Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3005068" data-attributes="member: 13624">Agreed, and see below.I agree entirely on the value of opposition.&nbsp; The Brits have a term (rooted somewhat in its system of monarchy) in the form of the &quot;loyal opposition.&quot;&nbsp; Here in the US (and based on the common law, again a British concept), we use the &quot;adversarial system&quot; in law and other contexts to investigate, flesh out, and examine arguments in detail to expose flaws and reconcile facts to get to the truth.&nbsp; The Catholics use the same system to promote saints; the term &quot;devil&#039;s advocate,&quot; meaning to take the opposite argument, is literally based in arguing the devil&#039;s point of view, that the nominee shouldn&#039;t be canonized, as a way of fully exploring faults to ensure that the final decision is based on all of the facts.Dennis and I spar here quite a bit, and with perhaps less subtlety than we ought (though certainly a lot more than I exchange with some of my truly liberal friends), but I&#039;d like to think I keep him on his toes, and I will readily admit that he certainly keeps me on mine.&nbsp; I enjoy our exchanges, in no small part because his does a good job of keeping it fair and honest; he provides support when appropriate, and acknowledges where I do the same.&nbsp; We may disagree, but it&#039;s never &quot;nuh-uh, you&#039;re a poopy-head,&quot; and where challenged for lack of support, we try to respond with evidence rather than resort to playground tactics.Lively, engaging (and engaged) debate is healthy, for the individuals and for society as a whole.&nbsp; We all bashed Hillary because she had the questions spoon-fed to her before the &quot;debate&quot; so she could formulate answers in advance; that&#039;s not a debate, it&#039;s play-acting.&nbsp; Here, we can have open, frank discussions, for those who choose to do so, and can explore the topics in detail.There&#039;s a reason court rulings (particularly appellate courts, and especially the Supreme Court) run twenty, thirty, forty pages are more.&nbsp; It would be easy to say &quot;judgment for the plaintiff; now sod off.&quot;&nbsp; That&#039;s not the purpose of the ruling.&nbsp; The purpose is to convince the reader of why the ruling is right, so future parties can learn from it and use it to guide their actions.&nbsp; To do that, the court explores the opposing argument, then explains why it was rejected.&nbsp; Discussing the opposition in detail is a necessary condition to finding its dismissal credible; simply saying &quot;you&#039;re mean, I&#039;m not going to talk to you anymore&quot; doesn&#039;t convince anybody; neither does &quot;I&#039;m going to pretend you don&#039;t exist because it&#039;s more pleasant that way.&quot;Enjoy your safe spaces, y&#039;all.&nbsp; Those of us who enjoy learning will keep our ignore lists empty.<img src="/images/smilies/image103.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":soapbox:" title="Image103&nbsp; &nbsp; :soapbox:" data-shortname=":soapbox:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3005068, member: 13624"] Agreed, and see below. I agree entirely on the value of opposition. The Brits have a term (rooted somewhat in its system of monarchy) in the form of the "loyal opposition." Here in the US (and based on the common law, again a British concept), we use the "adversarial system" in law and other contexts to investigate, flesh out, and examine arguments in detail to expose flaws and reconcile facts to get to the truth. The Catholics use the same system to promote saints; the term "devil's advocate," meaning to take the opposite argument, is literally based in arguing the devil's point of view, that the nominee shouldn't be canonized, as a way of fully exploring faults to ensure that the final decision is based on all of the facts. Dennis and I spar here quite a bit, and with perhaps less subtlety than we ought (though certainly a lot more than I exchange with some of my truly liberal friends), but I'd like to think I keep him on his toes, and I will readily admit that he certainly keeps me on mine. I enjoy our exchanges, in no small part because his does a good job of keeping it fair and honest; he provides support when appropriate, and acknowledges where I do the same. We may disagree, but it's never "nuh-uh, [I]you're[/I] a poopy-head," and where challenged for lack of support, we try to respond with evidence rather than resort to playground tactics. Lively, engaging (and engaged) debate is healthy, for the individuals and for society as a whole. We all bashed Hillary because she had the questions spoon-fed to her before the "debate" so she could formulate answers in advance; that's not a debate, it's play-acting. Here, we can have open, frank discussions, for those who choose to do so, and can explore the topics in detail. There's a reason court rulings (particularly appellate courts, and [I]especially[/I] the Supreme Court) run twenty, thirty, forty pages are more. It would be easy to say "judgment for the plaintiff; now sod off." That's not the purpose of the ruling. The purpose is to convince the reader of [I]why[/I] the ruling is right, so future parties can learn from it and use it to guide their actions. To do that, the court explores the opposing argument, then explains why it was rejected. Discussing the opposition in detail is a necessary condition to finding its dismissal credible; simply saying "you're mean, I'm not going to talk to you anymore" doesn't convince anybody; neither does "I'm going to pretend you don't exist because it's more pleasant that way." Enjoy your safe spaces, y'all. Those of us who enjoy learning will keep our ignore lists empty. :soapbox: [/QUOTE]

Verification