Some thoughts about life and recent posts
Hello everyone! Things have been crazy this week with work. Tomorrow I am doing lab work but also doing cooking for the week.. a korma, gumbo, and pancakes!
Music: Burning my record collection has really gotten me all excited about music again...
Earlier this week Wisconsin public radio dedicated an hour to the recent supreme court ruling that has attracted so much attention (read hysteria). They presented folks from both sides of the argument and I found it quite interesting. While I am distressed about the ruling I certainly dont see it as the end of america as some on the left are saying. This is the same kind of bullshit hysterics that people engaged in on the right when they said electing obama was going to turn us into a fascist state.
What might have been a little more surprising was my lack of interest in discussing the topic. This was not because I have no interest in hearing a dissenting point of view otherwise I would not have spent an hour listening to an opposing perspective. Rather it emerges from over 15 years of discussions on-line (beginning with ye olde BBSes) vs those in person. In all that time what I have learned (IMO) is that when the debaters share a common foundation then the particulars of that issue can be discussed. This is true both on-line and in person. However, when the participants approach a topic from fundamentally different perspectives they will not resolve this discussion online. Furthermore, the discussion rarely leads to any meaningful resolution, rather it just sort of peters out with both sides agreeing to disagree. I do believe a meaningful resolution can be arrived at during face-to-face discussions. I might've been wrong in this most recent instance and I hope Mr. JB didnt take it the wrong way. I have a lot of respect for his opinion and would love to have this discussion with him face to face over a beer the next time we're together.
Why does this disconnect exist? Heather argues that in a face-to-face discussions one is constantly reminded that there is a person connected to these words. I think part of this is that in the face-to-face there is no time to dwell on the last post and to do tons of research. You are armed with the logic/facts you have at your disposal and that forces the argument to be more limited in scope and actually encourages the parties to find common ground. We may be totally full of crap on this one...
I've said my peace.
Drew
Music: Burning my record collection has really gotten me all excited about music again...
Earlier this week Wisconsin public radio dedicated an hour to the recent supreme court ruling that has attracted so much attention (read hysteria). They presented folks from both sides of the argument and I found it quite interesting. While I am distressed about the ruling I certainly dont see it as the end of america as some on the left are saying. This is the same kind of bullshit hysterics that people engaged in on the right when they said electing obama was going to turn us into a fascist state.
What might have been a little more surprising was my lack of interest in discussing the topic. This was not because I have no interest in hearing a dissenting point of view otherwise I would not have spent an hour listening to an opposing perspective. Rather it emerges from over 15 years of discussions on-line (beginning with ye olde BBSes) vs those in person. In all that time what I have learned (IMO) is that when the debaters share a common foundation then the particulars of that issue can be discussed. This is true both on-line and in person. However, when the participants approach a topic from fundamentally different perspectives they will not resolve this discussion online. Furthermore, the discussion rarely leads to any meaningful resolution, rather it just sort of peters out with both sides agreeing to disagree. I do believe a meaningful resolution can be arrived at during face-to-face discussions. I might've been wrong in this most recent instance and I hope Mr. JB didnt take it the wrong way. I have a lot of respect for his opinion and would love to have this discussion with him face to face over a beer the next time we're together.
Why does this disconnect exist? Heather argues that in a face-to-face discussions one is constantly reminded that there is a person connected to these words. I think part of this is that in the face-to-face there is no time to dwell on the last post and to do tons of research. You are armed with the logic/facts you have at your disposal and that forces the argument to be more limited in scope and actually encourages the parties to find common ground. We may be totally full of crap on this one...
I've said my peace.
Drew