On Apr 14, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Okay, how about the shorter version: "I could be wrong, but I think the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because . . . "
Of course, since it seems that the whole point of 99+% of such discussions on any topic, whether OL or in RL, is for the speaker to prove that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, as opposed to entertaining various possibly contrasting views and attempting to find the Truth or at least reach a consensus, admitting at the start that one might be wrong in one's opinion is counterproductive to the primary goal . . . :P
Yes. Thank you. That is and has been all along my point. The disclaiming verbiage takes up space, is a waste of time, and it belies the essence: That when we hold an opinion, we believe it to be *correct*, which is why we hold that opinion.
I think the thing that some object to is that I frankly and openly begin from the assumption that I'm correct, verbally as well as in my head, rather than trying to pretend I'm willing to be dissuaded long enough to get my teeth into something and bulldog it relentlessly. The approach is rather blunt, but I think it's also the essence of the approach that *everyone else* takes in any discussion, regardless of how many "I might be wrong"s are inserted between arguments.
Why write something I simply don't believe? If I thought a given point of view was wrong, I wouldn't have that point of view in the first place. So why behave as though I possess no certainty, or at least a reasonable approximation thereof, in areas where I feel it? If I'm wrong, I'll be shown it and I'll have to change my position. Pretty simple, I think, but rather than focus on a *topic* it seems some are more content to attack the message's *language*, which is pointless.
That said, there always *is* the chance that my opinion is based in error (I'm not sure it's meaningful to call an opinion "wrong") and can be refined/corrected/improved, but again, why add the disclaimers? They take up space, I think they're implicitly understood anyway, and in my view they weaken the impact of a statement. Profoundly.
This is a perfect case. No one responded with any heat to "In my opinion, the Bush strategy in dealing with Iraq was at least partly mistaken", but I toss in a single adjective -- "unjustifiable" -- and the collective bowel movements are enormous. (BTW no one's yet really taken up the actual gauntlet and attempted to overturn my assessment, which I find interesting. There's just been dissembling over the word itself, which as I said before is pointless.)
Now I might be inclined to insert qualifiers in places were I feel uncertain, at least if I'm paying attention and/or am not aiming to use evocative language, but I don't feel a need to do so if I'm reasonably sure of my point of view. Lukewarm language yields lukewarm discussions, and makes it pretty difficult to feel inspired to any action. It also makes for some fairly dull debates. I'd rather see a little fire in the dialogue than letter after letter of mutually-stroking milquetoast.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
