Regarding the title...Yes at times they're different. There are times when standing up for a right thing or a another possibly unpopular person who's right, it can cause you to not get along...but its the right thing to do. Sadly that's life. You have a choice, sell out or do the right thing. I expect no one has a perfect record & expect there's some who's seemingly perfect record is probably just a high percentage score. Even if that is sadly the case, then we're left with the same dilemma, what do you want to do,
I've been lucky, I can think of a number of good people, family & friends that were kind enough to give me some very good advice. Two shearers about 15-18 years old of me gave me a ton I still lean on. A long since passed on gent, who was the town drunk but even at his drunkest he remain a kind, thoughtful gent. He gave advice that stuck. As one other friend said, good advice is there, not always spoken or given, learn or lose.
I recall reading Edward DeBono's books in the 1980s & 90s, some were brilliant & should be required reading. Since then I've leaned more on the Ben Shapiro & Jordan Peterson angles (and no they don't/won't always agree) that go with facts and data. The idea that its about "Facts Not Feelings, Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" resonates. Its very true. Its why I was good at debating in high school but hated it. It seemed you could be totally wrong & still win the debate. You need skills backed with selective facts and you can win with debating & THAT is the main problem with discourse today. What De Bono called "arrogance arguing".
The example I usually give is imagine a debate where the topic is "That Breathing Oxygen is Bad For You". You're on the negative side & you've come up with a lot of damaging things that can happen breathing the air. Your opposition is doing nearly as good as you, they're definitely trailing but they have missed one crucial point you are very aware of. No oxygen means you'll die so breathing oxygen is very bad for you.
Conundrum - They are missing a fact that is crucial to the debate, but will cause you to lose. Arrogance arguing is the idea that you don't mention it, that you don't help your opposition, that you win.
And that is the sum total of lots of discourse today. Winning & losing.
Shapiro & Peterson, who don't always agree & I might disagree with them at times too have a different approach. Facts, not winning is important. There is no personal victory to be had, there is no threat of personal defeat, its not a competition, it must be what the facts & data present. Nothing wrong with learning you were wrong, the almost morally wrong part is not correcting or change your stance when its shown to be wrong.
Its Not About You. Leave You Out Of It. By all means add your views, that will help drag you and a differing person closer to the point of conclusion but its not a race, its not a competition its dual pursuit, to get what's right.
Be warned, there's side affects of doing this. By sticking to cold facts & being able to give and take as facts emerge & either add to your position or correct your position.
YOU ARE NOW A DANGEROUS PERSON WITH DANGEROUS IDEAS.
You will cop personal attacks, ignore them.
You will be regarded as a scary person, threatening and aggressive.
You will have people say you're a bully or mean.
If the other/s are leftist or use leftist tactics you will see "triggerings", claims of victimhood, accusations of aggressiveness. These complaints might have some truth to them, you might come across as aggressive but equally possible some feel pressured into a corner by fact, truth & reason where they feel confined with no where to go.
There is the thing, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own truth. Truth is not yours & the position you take in a debate is not YOURS, it must be the unowned truth, the unowned facts, the unowned data. It must not ever be about you.
Maintain that & you can still be labeled a bully, a thug, mean, aggressive or unreasonable even if you're quietly, politely spoken, not getting personal, just presenting facts or asking for data to support a claim.
DON'T BE RUDE, STICK TO FACTS NOT FEELING, DON'T GET PERSONAL, STICK WITH DATA & KNOW YOU COULD STILL GET LABELED A BULLY OR AGRESSIVE BY SOME.
In that case, anyone calling you a bully or aggressive the answer is simple. Never ever engage with them in any way alone. Not email, twitter a face to face discussion, phone...nothing. Soon as you hear a person has labelled you, keep witnesses at hand always. We're in an age where people have made allegations about people with views they oppose as a last desperate act of defiance or spite. If you're guilty then you deserve what consequences are due, but if it isn't true protect yourself.
Some people use the tactic of get the person & not the ethical "play the ball not the man"
Facts not feelings, facts don't care about your feelings. Its not about winning, its about what's right.
That's the basis of a dangerous person with dangerous ideas. Doing the right thing with facts.
Friday 23 August 2019
Thursday 22 August 2019
Current Barnaby Joyce things sparks side debate
...Or does it? It should.
I see Barnaby Joyce has been involved recently on the Abortion Issue in NSW & it's generated some negative feedback online but not the negativity you'd think. Well maybe so.
Many replies online were memes, pictures of beetroot or calling him a hypocrite for some of his actions in his personal life and some even became contradictory.
One was "its not a moral issue, its a health issue so he should stay out of it" then another poster stated that such a moral issue could do with a hypocrite such as Barnaby & leave it to everyone else.
