ad infinitum
I guess I don't spend enough time around here to understand what all the hullabaloo is with there being an apparent schism between the left and the center (? I'm sort of guessing that this is in fact what some perceive to be true).
I keep seeing diaries that reference this or that group being told to STFU and this or that group accused of doing 'nothing but whining' and this or that group claiming that the other group will be sorry when the one group leaves, or is kicked out.
It's appalling that people can so easily be turned against each other. Whatever our differences, we are progressives - our successes will only be achieved together.
But the truth is, if you make cogent arguments, that will speak for itself.
If it's not out of line, I would like to post a refresher on how to make a 'good' argument (as outlined by Aristotle).
Most of us would agree (with Aristotle) that a sound argument appeals to logic.
But Aristotle also said that an effective and credible argument appeals not ONLY to logic, but also to ethics and sometimes also to emotion, when emotion is congruous with reason and ethics.
But logic can be abused when making an argument.
So using the University of Central Florida Writing Center's helpful guidelines on making good arguments, consider the difference between a well made appeal to reason and a poorly made appeal.
When used correctly, logical appeal contains the following elements...
• Strong, clear claims
• Reasonable qualifiers for claims
• Warrants that are valid
• Clear reasons for claims
• Strong evidence (facts, statistics, personal experience, expert authority, interviews,
observations, anecdotes)
• Acknowledgement of the opposition
When used poorly, logical appeals may include...
• Over-generalized claims
• Reasons that are not fully explained or supported
• Logical fallacies
• Evidence misused or ignored
• No recognition of opposing views
Pretty clear, right? But even if you present strong evidence and clear claims with reasonable qualifiers - even if you do everything right, you might still come across as an asshole. What then? Appeal to ethics.
When used correctly, the writer is seen as...
• Well-informed about the topic
• Confident in his or her position
• Sincere and honest
• Understanding of the reader's concerns and possible objections
• Humane and considerate
When used incorrectly, the writer can be viewed as...
• Unfair or dishonest
• Distorting or misrepresenting information (biased)
• Insulting or dismissive of other viewpoints
• Advocating intolerant ideas
So... being humane and considerate might not exactly be en vogue in our society, leastwise on the Internet. But if you want to make convincing arguments, if you want to increase understanding at a minimum, it's totes the way to go. And trust Aristotle, if you make effective arguments using these guidelines and someone just tells you to STFU, or they say something like,
nuh uh!, you can safely ignore that response, as it does not appeal to anything worthy of what you have presented.
Let your argument speak for itself.
If I am correct, time will prove me correct.
If I am not correct, let us hope that I change my mind before I am proven incorrect. And if not, then let us hope that in being shown my error, I am now glad to have seen reality.
I didn't include the examples of well done and poorly done appeals to emotion, because those seem pretty advanced, but if you want to see for yourself, the school has made the guidelines available online in a pdf file.