Debate is quite an interesting topic to examine in today's environment. (That of course is an opinion, which I very much support your right to disagree with.)
What is a right anyway?
To understand the validity and/or fallacies in our perception(s), matched up against the perception(s) of others, we must first understand language. The meaning of words, the contextual gravity of what we say and think.
So let's address what a right is. According to the merriam-webster dictionary, a right is:
Do you believe that you have rights? And if you do, what constitutes these rights? To ponder this a little deeper, have a listen to @drutter talk about rights. I happen to agree with him, but the point of this post is not to talk about rights. It is about debate of course, and we cannot talk about debate without addressing the righteousness associated to people's beliefs. This is an existential component in the human condition relating to debate. There is of course a difference to righteousness and affirmation of rights, but in my opinion it is important to understand the complete dynamics and root meaning of the word, in its entirety.
I'll close the line of thought on this word by stating my opinion:
"I feel every human being on this planet has the intrinsic human right to think freely and speak freely, adhering completely to his/her truth." So long as this line of thinking or speaking does not encroach on the safety or well being of others. (This may or may not be agreeable to you the reader.)
I emphasize this word because when it comes to debate, it is not always a persons intent to explore all of the data. That is, their primary objective is to be right, and to be be validated by others with their assertion.
Last night I noticed @maxigan uploaded a video on YouTube about Cannabis healing skin cancer, and so I commented and expressed that I felt the medical industries failed chemo with my grandparents was ultimately a catalyst to speeding up their death process. (This of course, my own opinion, and was not surprised to be challenged a bit.)
Someone who "volunteers" at a medical treatment facility for cancer treatments challenged me, and the end of their comment was "Medical records are the only thing that separates the truth from the scam artists."
Now, it can be expected that a statement such as this with a plant that presents minimal associated risks and can be grown easily by virtually everyone was going to get futuremind's attention. Oh yes it did, so I went in..
If you're interested in reading the full "debate", head on over to Max's video and scroll down, but I'll keep it on the major points of the debate here.
This persons main argument was:
- People need to do a better job at substantiating their claims.
My main argument was:
- You cannot expect everyone will be able to appropriately substantiate their claims in accordance to your personal opinions of what substantiation is.
Now this wasn't your typical "troll" per say, and at first I did think it was trolling, but later changed my mind. The person did "agree" with some of the things I said, but was vehemently expressive in getting me to "agree" with their stance on substantiation of evidence.
I was simply stating that this guy presented some pretty compelling evidence, and plenty of other people have as well, that perhaps the real argument should be presented to the industry. After somewhat agreeing and saying there is no good reason the industry should not be researching, I went as far as to present some sound logic on exactly why the industry will not research something that threatens the business of many forms of medicine.
All of this was pretty moot in the end, because this person was obsessed with getting me to agree about substantiating evidence.
In the end, he/she started using capital letters to emphasize words, and attacked my ability to comprehend.
Now this is where futuremind draws the line in debate.
Unwillingness to agree is not failure to comprehend!
This is something I see very regularly with people who do not wish to be challenged and simply want agreement.
At this point I left a quote by Socrates (which is arguably not something Socrates said, but it's pretty valid to me.)
"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
I simply told him/her I was finished talking to him/her and if the need for a last word was necessary, that the stage was theirs.
The person definitely had a last word.. And made sure to let me know that no such slander had taken place.
Well, I'm sorry, but when you attack my comprehension abilities, I feel disrespected and slandered. There is no such need for this kind of attack on someone who is presenting their argument.
I ended the night a little angry, but after really thinking deeply on the matter, I couldn't help but to feel empathy for this person.
Why is it that some people are so obsessed with having their opinions be "agreeable" to others?
To me it is a deficit, a lack of maturity, and maturity really has nothing to do with age in this respect.
Validation of beliefs is not really a recipe to exact change in the world, in my opinion.
We must be able to be challenged, we must be able to take a look at our belief systems, question where our beliefs even came from, and question the validity of such beliefs.
Until we can do this, and until we can be ok with being wrong sometimes, I feel humanity will continually be stuck in a perpetual state of egoism.
Philosophy may not have all the answers to humanities problems, and even "knowledge" as we know it may not have answers.
Sometimes I think we just need to take a step back and BE. After all, we are human BE-ings, and oftentimes language is the ultimate tool in confusion.
I choose to live my life on the principles of empathy, compassion, and love for my fellow humans.
Posted with eSteem Surfer