Are You 'A Reasonable Person Of Good Will?'

[MrPlum]

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... aurus.html

This article was written in 1993. His predictions about the media were spot on. One paragraph caught my eye where the author said...

'There has been a great decline in civility in this country. We have lost the perception that reasonable persons of good will may hold opposing views. Simultaneously, we have lost the ability to address reasoned arguments - to forsake ad hominem characterization, and instead address another person's arguments. Which is a tragedy, because debate is interesting. It's a form of exploration. But personal attack is merely unpleasant and intimidating. Paradoxically, this decline in civility and good humor, which the press appear to believe is necessary to "get the story," reduces the intensity of our national discourse. Watching British parliamentary debates, I notice that the tradition of say "the right honorable gentleman" or "my distinguished friend" before hurling an insult does something interesting to the entire process. A civil tone permits more bluntness.'

The reason I highlight this part of the article is that it fits in well with my experience of HHAD and most other boards.

In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So do you align with 'reasonable persons of good will' or are you an attack dog and proud of it?

[caller]

I guess this could almost be an add on to:

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/hh ... 10206.html

Whatever category one fits - and like Randy in the above thread, it can be horses for courses for me - its just not as simple as civility v 'attack dogs.'

Its about intent. I'd far rather be dealing with an open, honest, what you see is what you get type of person. As opposed to someone oozing with civility, when the reality is a cold & calculating manipulator (of both persuasions).

[MrPlum]

I guess this could almost be an add on to:

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/hh ... 10206.html

Whatever category one fits - and like Randy in the above thread, it can be horses for courses for me - its just not as simple as civility v 'attack dogs.'

Its about intent. I'd far rather be dealing with an open, honest, what you see is what you get type of person. As opposed to someone oozing with civility, when the reality is a cold & calculating manipulator (of both persuasions).

Good list from DT and a more interesting post.

[caller]

touché!

[margaretcarnes]

Thank you for that link Mr P. It's refreshing to read such a frank (and well written) opinion on American journalism and society in general. Did anyone listen to the guy at the time? Hope so!