"Wish we could debate health care without all of the name calling."He responded saying:
"There's nothing per se wrong with name calling. E.g. Matt 3:7"
So I am wondering what you think about this whole idea of calling people names. Folks in the British Parliament seem to be comfortable with it.. heck, I have seen videos of government bodies in other countries actually duking it out in meetings.
Do you think that name-calling is a legit expression of debate? Is it something that you are comfortable with on a one-on-one basis with people you know or do you just name-call the people on TV who you have never met?
Frankly I think that most people who are calling public figures names probably do not do it to people they actually know. Gotta wonder why they feel comfortable doing it one way but not the other. What do you think?
Heckling in the British Parliament is an historical convention. The historical convention for the US Congress does not permit heckling. The prime minister is selected by and from the membership of parliament and is subject to their removal. The US president is elected by the people (tongue in cheek) and is the executive of a separate body of the government rather than the designated leader of the parliament and thereby may deserve more respect from the congress. Heckling should not be accepted in our Congress simply because it is customary elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteName calling is used when a debate of policy turns into a personal attack. I think it occurs when one debater doesn't have a logical objection for his opponent's argument. The debate is over and an emotion argument with no hope of agreement has begun.
Heckling and name calling should neither be justified by a strong commitment to one's position on a subject or the strength of one's patriotism.
And scripturally, your friend may want to flip a few chapters ahead to Matthew 5:22.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what Joe said.
I did actually bring up Matthew 5:22 Mike. The response was that the issue was hate and not name calling.. to which I responded that the distance between the two is not that far.
ReplyDeleteJust one of the dangers of picking and choosing verses from the Bible. Using the Bible to justify hatred and uncivil behavior.
ReplyDeleteWhen I used to debate, I always made it a goal to not attack the person personally. I'll attack your ideas. But, to go after the person does not further the debate and actually shows weakness in your position.
I should have figured you would have brought it up. :-)
ReplyDeleteThe issue is definitely hate and name calling is the beginning.
Is the main question, "When is it okay to call people names?" I'd suggest instead, "In today's environment, what are acceptable ways to debate a crucial topic, the outcome of which depends on gaining the attention and agreement of your hearers/readers?"
ReplyDeleteCivil behavior is important. If you knew me, you'd know that I tend to err on the side of courtesy and seeing both sides of every issue. Practically speaking however, it is difficult and perhaps inadvisable to maintain an even tone in every situation.
To cite an extreme example, if the Nazis came for your Jewish neighbor who had dropped by for coffee, would you be civil or rude to them? A less extreme example: Raising one's voice to family members is rude. Raising one's voice to one's oversleeping teenager is necessary. Sometimes, behavior is situational, witness Jesus in the temple.
In the current situation, I don't consider Thomas Sowell's use of "charlatan-in-chief" to be out of order. It's not nearly as uncivil as lying to those you have sworn to serve, for instance. Sinning with elegance and flair is worse than blunt-spoken righteousness.
Interesting timing, KB. I just had a deeply felt discussion about this subject, and am currently thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't have anything even vaguely like an answer.
My initial reaction is that John was a prophet speaking God's words, and God has a right to call a man a viper. Even the angel, though, would only say, "The Lord rebuke thee, Satan." If the power of passion has descended upon me, it may feel like I'm speaking something as true as what God might say, but I'm not. I sin when I label people from my own limited feelings and insights.
On the other hand, the ability to rebuke is an import part of being a mature human being. Observing and reporting that Serena Williams is a bully and an awful sportsman is within my powers and rights. Describing her that way is seen by many as spiteful and mean, but I call it fair and necessary to protect the game. If we don't call Serena a bully and correct her, soon the game will be overrun with Serena play-alikes.
At what point does valuable describing become proud name-calling? I don't know.
Name calling is like small punches below the belt. It doesn't even serve any good purpose.
ReplyDeleteVery well put, Roz. I appreciate what you said. I agree.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that debates get personal when someone has no logical answer to what you attempt to say calmly and logically. Then, things get ugly. I've called out bad behavior, but not attacked personally. There's a difference. I've been attacked personally.
What happens after is more important than the ugliness.
I'll qualify that....I have retorted after attacked. I'm human.
ReplyDelete"When is it okay to call people names?" is not my question Roz. Here are my questions from the post:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that name-calling is a legit expression of debate? Is it something that you are comfortable with on a one-on-one basis with people you know or do you just name-call the people on TV who you have never met?
