. I think we were both wrong in making a debate of it.

You were, quite reasonably, concerned about the treatment of women by the taliban. Now, I certainly don't agree with that treatement, either. What we should both have done - and it fits the theme of this thread - is to explore what could be done about it. Instead, we got into an argument over who was responsible for what. and even if we could agree on it, it wouldn't have done anything to help those women.

I think we could probably agree on things that should not be done. it's hard to find practical things that can be done - but it's certainly worth trying.

And I note that you are, indeed, slightly older than me.

But i look and feel older.

graeme

 I dunno man, some days I feel old. Damn old. 

Yes, I shall never forget the first day I realized I was old. It was my 29th birthday, and I looked at the number, and I realized youth had fled.

graeme

Yes, I shall never forget the first day I realized I was old. It was my 29th birthday, and I looked at the number, and I realized youth had fled.

graeme

And Graeme, a definitive sign of aging is that of repeating oneself

Personally I hold debate, discussion, babbling, etc. in the highest regard.  There is nothing better than a free flowing discussion.

Where it fails is when I say "the sky is azure blue", you say "No! It is royal" and neither of us get to the point where we can say together "there are many shades of blue".

LB

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.     Dudley Field Malon 
 

sure.  pick on an old man. rub it in.

But today I must rush off to teach a grade one class whose teacher is sick. i taught them yesterday, too. Lots of fun - songs, stories Early grades are fun, but you really have to tap dance to get through it. Grades eleven and twelve are fun, too, because they are returing to the childish state of enjoying learning.

graeme

We all form assumptions about everything whether we realize it or not. We're inundated daily with information - more so today than ever before. The height of real learning, imo, is the ability to entertain/see different perspectives and if necessary, coming to the realization and accepting your perspectives as incomplete or inaccurate. Through this ability and process, one can achieve a more balanced sense of understanding. You can never really be wrong if you're open to opposing views - and honest discussion/debate is the only real way to achieve that on sensitive subjects.

I think I only get sensitive about other people being attacked... and I can see others on this forum are the same.  Of course, when people band together to defend someone else... it doesn't exactly put the conversation back on track, does it?  Maybe it's just a snowball effect, and not necessarily our own hypersensitivity.

people being attacked pisses me off.

People who attack piss me off. To use a football analogy - play the ball, not the person.

The trouble with that football analogy is that the player who is tackled may not see the distinction between tackling for the ball and tackling for him.

It is common for people to perceive attacks on their arguments as attacks on them. I have even (and frequently) encountered people who were personally insulted that i should express doubts about Obama, and who have reponded as if i have personally attacked them, in the process accusing me of having made a personal attack Commonly, they never at all address the evidence I have offered for my opinion.

People like to hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read. That's one reason newspapers will often ignore unpleasant news. The story of American torture at Abu Ghraib, for example, did not break with the journalists though they must have known of it long ago. But it broke with the web so the the journalists had to pay attention. Similarly, the story of American involvement in massacres in Guatemala has never made most news media at all, despite public confession by people like clinton. That's why Steyn is a popular columnist. He writes what a large segment of the population wants to believe is true. We have an amazing capacity for not seeing what we don't want to see.

Us people are pretty flawed. Expect personal attacks (just as any football player knows that a hard hit may not be entirely aimed at the ball.) Respond, perhaps, with a note this is a personal attack, and explain why it is because many people don't know what a personal attack is - that even includes a couple of the clergy in these threads. Explain why it is a personal attack, then let it go.

graeme

I don't think Steyn is a popular columnist, although I wish he were.  I think he is a very courageous and honest writer.

Like you, he is not exactly smitten by adoration for Obama, and is not afraid to say so. But you may have go to his website to learn this.  I don't know of  any Canadian newspaper that is eager to publish his stuff that you describe as the kind that people want to hear. As Macleans has learned, even publshing excerpts from Steyn's book  could bring on an expensive legal battle  with the Human Right Commission representing offended Islamic groups.

You may not think he is popular but, in fact, he is one of the most in-demand columnists - and best paid ones - in the world.

Nor do I see why you think he is courageous. It is hardly difficult to attack lefties when you live in a country in which the big money and the big power is in the hands of the righties. I have never know him to tackle people with power.

I don't know whether he is honest - nor would that prove anything. Plenty of nut cases are thrroughly honest in their nuttery.

