From: jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Tolerance (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:21:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24155
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals


bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
>I don't normally respond to flames, but this one I feel obligated to
>respond to (once).

I greatly resent your discounting me because you may find
my position upsetting.  Furthermore, I resent your 
misstatement of my position to your own ends.

>These first four lines, taken without any editing, show very clearly
>that jj is reading something into my post that isn't there.  I state
>it isn't necessary to have tolerance for someone's _views_ and he
>reads that it isn't necessary to treat someone you disagree with as a
>human being.

You are confusing two issues here, and commiting the same
rhetorical here that you do with Shackleford; that is
to say misrepresenting my position in order to 
dispute something more tractable.  In doing so, as your
article shows, you have taken issue not only with the argument
but also with the human, have used it to discount the
human and his words, and to take offense where none is
present.

It is NOT necessary to tolerate another's views.  Disputing
other's viewpoints is the very essence of debate.

On the other hand, it is an elementary standard of respect
and tolerance toward any human being, under nearly any
circumstances whatsoever, to be responsible and rigorously
careful when restating the other's viewpoint.  In the
case here, you (and many others) have restated Shackleford's
position in a fashion both incorrect (to the extent that
those of us have only net articles to evaluate) and prejudicial.

This constitues an intolerance and disrespect for the human
holding the position, and reflects STRICTLY in the negative
on your own position.   Furthermore, it polarizes the debate
situation such that no improvement or movement becomes likely.

If you are indeed restating his argument based on personal
discussions, you are obligated to say so, and to explain
why your restatement is not in line with the net.words
of your opponent.  We cannot read minds.

>|> This misstatement for
>|> purely emotionally manipulitive purposes shows that you
>|> do not even accept his status as a human being.  In short,
>|> you are treating him as something below deserving ethical
>|> behavior.  

>This is the part that has caused me to reply.  I know David
>Shackelford personally.  We have worked together on projects.  I don't
>agree _at all_ with his views on spanking and his stated idea that one
>of parents' primary goals should be to teach child not to be brats. <

And you are not, indeed, obligated in any fashion to accept
his views on spanking, whatever they may be.  (I'm not sure offhand
that your comment re: "... brats..." is accurate, or whether
it constitutes another misstatement, but I'll drop that for now.)

>HOWEVER, I do respect David, I do treat him as a human being worthy of
>respect, and I certainly believe that he is worthy of ethical
>treatment.  Based on our interactions, David would never think
>I don't treat him with respect, and I resent your accusations.

Based on net articles, you have misstated his position  in
a way that is (intent does not matter, I think) emotionally
manipulative and that also serves to question your 
opponent's reputation.  By that alone, you have shown 
disrespect, and have revolked fundamental courtesies and
rights that are normally accorded a human being, especially
in written debate.

Again, I MUST point out that those of us who read articles 
on the net cannot know any information other than what appears
on the net regarding either position, yours or his, and we can
only evaluate both positions accordingly.

I feel very strongly about this demonstrated lack of respect,
because respect and courtsey are the very keystones of
persuasive debate.  They are REQUISITE, and essential.

Without respect and courtesy, you cannot sway your opponent's
viewpoint other than by brute force, and are most likely to
polarize the issue on the part of all concerned.  This is
counterproductive by any usual measure. Only if you regard the
status quo as best could you justify polarizing the situation 
so that it remains static regarding spanking.

I must note that many other posters have shown disrespect
for other posters during this debate in precisely the
same fashion, and that the polarization I refer to is not
only predicted but also demonstrable.

This is more than unfortunate.
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.