Just Waiting For Their Turn to Speak

As I previously averred, I'll try and stay away from strongly opinionated statements and controversy throughout this blog.  That's not to say that sometimes I'll touch on subjects that may themselves be controversial, but only that I'll attempt to explain my thoughts and arguments (often for both sides - hence the blog title) in a way that remains neutral and level-headed.  The primary reason for this is that the natural reaction to offense is defense.  If someone is reading or listening to something they perceive to be an attack, either personally or an assault on his or her beliefs, the natural reaction will be to become defensive, to gear up for fight or flight - either stop reading or counter-attack.  And, before you know it, we'll have something akin to political debates, where one side isn't so much listening as waiting for their turn to speak.  And it's in this sort of atmosphere that nobody really learns.  No one is thinking critically or clearly about the issue anymore, other than trying to force the other side to retreat.  And as long as I've been around other people, I've never seen anyone change their mind because someone forced the opposite on them.  Often I've found it just pushes the person to reassert their initial position, sometimes to avow it more strongly.

Now, I'm not of the mind that people shouldn't take a stance on things they believe in.  Or that they should necessarily be wishy-washy.  Just that people need to hear out the opposition.  We need to empathize and attempt to see the other side of an argument rather than reject it completely simply because it isn't aligned with what we see is right.  It's in these situations that people stop listening to one another and simply fight.  Take, so example, the national debate on abortion.  Without giving my opinion (this isn't the place for what I think - if you're curious, we can talk in person), it seems that the two sides are arguing without listening to each other.  On the one hand we have Pro-Life: anti-abortion, based on the sanctity of life and the rights of those unable to assert themselves.  On the other hand, we have Pro-Choice: in favor of a woman's right o choose what's best for her and her body.  Just think of their names and descriptions.  One is "Pro-Choice", not "Pro-Death" or "Anti-Life".  Nowhere in their argument is it apparent that this group is arguing for more abortions.  Their stance revolves around a woman the freedom over her own body.  On the other side is "Pro-Life".  They're not referred to as "Anti-Choice" because they're not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed any sovereignty over their lives.  The two sides are debating the same issue but they aren't actually listening to one another.  The groups realize they don't agree, and therefore the opposite is wrong.  No gray area.  No middle ground.  And therefore no actual dialogue and no listening.

Not too long ago in Madison, WI, newly elected Governor Scott Walker proposed measures to force public employees to pay more into their pension and healthcare plans as a measure of balancing the budget.  A caveat of this was to strip public union members of collective bargaining rights to ensure these measures would stay intact.  This was met with demonstrations around Capitol Square, in masses sometimes estimated at over 70,000 people.  In the meantime, public employees had agreed to pay more into pensions and healthcare, giving the governor what he asked for monetarily, however he was adamant on collective bargaining.  So now on one side, we've people arguing that the budget needs to be balanced.  On the other side, those arguing that collective bargaining is a necessity for their ability to effectively do their job.  Two opposing sides disagreeing over different things and losing sight of the actual issue.

So although I do have my own opinions and stance on many issues, approaching this blog with a steadfast "I'm right and you're wrong" creates and lose-lose situation.  So instead, I welcome comments that are level-headed and free of attack.  I believe that disagreement is an incredible venue through which to learn (the devil's advocate approach), but the disagreement must be clear and concise, allowing for DIALOGUE and DISCUSSION over debate.

So when was the last time you actually listened to someone with whom you disagreed?  Have you learned from them enough to argue their point?