Steyn is essentially an entertainer. He began as a broadway and theatre columnist. He has no expertise or insight in political affairs. But he knows how to entertain his audience. He knows what they want to hear. And he's a very skilful writer. So they eat him  up.

Generally, the market for right wing writers who write what right wingers want to read is strong. They far lead the market in income among columnists t (I worked in that business, so I know market prices) though few, like anne coulter and mark steyn and barbara amiel, have much idea what they are talking about.

News is essentially a branch of the entertainment industry. Like the entertainment business, it needs people who are entertaining. You need people who write what people want to read because then they will read it. The Mark Steyns are doing well in today's market. (though how it could be said that this displays courage is beyond me.)

graeme

 Hey Graeme, I just checked and noticed that you never took the political compass test and if you did, you're not saying. (I found out I would fit in nicely with the IRA, minus the guns. But definitely a leftist leaning.)

I myself am sceptical about Obama. Only because he has made such big promises and has such a big load and wondering what will happen when the honeymoon is over and he screws up the first time.  It WILL happen. The guy is only human.  The question is: What will be the nature of his first mistake? That will show his weakness. Wether it is economy, Middle Eastern affairs, who knows?

Okay, Graeme, I concede that "very courageous" was  overblown. What I most like about Steyn is his total lack of  political correctness. That's what I meant about his being honest. I do not always agree with what he writes:  once while he was writing for the National Post he said something that irked me enough to write a letter-to-the editor.

Like Steyn, I have problems with "multiculturalism":  when expectations of "tolerance" are one-sided, when group rights trump individual rights.

67 years ago, when I was 14 years old, my  father's fishing boat was seized, and we were forced to leave our home and spend the next four years in an internment camp in the interior of BC as Japanese "enemy aliens", even though my father had fought with Canadian forces in France during the first World War and my brother and I were Canadian-born.  This was clearly a racial injustice. And yet, there was no other country in the world where I or my family would have preferred to be during those war years. Uunspeakable cruelty and hardship were being suffered by tens of millions of innocent people in Europe and Asia, but in the beautiful Kootenay valley with its mountains and lakes and rivers, we had all that we needed to lead a healthy, wholesome life.  We  even received our whole portion of ration coupons for sugar, butter, tea. We were not behind barbed wires and were free to visit friends in  other camps, so long as it was 100 mile awy from the west coast.  What I'm trying to say is, that even when Canada was being unjust, its Western, Christian , predomindantly White culture treated us with great humanity. Canadian culture is one that admits its errors, apologizes, and makes amends. It is a culture that must be protected and preserved from those who would change it.

On several occasions when our blonde, blue-eyed United Church minister made  pastoral  calls on congregational members who were hospitalized, she was asked to remove her clerical collar because it was "offensive" to certain other patients. She complied, without protest. Christianity is not about clothing. 

On the other hand.....

You must have all heard of the ten-year-old little soccer-loving girl who was asked by the referee-- who himself was a Muslim --to remove her hajib because it was against safety rules for this particular league. She refused, and her non Muslim teammates walked off the field with her in support.  The little Muslim girl was an instant heroine all across Canada. But I was aghast: pre-teen kids already politicized in our Multicultural Canada--common sense gone the way of the dodo, and tolerance a one way street.

Since the original post on this thread was about what subjects could be discussed here,  this is the kind of thing that concerns me.

excellent suggestion. And you fascinate me.

A very close friend of mine in high school was a kid named Yosh. He, too, was interned in a camp. (Once, I asked him what his parents did there. He said his father ran boy scouts, and they all spent much time at the church. obvioulsy dangerous people.)

Many years later, he asked me to help in the campaign for an apology and restitution. I agreed. When the apology came through, Montreal's Japanese community held a dinner at which the honoured guest was Gerry Weinter, secretary of state - and Yosh and I were asked to thank him. I did. Then it was Yosh's turn.

"We do thank you for the restitution, Mr. Weiner. But I can't help noticing it will take years to deliver. But it took only twenty minutes to take us out of our houses and stuff us in a fair grounds barn.."

Whenever I spoke to a Japanese Canadian audience, the anger could be felt - though it was rarely expressed. At the same time, I was teaching then with a Japanese Canadian woman of the same vintage as me, We had many long talks about the internment, a nd she made no secret of her anger.

You are the first one I've known to have positive memories of it.

Like you, though, I have qualms about hate laws. I think it would be a good topic.

graeme