Why should I have to respect other peoples beliefs?
 

In an open discussion in my political science class, a student claimed that "before 'Shrub' took office and invaded Iraq, Americans never had to worry about terrorism at home or abroad."

I responded "Thats the dumbest thing anyone will hear all day. Americans have a long history of being victims of terrorism in and out of the country. Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Al-Qaeda (1993 WTC), the Beruit Embassy bombing, etc all pre-dated Bush's policies. To suggest that terrorism is some sort of new, Bush-induced phenomenon is flat out wrong."

I was promptly chastised by the professor and told its important to respect other peoples beliefs.

My question is this: Why? Why should I have to respect someones belief that I know to be flat-out wrong? In matters of opinion, I can understand a due respect. Some people believe the Rolling Stones were a better band than The Beatles. Fine, thats a matter of opinion. But when someone told you that they believed the world to be flat or that the Easter Bunny is real, would you respect that or immediately label them an idiot?

these are the people that don't care to be bothered with facts or real evidence. they want their 'reality' to be real and uninhibited by others' realities.

An important part in debate, I think, has to be mutual respect between parties. When it is absent people tend to just run with their emotions and that usually causes things to disintegrate and become meaningless. This case is obviously a bit different, seeing as it wasn't a debate and that was remarkably absurd thing for anybody to say. But I can definitely see the professor taking exception to the way you interjected. For one it was a tad arrogant and also I'm sure the last thing a prof wants is students getting heated up and bickering and correcting each other all lecture long.

Sometimes it's hard to correct people without seeming like you're picking on them.

You don't have to respect another person's beliefs, you have to respect their right to have them.

That's probably the second dumbest thing you heard on that particular day. The person you blew up at was sharing incorrect information.

Perhaps the prof was responding to your less-than-cordial lead-in sentence?

I do. I respect a persons right to believe whatever they want. But when that person states their beliefs as fact in a public forum, they open themselves to criticism.

I will give you that. Still, if something is wrong to the point of being strongly offensive and intellectually dishonest, doesn't that warrant an equally strong response? Calling someone an idiot isn't arrogance if its true.

But "idiot" is subjective and treating one as such is an ad hominem attack.

If you countered with merely enlightening the class on the facts, I'm guessing that your prof would have less to object to if anything.

There is a difference between leading off with "that's dumb" vs. "actually, that's not true...."

EDIT: If not knowing something automatically makes one an idiot, then welcome to the idiot human race.

Universities are a place of learning, aren't they?

Its not my place to make sure that everyone walks away from a discussion with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Dont want to get "picked on"? Don't spout out-right fallacies under the guise of personal beliefs.

Having attended the same Uni as Walter, I beg to differ. Although our mutual mater is a great school, certain departments have a very decided political slant, and an institutional culture of intellectual censorship, harassment and gate-keeping that can be quite disturbing when encountered at close range. Given my own experiences (YMMV), it's likely that he would have caught shit for his statements in any case, regardless of how they were couched. This is a school which continues to teach Carlos Castanada's books not as fiction, satire, or a study in fraud but as Anthropologically-useful FACTS, despite their having been conclusively proven fraudulent (to say nothing of lethally dangerous) over 30 years ago, because the slant of the aforementioned fraud suits the political and cultural prejudices of the head of the Anthropology Dept.

It is your place in class. You'll find as I did (much too late) going to college is as much a lesson in putting up with bullshit as it is in gaining any real knowledge. One big part of that bullshit is being nice to everyone when your boss is around.

Respecting them means you're polite - it means when you tear their argument to shreds you compliment and smile at them.

So, what I got from this is that he's an ignorant, loud-mouthed kid, and you're an arrogant asshole: that's just the impression I've gotten from your words.

Do you HAVE to be nice to people? Certainly not. Will it change your view in their eyes? Certainly. Does that matter? Only you can answer that.

Keep in mind that even though your scorn was meant for him, it was witnessed by the entire class. Perhaps there was even one person in there that you cared to not make a bad impression on. Keep in mind that only a handful of people may disagree or agree with you here and say you were or were not out of place, or should've phrased things differently. Many more will read the words, though. Only you can answer whether you care about the impression you give to fellow TFPers as well.

I agree with Baraka Guru. The point of a classroom setting is for everyone to have a chance to gain knowledge and wisdom. This works best when people share ideas freely. If people are afraid that they will be attacked they are less likely to share and that creates an environment where the professor does all the talking. More can be gained from multiple voices than from a singular viewpoint.

It was a personal attack, not because of the students lack of knowledge, but because he made a conscious decision to ignore verifiable truths in order to make room for bullshit propaganda. The kid is about to graduate with a BS in Political Science for Gods sake! I refuse to believe that he just didn't know about the aformentioned events.

Thats what I was told, though I believe it a little bit less every day.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

I wholeheartedly agree when it comes to something like theory. But whether or not people have been blown up isn't open to multiple viewpoints. Either it happened or it didn't.