In my opinion, the examples of how to deal with a Nazi who's going to take your neighbor or you into custody, Serena Williams' poor-conduct and a teenager that won't get up for school, are not occasions for debate. These people are all wrong but will require different handling. You don't want the Nazi to shoot you for obstructing his duty. Your issue is with his superior and your solution will not be debate, it will be armed resistance. Serena was handled properly - no debate, you're out of the tournament. The teenager (my stomach is uneasy being reminded of those days) does not deserve a debate when the alarm goes off. If the terms are well understood before the alarm is set, just apply the consequence for not getting up and catching the bus - no debate, NO NAME CALLING, no raised voices - just consequence.
ReplyDeleteIf the shoe fits..... in a debate on Nazi Germany calling Hitler a murderer would be, considering the facts, justifiable. If someone sincerely believed that Hitler was correct, and believed in his ways of carrying out the master plan, would calling that person a murderer by proxy be considered justified. If during a debate on economics a politician tells you that 2 + 2 is indeed 3 and uses that to explain how they plan to pay for some new program, calling this person a liar would certainly seem reasonable (Wilson was wrong, without concrete facts supporting him...do not hang me out to dry because I used a simplified example). Calling the kettle black, or a duck a duck when the facts support it need not be condemmed, name calling out a hatred or ignorance is quite a different matter.
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Calling a kettle a kettle and a pot a pot is not name calling. And, you gave some great examples.
Thank you, Coach. Far more elegant and concise than I was capable of.
ReplyDeleteI am enjoying the dialog in this thread.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a person a liar? One lie? Two? Three? Or something more of a pathological nature.
I know that there is probably a line that someone crosses from telling a lie to being a liar.. sometimes it is an obvious one and sometimes it is not.
Guess I am more comfortable calling something a lie rather than calling the person a liar. Feels like I am verbally slapping a person across the face when I call them a liar.
As many are discussing Joe Wilson.. would it make any difference if he said "that is a lie" rather than "you lie"?
Probably just semantics when you consider the place it was said. What do you think?
Ah...the real point of this dialog.
ReplyDeleteWhat about if there is no name-calling?
What if, say, a bunch of House members booed Obama? Is that akin to name-calling? Is it wrong?
If your child was on the school debate team and during a debate with another school's team your child screamed "you lie" at the other team, would you look for a justification or just call it what it is, disrespect of the opposing team and an embarrassment for your child's team and school.
ReplyDeletePassion doesn't justify an act of disrespect in any debate.
In response to Karen's question about "booing" versus screaming "you lie," replace "screamed you lied" with "booed" in the hypothetical described in my previous comment. Do you accept your child's booing?
ReplyDeleteThat didn't really answer my question.
ReplyDeleteAnyway...People mess up. People call people names. People get passionate about issues they care about.It's been happening since the beginning of time.
Jesus called people names.
What happens after is what matters. Sometimes people apologize. Sometimes they don't.
Yes, Bob. I think "That is a lie" is much better than you lie. However, the time and the place were all wrong for even that criticism.
ReplyDeletePeace,
Brian
Karen,
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe Joe Wilson was so overcome with passion that he just couldn't contain himself.I believe his outburst was planned. We all do things we later regret and while I can't read Joe Wilson's heart, I think his "apology" was far from sincere.
Joe made an excellent point. I know how I would treat my children had they done such a thing. I don't think it's right to boo the President or jeer at the President in such circumstances. But, it's been done. If I had seen my child booing, I would correct her. If she yelled out the way Joe Wilson did, I would demand a public apology. Joe Wilson has apologized (sort of). It was one of those "my mother told me I should apologize" apologies. And, I guess he's now been reprimanded by the house.
In reading these wonderful comments, it sounds like "it depends" is a logical answer as to whether name calling is a legitimate expression of debate.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it depends on the implied (or in some cases documented) rules between the parties involved. In my household, if I am sitting around debating with my brothers, name calling is perfectly acceptable. British parliament apparently has the same agreement.
If I am at work, however, there are tighter lines as to what is acceptable and what is not.
In our Congress, booing, hisses, murmering, applause, holding up papers, turning away, standing ovations etc. have all been (in my lifetime at least) acceptable reactions. Shouting out and interrupting a speaker has not been acceptable. Those are the rules of that particular club.
On a totally side note -- just had to laugh out loud when Wilson got up an complained that the proceedings yesterday were a waste of time and not solving America's problems. If he beleived that, he could have simply turned to his peers and said "I apologize" and it would have been over. But then he wouldn't be able to go out and sign pictures of himself "in action" to raise some bucks. Oh well.
