Standards ethics of discussion

[miles-militis]

Often times matters of interest, worthy of ripe dialogue demanding mature engagement clearly with concrete, primary objectives of reaching congruous climax of which benefactors are none other than participating members along with supporting rationale achieved in the end which immensely matters, are raised.

 

Tragic as it had been due to diverse readings, disciplines, convictions, conditionings and most of all levels of cohesive procedural understanding of the issues debated amongst nomads, almost always discussions not only digress loosing momentum, get personalised – the greatest misfortune of all - but also the realisation of original objectives are lost with the creation of adverse divergence, crude schism of less substance, and wide disparity in opinion and principle amongst members. This could not be expected as the ideology of “group think” could not be anticipated in the congregating nomads for the simple reasons that such thinking is culturally not attributable to the urbanised second generation rural nomads.

 

A clear disparity in comprehension and maturity of political discussions is not only evidently noticeable with tilted imbalance of highly debated issues in that nomads adopt pre-emptive approaches to topics prior to fully absorbing the crux of the discussion, root nature of the matters being contested, thereby fixating upon the persona of the individual rather than debating the issue. Lack of comprehensive understanding or lax in the art of debating might be the reason though that wholly would not quite do justice to the predicament observed.

 

Games naturally have rules to abide by without which an existence of any genre would be unbridled, thus would cease to take nascent shape. Likewise, discussions, political discourse and dialogue in particular have a procedure and directives necessary for one to be acquainted with should one desires to partake, and in the event that such mechanisms had been circumnavigated, a cessation of civil dialogue ensues, which is being seen in this beloved discussion forum.

 

Therefore, I though I might share some basic principles of discussion practised and adhered to by others – perhaps more social - online communities. Accepted, but neither absolute nor wholly concrete as variations of societal and cultural divergences override in some cases.

 

Reference - Principles of Discussion

 

- Understand the principles of argumentation

Know and recognize fallacies of logic and argument. Try to avoid using them yourself.

 

- Know and recognize principles of propaganda.

Try to avoid using them yourself.

 

- Try to use the principle of charity

Interpret your partner's argument to make it as good as possible, not as poor as possible. If you misinterpret because of this principle, you will be in a stronger position when you are corrected.

 

- Know your terms

Definitions need to be agreed upon to have a clear argument. There are usually MANY definitions of any term; agree on one that allows the argument to proceed, or switch to another term if agreement can't be reached.

 

- Know your own position

It's surprising how many liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and others have only a gut feeling or casual knowledge of their own position.

 

- Base your arguments on knowledge, rather than your own say so

If you think it's so, confirm it by looking it up, rather than arguing about it. It's all too easy and tempting to make claims based on opinion, but we all frequently form mistaken opinions.

 

- Even if it's in a book or on the web, it may not be true

There are vast numbers of recorded claims in books and other media that have been soundly refuted; find out what the counter claims are and which you should give more credence.

 

- Remember what has gone on before

It is dishonest to ignore the context of prior exchanges. Remember what both your partner and you have said. Memory is brief only in verbal argument, written copies can show you to be forgetful. If you don't want to be consistent, it's OK as long as it's above board.

 

- Broad claims tend to be very weak

There may be counter examples, better alternative explanations, or just plain little support beyond coincidence. Frequently, broad claims arise in propaganda or rhetoric rather than in careful analysis. Be suspicious of such claims, and treat them more as hypotheses than facts.

 

- Admit when you've been wrong

You'll be admired for your honesty, and will then have a point of agreement as a basis for further discussions. Not having a counter-argument is different than being wrong; there's no shame in saying you don't know yet, and you don't need to accept your partner's claim.

 

- Don't interpret delays in answering as "winning".

It is not uncommon for new arguments to need years to be assessed for validity, even among professional scientists, philosophers, etc. Suspended judgment and skepticism are very valid responses.

[Baashi]

Many thanks Samurai Warrior. The piece is very informative one. It would be nice if moderators/ Admin consider to lock this post as a reminder.

[Gabbal]

Many thanx Samurai, I second that Baashi.

[Coloow]

A wonderfully written essay. sounds very utopic though, I have two simple questions:

 

1: Who decides what is "mature""rationale" "substance""logic argumentation" "knowledge" etc?

 

2: Does it mean that those who can't excercise the above guidlines shouldn't participate in discussions?

[Baashi]

Originally posted by Entrepreneur:

1: Who decides what is "mature""rationale" "substance""logic argumentation" "knowledge" etc?

No one. The referee (Admin/Mod) can call foul posts what they really are "inapropriate" as far as the rules of the 'game' are concerned.

 

Originally posted by Entrepreneur:

2: Does it mean that those who can't excercise the above guidlines shouldn't participate in discussions?

Not at all.

 

Now, Entre sxb, I thought Sumarai has posted an instructive delineation of how best can intense debate be discussed without hitting ‘below the belt’ so to speak. It is not a definition of terms nor it serves as authoratative or formal pronouncement that we all should abide but rather a reminder of the finer points of civil discussions.

 

If one is interested in discussing a particular topic beyond its naive and nascent stage, one has to feel comfortable in coming to this forum and posting his take on the subject without being insulted, subjected on character assassination, misquoted or misrepresented his viewpoints.

 

I think we ought all to bear in mind that there are many members on the SOL forum who read and think about many of the posts, but who do not themselves contribute to it. Some of those have more extreme views about the need in discussing politics in general, and Somali politics in particular. These folks tend to see themselves as mere spectators in events with political context and once a while appluad abusive comments against nomads who have contributed to this section. Some of those might resent having a topic effectively suppressed by people who, for whatever reasons are more anxious to move on to other matters. Others might afraid of being personally attacked by some all the while their view on the subject is completely ignored.

