was; Three Questions. now; argument

[Guest guest]

Hi & Graham;I appreciated Graham's comments about some arguments being frustrating, they don't bother me but I have been told by people in 'face-time' that I tend to "argue somethng to death"I found ' description of two types of argumentation that seem to occur on this forum helpful. I have engaged in both types in face-time, and recognize both types in the forum.I certainly adhere to the 'letter of the law rather than the spirit,' and have and will debate my perception or understanding ad naseum. One of the reasons I really enjoyed serving as an Elder in a Presbyterian Church was because of the formal procedures (set out in a thick book) for all Church business to be conducted by, in addition to the formal Worship Services. (and I did debate application of the 'Church law" with

the Synod Administrator.)I agree with ' cocluding statement! ---excerpted:---While Aspie bickering annoys NTs to the nth degree, it comes in handy

for a person to make up their mind about something, and it is rewarding

to be firm in ones beliefs and not have to wrestle with moral, ethical,

and religious issues on an emergency and ad hoc basis.My cultural background is also one of animated and often lenghty (to an observer) debates seemingly just for the sake of discussion!! A few times, someone has tried to either 'shut me up' or "put me in my place", and gotten into a (public) debate as a result.(much to the amusement of my husband)a humourous one: A few years ago, we were getting on a shuttle bus from,an Airshow back into the city. A person who got on had a walking child, and a large empty stroller. I asked him "please collapse the stroller so others have room, particularily since your child is ambulatory". Someone made a comment, and I said 'in many cities, a person with a stroller would be required to carry the child and collapse the stroller' The driver made a positive comment. She and I then talked abou tranist policy in various cities. A man city a few seats back

saidloudly 'if I hear one more word about that stroller I will...' and paused. I turned in his direction and said 'if you had been listening you would have realized we were discussing Tranist Policy in general, not a specific stroller' The outspoken man said 'I was concerend that you are embarassing the man with the stroller' I replied; he could speak for himself, or something similair...I debated the oputspoken man him until we neared the drop off point, told him where we'd be getting off and invited him to continue the debate. He asked off at an earlier stop.My husband was trying not to laugh at this debate, and said he did not know if he should have told 'mr outspoken' "you are not going to get a French Canadian to shut up by trying to threaten or embarass her, she is having fun." I enjoy many of the arguments on this forum, even if the topic is not of particular interest I pay attention to how stuff

is worded!renaissanzelady

"I do sometimes get frustrated when you seem to be argueing with each

other but I really value this site and the people who contibute."

Argumentation here tends to have two forms:

1) A discussion of a topic endlessly for the purpose of further educating one another. Parties come from similar or opposing viewpoints, and often the topic being discussed appears to bear little relevance to daly existence. This form of argumentation often takes the form of a dog eating a bone. We're merely trying to get at the marrow.

2) A brawl, in which two sides with mutually opposing viewpoints argue with one another for the purpose of winning the argument or swaying the other person to their own point of view. This form of argumentation is frustrating. Often times one side possesses more facts or more valid facts than the other, but the other adheres to their point of view for emotional reasons or just plain stubbornness. Mostly moral, ethical, and religious discussions fall into this category.

The first type of argumentation is always allowed. The second is allowed to persist until both sides seem to have made their viewpoints known with the probability of further discussion disrupting the forum needlessly.

Aspies by nature tend to be less interested in being "right" than they are in being heard. With that said, they will also adhere to the letter of the law rather than the spirit. If a law exists, be it governmental or religious, they will defend their perception of it ad naseum. But moral, ethical, and religious issues, being vague by virtue of being able to be interpreted in a number of different ways, will spur on extensive discussion as Aspies try to define what the moral, ethica, or religious value is, what it means, what it ought to mean, and whether or not it should be taken literally or figuratively, etc., etc., etc.

While Aspie bickering annoys NTs to the nth degree, it comes in handy for a person to make up their mind about something, and it is rewarding to be firm in ones beliefs and not have to wrestle with moral, ethical, and religious issues on an emergency and ad hoc basis.

Administrator

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!