Civility In Argumentation

Blogs, like the superficial world of social network such as fb provide a medium to convey and also hear others. But the difference is that it is not of little substance as the later. An opportunity to see one's thoughts or even ramblings in print and in cloud all for free! (Imagine having to convince a publisher to bet on us). However it will be preposterous to presume and be dictated by one’s fantasies and bias than by argumentation. To rubbish the other out of prejudice will tell more of one’s cussedness. To hold the view that if you are against my opinion you are against me, a dictum followed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi and in the recent past by George.W.Bush is churlish in the least.

Are we able to receive criticism as we would invite appreciation? What would be the reaction to someone who may not agree with us? What would we do when we see someone able to threaten our beliefs or opinions which we know though inexplicable, we need to cling to for comfort or, for it may be necessary to cater our ego and may be even because of the fear of being disrobed? And do we use obstinacy as a shield of defense?  In the final analysis we feel offended .don’t we? Some of us would all the while and some, sometimes.

A tongue in cheek remark! “Yes, your statement, the clichéd judgment you made …, no comments as usual, you may carry on.” Doesn’t that tell more of the acerbic state of mind than a discerning repartee? Or it can also be because of misconstruing. In any case the loss is the spirit of debate.

It is a matter of fact that matters that are governed by social etiquette may not be confined to sexes, they overlap; there are certainly characteristics predisposed in the male of species and differently in female of species (man and beast). The matter is more evolutionary and how Nature has chiseled. And gregarious social life or formative and later day education may not necessarily completely erase evolutionary predilections. I’m apprehensive of commenting on such issues as there can be veiled and wanton statements categorising me as a women baiter. Which will certainly be as wild an allegation borne more out of inability to understand what I state and the spirit behind it? A statement of the kind mentioned in the paragraph above is deliberately left ambiguous and more than that it is subtle and crafty, assigned to euphemistically convey a message. “You conceited arse hole, you may brag but I don’t care, because I can never be wrong.”

It, to me would be akin to a termagant who wants to convey to the spouse her displeasure towards his indifference for something she fancies, but would love to exult in conveying messages through subterfuge, innuendo and as ambiguous as possible, (also say beat about the bush) to finally wear him out rather than confront him directly and tell him in simple language what she wants or means. Pertinently, not doing so is also the sign of the inability to convey in words and with reason why the person dissents. Also tells the confused mind the person keeps, though he/she would love to think otherwise-crafty allusions rather than facts that should convey the reaction in logical terms. An insurgent, guerrilla mentality perhaps!

I’m afraid of the notion, be it in me or other that what one says and believes is right and inviolate. Especially when one do not will to explain. And if the other with sufficient conviction and reason can decimate our notion, it is cussedness to play spoil sport and brand the person as intemperate and biased.

Tim Sebastian is an articulate person most of us would remember seeing on the BBC talk show, “Hard Talk”. He had pilloried many famous and infamous through his well-directed questions, crispy comments and retorts. His well-researched interviews have elicited many truths and made the many known for notoriety perspire in discomfort. And not that his observations were never repudiated effectively by the interviewee! Once, he was asked what he feels when sits across the table with the famous and the infamous. He commented that, it was his job and what he ensures at the closure of an interview was only to not shake hands with criminals and the ones with blood on their hands. Well are there folks amongst us with blood on their hands?

I suppose that in a discussion in the social world, it is necessary that one dose show the sagacity and civility to respect a different perspective, or question it with logic. And not be obstinately offended by a critique or comment understood incorrectly and in a wrong context. For being repudiated argumentatively is in fact a graduation to an improved state of mind and thought. Isn’t it so?