 

All in all, I think this reminder is worth reading before we conveniently, in the heat of the moment, discharge our biases.

 

Waa sidey tahey!

[OG_Girl]

Nice artical . did u copy and paste or is ur work ? just asking !!

 

any way thanxx

 

salaaaam

[miles-militis]

Thank you gentlemen,

Let us hope for the good of all we could benefit from engaging in a dialogue of civic and in civil mode. I along with others find myself at times sidestepping matters of concern, throwing a rather enervated southpaw thereby trivialising the discussion.

 

Enterpreneur – bruv, it is decided by participants – you&I. The reason I noted “group think” was to highlight how almost improbable it is to attain generic line of rationale with respect to issues amongst us all. Diversity in kind and in opinion is what drives the discussion, and motives member contribution. Perhaps the young generation, ala Dubya generation brought up in the North America, US in particular might be of that opinion.

 

As Baashi quite rightly notes “ … this reminder is worth reading before we conveniently, in the heat of the moment, discharge our biases”

 

OG_Girl – sis anything above the referenced piece is mine – anything under that is a combination of works by others, practised mind you by professional organisations including ISSA, to which I belong, put together by a professional colleague of mine, the chairman of the ISSA organisation.

 

Cheers.

[Hebel]

This guy knows too many English words for a freaking Bodyguard. (Samurai is a freaking royal bodyguard who slept on duty) Of course you do know that already, right?

[Hebel]

Or was it Ronin.

Either way nice Essay, I don’t say this much so take it while it’s still warm and fussy.

.

.

.

But please Next time, write something I can Either pronounce or understand, you don't have to bring out the big guns, this is not a courtroom and yar not defending anyone from the gallows.

 

Yes It's me and not so good to see you all.

 

C?

[Sophist]

Salaams,

 

With rarity one feasts his eyes upon irreproachably written piece that smells as though it was penned down effortlessly. This undoubtedly is one piece that merits to be written by such a highly qualified nonpareil in the art of war of words. His sonorous oration is translucently received by even those with murky vision. I hope, though this is growingly becoming an asylum for woebegone old shacks, they themselves would get the beaming light from the present post which will invigorate them to their lost world.

 

Samurai, thanks for the much delight and deterring foreboding that was about to set in. I drunk from the post, words becoming drips of water flowing from fountain of wisdom quenching my utter thirst for such illuminating wisdom.

 

 

Cheerio Old Chap

 

Sophist

[miles-militis]

My dear Sophist – Kindness in kind is a virtue much to the delight of the few, yet to the dismay of the many that rarely descends upon the congregating flock despite the yearning of the mass for the said object, if perhaps only in our imagination.

 

Much to the bête-noir, irksome perchance, of some in our midst, one in a moment of high liberate of the mind was inspired by the need to inspire the unruly much to our advantage. Irritant it was deemed by some, certain of that I am, yet a mere glance or so, worthwhile I trust the endeavour to have been to oneself, if not for all, or so I divulge.

 

In this divine month of ours, benediction by the Almighty for the frail and the enervated might be sought above the rest. As one desires, one attains hereafter if not in the immediate herein which in itself is a silhouette illusionary spectre accepted with not much questioning, for one’s comprehension of the universe is constrained by preordained presets beyond one’s cerebral command.

 

Goes without much in the way of words, stimulation much to my delight is derived from the creativity palpable in your style of delivery, artistic similes along with innovative penship inherent in your prose - perhaps our own resident sonnet cryptographer soon to be pronounced – the Sophist of the South East, or better yet Sonnetographer ala Somal.

 

And with our newly commissioned captain Gediid [or is it Cawaale now] at the helm [how good of a captain is he, I doubt not, with his being within the Beltway parameter thereby acquainted with the subtlety and finesse of principalities] with the premium of a crew on the deck, the dream is not lost after all, and I trust all shall be well soonest Lord only knows time has beckoned upon us all.

 

Many happy returns old chap,

 

Cheers.

[Sophist]

Nietzsche, writes in his magnificent but under read book, Human, All Too Human

 

"The significance of language for the evolution of culture lies in

this, that mankind set up in language a separate world beside

the other world, a place it took to be so firmly set that,

standing upon it, it could lift the rest of the world off its hinges

and make itself master of it. To the extent that man has for

long ages believed in the concepts and names of things as in

aeternae veritates he has appropriated to himself that pride by

which he raised himself above the animal: he really thought

that in language he possessed knowledge of the world. "

 

With vivid conviction, contrary to the popular believe, you and I are not victims of what the last sentence of the above passage condemns!. To us (perhaps I should say) words are tools to work with not the actual work itself. Our goal is convey a message in words with loaded meanings where others are merely or shall I say blissful content (without knowing) to employ words with 'simple' connotations! Notice the inverted coma.

 

Good to see you Walaalkiis,

 

Sophist

[Alisomali]

Look here Samuri and Sophist, PLEASE for gods sake stop using those big words.

Yall sound very smart, dont get me wrong @ the same time half the ppl on here dont understand what the heck you say half the time

[Saxardiid]

Originally posted by Alisomali:

Look here Samuri and Sophist, PLEASE for gods sake stop using those big words.

Yall sound very smart, dont get me wrong @ the same time half the ppl on here dont understand what the heck you say half the time

i socond to Alisomali

guys you losing lot of audience.

[7_steps_2_Heaven]

me 3