Thoughts On Polemic Argument

There is a big problem that I have with forums such as telephone phone-ins; comments on news stories and letters to the editor, and that is that most arguments I see made are seriously black-and-white. They also appear to be made by people with startlingly different views of 'reality'.

I certainly, and probably most other lay-people, don't really understand even part of some of the subjects being railed about.

People do however understand the bits of the argument that they fear will impact on them individually, and are usually led by a group of commentators that they favour; that they perceive to be speaking for them and whose arguments support their own world-view.  These can be tabloid or broadsheet newspapers, TV or radio commentators or they could be other sources of misinformation and speculation such as internet forums or blogs like this one.

The problem I have with many of these views is that they are simply that - just views. Taking this down to a basic level, a view could be what you see while standing on top of a hill looking out over a landscape. Your view of that landscape is essentially one-dimensional, as you only have one point of view, and the landscape is huge. Someone else on a hill a mile away, looking out over the same landscape will have a similar, but different point of view. Someone on the horizon looking back towards you will again be looking at the same landscape, but will have a completely different point of view. Finally there will be other people in the landscape, all of whom have their own point of view. None of these points of view are definitive, and as well as having a different perspective, they will also be tainted by the individuals' personal life experiences.

Where I have a huge issue with so much of this is that most of what people claim are rights or wrongs are really just judgement calls. Just different views of the same landscape.

For me the best arguments are made by those people who have taken the time to explore the landscape, who have stood with people on different hills and seen what they see and who have spent time with people within the landscape and experienced what they experience. Only then can a person really weigh up all the different points of view, and make a decision accordingly. The decision will still be limited, however it will be a combination of many views, and not just a single one.

Now I am not saying I always do this myself. Of course I don't. I do try though. As an aspiration, and as something to strive for as a society, I personally believe that it is is a good thing.

Where we will continually fail is when we refuse to acknowledge or understand other points of view, and work with them to find some kind of mutual understanding and agreement. This happens day-in and day-out in the media, encouraged by commentators eager to fill airtime and column-inches and to shift product.

Until enough people see that black-and-white argument; ignorant polemic and destructive ranting is not 'lively debate' and thus something to be encouraged, but is instead a stinking cloud which is stifling sensible, reasoned and productive discussion on a best way forward, we will continue to struggle to achieve anything significant, and probably end up with what we deserve.