Comments on: “Room for Perfectly Honest and Friendly Differences of Opinion”

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:34:01 +0000

The Mormon Church is great at teaching absolutes. “There’s a right and a wrong to ev’ry question” goes the hymn. I wonder if our collective difficulty in being civil comes from our inability to recognize there are many legitimate topic where it’s OKAY to disagree.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 05:58:53 +0000

Speaking of not letting political differences carry over into daily life, I will confess to having broken this rule. There are members of my ward to whom I should be better friends, but because of their particular political views, I have distanced myself. It’s wrong, I know.

I think I needed this “civics” lesson. Thanks.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:46:36 +0000

It might be fun to have a Bloggernacle debate using exactly these rules (well, substituting a word count, perhaps, in place of a time limit). I wonder if we could actually be civil long enough to complete it.

Moniker, I’m trying to image what I’d taste like, all archivey and all — cobwebs? bookworms? a sprinkling of dust?

Thank you all who have commented since I last caught up.

By: Chris Henrichsen

Chris Henrichsen — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:32:01 +0000

Maybe I should be a post on each of the above topic using the said rules. Hmmmm. This is great, Ardis. You rock.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:24:40 +0000

Gee, and I thought it odd when one of the judges in an MIA speech contest (before August 1971, if you must know–you get no credit here, Kristine, for being old and decrepit) told me that he’d never before heard a speech at MIA in favor of civil disobedience.

By: Cynthia L.

Cynthia L. — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:03:32 +0000

This is fascinating. Thanks, Ardis.

By: Kristine

Kristine — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:50:42 +0000

My first YM/YW activity (in 1982, if you must know) was a debate on evolution. Because it was in Los Alamos, and virtually all of us were the progeny of scientists, it was hard to get anyone to argue the creationist stance–I think a few people ended up being assigned to it against their will. It was a long time before I realized that this is a somewhat atypical church experience among my peers

By: Edje Jeter

Edje Jeter — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:28:29 +0000

Interesting, as always.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:11:18 +0000

One question: the rules refer to “the man” or “gentlemen.” Weren’t the young women in the MIA also participating in the debates in 1923?

It’s been a while since I read them, but it is instructive to read the full text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates from summer 1858. They have become the Bible of American political discourse–we all honor them as being from a higher place, but we surely don’t read them–but even those demigods, even Lincoln!–was not above making cheap debating points, or making his opponent an offender for a word.

Still, the format was an hour for the first speaker, then an hour and a half for the second, with a half-hour rebuttal by the first. That was a long-enough time to develop some real argument, and the applause (or laugh) lines took up less of the alloted time than nowadays.

By: Moniker Challenged

Moniker Challenged — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:18:58 +0000

i wouldn’t try to eat you. No offense, but I’m afraid you might taste a little archivey