Now on that space you'd think one might begin discourse on the other as to why it IS or ISN'T a moral issue seeing that's the core basis of their respective argument, but no. Both were 'get Barnaby out of the debate', out of the issue for different reasons...so despite being highly contradictory. I suspect although both find the others concept UNTRUE the truth is not of any importance if its "Get Barnaby"
As for it being a health or moral issue, decide for yourself the problem is due to popularism people have gone after a person or personality not after rigorous objective discourse. The main problem is this, the Bill has been deemed by some as being a ram through process without sufficient public consultation and being rammed through as it has there's been no ability to apply an Amendments.
That, no matter what the legislation is just happens to be bad government.
Some have claimed its able to allow "gender based abortion" where parent or parents could terminate a baby if it's gender isn't that which is preferred by the parent/s and made late term abortions possible.
Others have claimed it does not that it's only regarding 22 weeks and earlier. That Barnaby was wrong in mentioning pregnancies that were 26 weeks or more, that he was lying, that he should stay out.
Again this is popularism driven, it is not "Facts Not Feelings"
The proposed legislation makes it very possible to have an abortion at 26 weeks, you just need 2 doctors to say yes. This means yes with the effort of Doctor Shopping a person can actually terminate an unborn baby at 26 weeks and the reason remains private between the doctor and patient.
So Barnaby has raised his head above the trench line and taken a position. Whether I find him agreeable or not is irrelevant. Whether I like what he says or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Facts Not Feelings" - Is he correct in what he's saying.
Now several people have claimed this is issue is being fought against by the Religious Hard Right, or the Religious Right with more than a few stating we must maintain a separation of church & state. Thing is lets apply the "Facts Not Feelings" filter and look again.
We have separation of Church & State now & in this country we always have. Australia is not, nor has it ever been a Theocracy or Caliphate. Every single person in this country whether they're Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Humanist, Agnostic, Nihilist, Utilitarian Atheist or member of the Church of Klingon, everyone has a Worldview. Lets repeat that with context.
1) Everyone without exception has a worldview
2) Our Parliaments and Government Instruments are Secular
3) No one should be exempt from our parliament, our government, our democratic process on the basis of their worldview.
4) The Church is not running the show, not any religion.
Barnaby's view can be accepted or rejected, you have a choice. He's a member of Parliament & if he has a strong view he can take a view, raise his voice & if he chooses make a stand that might help or hurt him politically. I'd rather any MP came out with their view, even if I opposed it, rather than staying silent because they've been told to by some electors or they're thinking about their safest bet of re-election.
Some have entered the fray because they are decidedly ANTI Barnaby Joyce...and in a free country that's their choice, their prerogative. Point is you can have your own stance, your own position, your own view but you cannot have your own facts and your own truth.
If its a moral issue and someone has no ability to comment because of immoral actions in their own life in the past you firstly have to declare which moral standard you're using to make the moral judgement. Secondly you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is morally perfect so in order to keep one person out, you'll be denying anyone including yourself the moral authority to comment as well.
All this is a bit immaterial when you realise there is such a vastly differing accepted thought on WHEN life begins. For some its at the fertilisation of the egg, for others its an arbitrary time & others its exiting the womb & being slapped on the butt. For some, its when awareness begins and not before. That's the Utilitarian view which is utterly dangerous which then means as soon as someone enters a coma, their can be terminated.
Worldviews guide people but at the end of the day Abortion isn't about health unless it threatens the mothers and/or child's life. That's health issue.
Its not a form of contraception & should be seen as that.
Then there's the heavy version, a termination is the ending, the switching the switch off, its snuffing out the candle, its prevent an unborn from becoming born. You cannot turn it off if it isn't turn on.
When does life start and when are the normally afforded human rights afforded? When personhood is attained? When is that? Many deliberately avoid that altogether.
A golden child of the left who is also a well known ex US President said life begins at conception and seems so when you consider this...
Note the difference, "Con" and "Contra" are all preventing pregnancy, not terminating one.
And all of this has nothing to do with whether or not you hate Barnaby Joyce or love him.
Its Facts not Feelings and it will draw savage criticism or personal attacks often freely without thought, fact or regard for proper discourse and critical thinking.
Support or oppose whatever position you like on whatever subject or issue arises. Just avoid being intellectually corrupt or deliberately fact free in order to win your point.
Its not about Barnaby. Never was, never will be. Support whichever view or position you like, but the church & state argument doesn't hold up. Morality of any person on either side isn't applicable. Only facts matter.
I see Barnaby Joyce has been involved recently on the Abortion Issue in NSW & it's generated some negative feedback online but not the negativity you'd think. Well maybe so.
Many replies online were memes, pictures of beetroot or calling him a hypocrite for some of his actions in his personal life and some even became contradictory.
One was "its not a moral issue, its a health issue so he should stay out of it" then another poster stated that such a moral issue could do with a hypocrite such as Barnaby & leave it to everyone else.