Thanks for the dialogue!
Grrr. I just lost my second commenting attempting to play along on my Blackberry.
ReplyDeleteName-calling does feel like slapping to me, and I figure slapping should be a rarely employed debate technique. ;-)
Let me post this before I typo, hit backspace, and end up on the previoua page AGAIN.
3
3
No. I'm not correcting those typos.
Phew. The backspace button randomly corrects a typo or takes me "back." IRRITATING!
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to say that Booing is saying that my loud, unintelligent noises add more to the debate than your reasoned thoughts. That's pretty much a slap, too.
Booing, slap or not, is pretty common on the floor of Congress. Shouting "you lie!" is, apparently less common and a faux pas.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the real transgression was that is was on national television.
I think the idea behind the "name-calling feels like slapping" thing is that words can really hurt.. and sometimes in the heat of the moment we don't understand how much we can hurt another person.
ReplyDeleteAnd I guess I feel like I have enough opportunities to boo these days.. what with the Chiefs starting a new season :)
And great thought Roz.. of course the cameras always seem to be running for the prez these days.. he loves the camera :)
I'm not a big fan of booing. I'm pretty sure I've never booed anyone. As bad as the Cincinnati Bungles are, I do not boo my home team.
ReplyDeleteBooing in Congress seems extremely immature to me. I'm disappointed whenever I see our elected representatives doing such a thing. But, as several people have pointed out, that seems to have become accepted behavior. Yelling out "You lie" during the President's speech apparently has not become accepted (yet). Let's hope civility prevails and it's never accepted.
Peace,
Brian
Oh, I love booing, but I only do it when Michigan is playing Ohio State, and I only do it in the privacy of my living room.
ReplyDeleteIs that okay?
It's always OK to boo the Wolverines.
ReplyDeleteI may have to recant. I'm sure I booed that team up north at Ohio Stadium at some point in my past.
Since I am a lady, I will decline to point out the Brian got confused about who the good guys are.
ReplyDelete[Roz waves her handkerchief daintily in Brian's direction]
In college, we hissed the other team. While it appeared less obstructive and more civilized than booing, it felt more insidious. Very effective. ;)
ReplyDeleteFor me, I guess I understand that Congress follows certain ancient protocol that allows people uninterrupted time to speak with time for rebuttal - also to be uninterrupted. This type of order is necessary for those that need it to speak. Listening to the opponent in debate is critical to refuting their position, or if your not a politician, being open to accepting their position if you find it reasonable. ;) So interruptions of any sort are not acceptable. If, however, you use your alloted time to speak with name calling and such, well, you've wasted your time expressing your position. It's your loss.
It appears that the acceptable course of action with Presidential addresses to Congress is to allow the him to speak, follow that with curteous applause, then run, not walk, to the nearest camera and anchor to give the nation your opinion. Name calling is often encouraged, unless it's a roundtable discussion for PBS.
I believe that both behavior are inappropriate. Apparently, some here believe it's okay to boo, but not yell out "you lie." Perhaps it really depends upon who is being disrespected.
ReplyDeleteBrian,apparently you have the ability to read Joe Wilson's mind. Therefore, I could not possibly add anything more.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteHow you get to the conclusion that I can read Joe Wilson's mind when I specifically said I cannot read his heart I find mystifying.
I don't recall his exact words. But, I'm pretty sure either during the original apology or at a later time he indicated that he apologized because the leadership of his party asked him to. Also, his behavior since that time leads me to question how sincere his apology was/is.
I didn't claim to be able to read his or anyone else's mind. I said "We all do things we later regret and while I can't read Joe Wilson's heart, I think his "apology" was far from sincere."
"I find it hard to believe Joe Wilson was so overcome with passion that he just couldn't contain himself.I believe his outburst was planned."
ReplyDeleteNo one could know--nor was there any indication--that his outburst was planned. People screw up and do stupid things.
His apology wasn't sincere because he said he was asked to apologize. Shame on him.
Yes, Karen, that is one of the reasons for my "opinion". It reminds me of when a parent tells a child to apologize and the child says "My mother said to say I'm sorry."
ReplyDeleteJust my opinion, Karen. No extrasensory perception or sorcery involved. It's not the way I would have shown contrition. But, then again, I would not have yelled out "You lie" during a Presidential address. So, obviously Joe and I do things a little differently.
You're right, of course.
ReplyDelete