Scott's August Post - Argument Tangency

[Scott Nesler]

Below is an essay I've been working on. This essay is not aimed
at this group, just at the general chaotic forum of blogging. There
are also parallels to the recent chaotic behavior of citizens within
town hall meetings around the country. Any suggestions or
constructive critism is greatly appreciated.

---------------------------

I’ve come to the point where blogging is more an act of personal
motivation than expectation of dialog or social refinement. My tunnel
vision pursuit to describe, design, and develop a forum to bring
democracy to an intelligent argument causes the interjection of
tangent discussion into many blogs. I’m no longer going to apologize
for this. I blame it on the forum. Blogs do not facilitate intelligent
discussion. Heresy rules, the focus is short lived, and the problem is
lost in the mix.

You can’t force a point of view. You can only guide it from the
clarity of your perspective. The Do Good Gauge describes a formula to
give citizens a better chance of being heard. Coherency and respect
are instrumental to the formula. The freedom of speech does not
provide a freedom to be heard. Screaming or the threat of violence
does not provide motivation for anyone to listen.

Like it or not, everyone has a point of view. Some points of view are
just plain bad. I’m not ashamed to admit that my own erroneous
perspective has been swayed by respectful individuals with more
knowledge than myself. When a point of view is foggy, it is up to an
individual to change direction or clarify his or her position.

One of many premises of the Do Good Gauge is to allow an argument to
be developed by an individual or like thinking group. The continuous
refinement and feedback of an argument provides the means to clarify a
point of view and/or steer the argument in a more optimal direction.

I worry about the fate of the citizens when hate, fear, ignorance, and
chaos becomes the most effective methods for political change.
Respect, coherency, and community should be given equal opportunity.

Based on the tangency of this essay, I'm seeking help clarifying my
point of view to provide a new forum for public dialog..

[Jake Patterson]

Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and the forgotten one, Mythos.

It may not be the most educated or fact-based, but Mythos sways
minds. It always has, it always will. You can call it heresay or
wives tales, but it has an advantage that the others do not. It draws
upon cultural tenets to make its point.

So when someone says "Obama supports socialized medicine, he is a
socialist and therefore bad." Well, that may or may not be true.
It's an opinion. But it draws on America's psyche formed during the
Cold War, it draws on the horror stories we hear about Canadian
medicine, and it provides an easy framework for people to see him in
that light.

"Saddam Hussein murdered Shiites and Kurds in his own country, and is
evil." This does not draw on logic. But it brings back memories of
Hitler and the Holocaust. It is an argument that speaks to our
culture, and it is powerful.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying it's not going away.
It's never going to be completely replaced by wise arguments, neither
will there come a time when an audience dismisses it because it's not
refined, respectful, or coherant.

I support your efforts to make a difference in the blogosphere but as
long as there are blogs, bad logic will only get stronger.