Now on that space you'd think one might begin discourse on the other as to why it IS or ISN'T a moral issue seeing that's the core basis of their respective argument, but no. Both were 'get Barnaby out of the debate', out of the issue for different reasons...so despite being highly contradictory. I suspect although both find the others concept UNTRUE the truth is not of any importance if its "Get Barnaby"
As for it being a health or moral issue, decide for yourself the problem is due to popularism people have gone after a person or personality not after rigorous objective discourse. The main problem is this, the Bill has been deemed by some as being a ram through process without sufficient public consultation and being rammed through as it has there's been no ability to apply an Amendments.
That, no matter what the legislation is just happens to be bad government.
Some have claimed its able to allow "gender based abortion" where parent or parents could terminate a baby if it's gender isn't that which is preferred by the parent/s and made late term abortions possible.
Others have claimed it does not that it's only regarding 22 weeks and earlier. That Barnaby was wrong in mentioning pregnancies that were 26 weeks or more, that he was lying, that he should stay out.
Again this is popularism driven, it is not "Facts Not Feelings"
The proposed legislation makes it very possible to have an abortion at 26 weeks, you just need 2 doctors to say yes. This means yes with the effort of Doctor Shopping a person can actually terminate an unborn baby at 26 weeks and the reason remains private between the doctor and patient.
So Barnaby has raised his head above the trench line and taken a position. Whether I find him agreeable or not is irrelevant. Whether I like what he says or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Facts Not Feelings" - Is he correct in what he's saying.
Now several people have claimed this is issue is being fought against by the Religious Hard Right, or the Religious Right with more than a few stating we must maintain a separation of church & state. Thing is lets apply the "Facts Not Feelings" filter and look again.
We have separation of Church & State now & in this country we always have. Australia is not, nor has it ever been a Theocracy or Caliphate. Every single person in this country whether they're Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Humanist, Agnostic, Nihilist, Utilitarian Atheist or member of the Church of Klingon, everyone has a Worldview. Lets repeat that with context.
1) Everyone without exception has a worldview
2) Our Parliaments and Government Instruments are Secular
3) No one should be exempt from our parliament, our government, our democratic process on the basis of their worldview.
4) The Church is not running the show, not any religion.
Barnaby's view can be accepted or rejected, you have a choice. He's a member of Parliament & if he has a strong view he can take a view, raise his voice & if he chooses make a stand that might help or hurt him politically. I'd rather any MP came out with their view, even if I opposed it, rather than staying silent because they've been told to by some electors or they're thinking about their safest bet of re-election.
Some have entered the fray because they are decidedly ANTI Barnaby Joyce...and in a free country that's their choice, their prerogative. Point is you can have your own stance, your own position, your own view but you cannot have your own facts and your own truth.
If its a moral issue and someone has no ability to comment because of immoral actions in their own life in the past you firstly have to declare which moral standard you're using to make the moral judgement. Secondly you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is morally perfect so in order to keep one person out, you'll be denying anyone including yourself the moral authority to comment as well.
All this is a bit immaterial when you realise there is such a vastly differing accepted thought on WHEN life begins. For some its at the fertilisation of the egg, for others its an arbitrary time & others its exiting the womb & being slapped on the butt. For some, its when awareness begins and not before. That's the Utilitarian view which is utterly dangerous which then means as soon as someone enters a coma, their can be terminated.
Worldviews guide people but at the end of the day Abortion isn't about health unless it threatens the mothers and/or child's life. That's health issue.
Its not a form of contraception & should be seen as that.
Then there's the heavy version, a termination is the ending, the switching the switch off, its snuffing out the candle, its prevent an unborn from becoming born. You cannot turn it off if it isn't turn on.
When does life start and when are the normally afforded human rights afforded? When personhood is attained? When is that? Many deliberately avoid that altogether.
A golden child of the left who is also a well known ex US President said life begins at conception and seems so when you consider this...
conception
/kənˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/
noun
- the action of conceiving a child or of one being conceived
contraception
/kɒntrəˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/
noun
- the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are: barrier methods, of which the commonest is the condom or sheath; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones which prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.
Note the difference, "Con" and "Contra" are all preventing pregnancy, not terminating one.
And all of this has nothing to do with whether or not you hate Barnaby Joyce or love him.
Its Facts not Feelings and it will draw savage criticism or personal attacks often freely without thought, fact or regard for proper discourse and critical thinking.
Support or oppose whatever position you like on whatever subject or issue arises. Just avoid being intellectually corrupt or deliberately fact free in order to win your point.
Its not about Barnaby. Never was, never will be. Support whichever view or position you like, but the church & state argument doesn't hold up. Morality of any person on either side isn't applicable. Only facts matter.
Facts not Feelings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)