I think I'm kind of with Walter. I didn't like Bush but what that kid said was pretty much propaganda...which to me spouting propaganda in my presence is more offensive than if someone called me a name.

well I think it is a persons right to question everything. It doesn't sound like this has to do as much about beliefs as it is reality. If someone is saying something that you know to be a lie then I believe that you have every right to voice your opinion. Now I do believe we all need to show everyone respect when it comes to there opinions, just because you don't agree with someone is no reason to refer to them as an idiot. You don't know how the person was raised and how they view the world. Its always good to here others views, it either strengthens your views or makes you question what you believe. And if I rambled a little I'm sorry, im a little drunk right now, so all is good.

Eh, I dont think I have any kind of superiority complex but I am fine with being labeled an asshole.

Dude. Really?

I started the thread for the discussion. Whether or not the anonymous masses think I'm cool doesn't carry the weight that you seem to think it should.

The basic point is that you can make an argument (the kid was wrong) without all the bluster that accompanied it ("the dumbest thing ive ever heard").

Pretty much.

In a sense, the student was right. Terrorism was not a major concern because we didn't have a history of attacks beyond a few isolated incidents. Our response to terrorism threats during the Bush years was completely overreaction. The right wingers played on the fears of a population that was vulnerable after 9/11 and wanted to make terrorists the reason to bring back the hawkish policies that had faded away after the cold war.

If you want people to take you seriously, you have to put up a front of politeness and respect. I'm not exactly known for being the nicest guy around here, but I restrain the shit out of myself because I understand social conventions and especially persuasion theory. Very simply, about 85% of people are not open to large changes of opinion in debate. To change their minds, you have to do it bit by bit, staying within their "comfort zone" and taking steps that they're willing to take.

The Internet is mostly anonymous and I restrain myself because I want people to take other things I say seriously. In real life, there are people who would have no problem assaulting me for my opinions on, for example, religion. Politics is generally understood as having more leeway for disagreement in debate, but people are still very narrow-minded.

Which, by the way, is a good skill to learn in college ;) It also makes you 100x more persuasive.

I see the point assuming those beliefs are moral and ethical generally speaking but I don't respect someone who may think pedophelia is acceptable.

Most people will state their opinion as fact, even if it is their opinion. Classroom, dinner party, wings and beer, opinions are usually stated as fact because they want to be seen as right.

It may be true, but it's one of those truths that can't be said. You can think it, rage inside about it, but you can't verbalize it in that way. You will not gain an audience to listen to you by being coarse.

It's not about what you have to say, it is how you say it. If you can gain their attention, they will listen, if you open with something that pisses them off, they won't.

Respecting someone's beliefs is important on matters of opinion. Religion and politics are examples of this. I may not agree with you or any other given individual on a given subject, but as my opinions are not objective fact it behooves me to accord you the right to hold your beliefs in the hope that you'll extend me the same courtesy.

You have no reason to respect a belief that's based on factual errors. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you have a moral obligation to rebut such beliefs and dispel them, if you're able to do so. However, it's important to respect the individual regardless; approaching it the way you did effectively shuts down dialogue, which means you get nowhere. Respectful disagreement is always more productive.

My policy is to always give a person the benefit of the doubt. I assume that the other party is an intelligent and rational individual who is simply misinformed, unless or until proven otherwise. I also try to remain open to the idea that I may in fact be wrong as well (and thus, you'll often see me using phrases such as 'correct me if I'm wrong,' or 'It's my understanding.') Of course, the latter doesn't really apply in this case; the events you've mentioned are not in any way controversial and are pretty much a straight refutation of what the other student claimed. Regardless, had you approached it in a less confrontational manner it may have opened the door to a debate on the hows and whys of these events. Without knowing the context of the class I don't know how well that would've gone, but all the same.

I don't know your school or your professor, so it's hard to say. Had it been me (ha, as if I'd sit through school long enough to become a professor), my objection would not have been to the rebuttal itself but rather the way it was fashioned.

This is my opinion. I ask you to respect it.

It's a question of goals.

If your goal is to be right, or to correct someone, or to make someone look silly for having an erroneous belief, then this is the correct approach.

If your goal is to educate them to the error of their belief, this is not the right approach.

Treat every one of your goals with the right approach.

Everyone:

I agree that my approach was situationally inappropriate and I probably should have made my point in a measured, less confrontational manner. I will admit, though, that I'm still irritated by what the kid had to say. I'm new to this college thing and I'm still working on developing tact and embiggening my capacity for bullshit.

I appreciate the comments and advice.

As a note, I didn't mean to chastise you, just share my reasoning on why I attempt to present myself politely IRL or as a netizen. I didn't mean to seem as if I was holding the specter of communal disapproval over your head xD.

I think you had every right to be irritated. I also know that -I- would feel more satisfied at the end of the day if I'd been able to enlighten the kid, at least in some way, by the end of the day by discoursing with him reasonably. But I am I and you are you and that can make all the difference.

Your penultimate sentence is quite telling. Props :).

<3.

Well, look, it's not really that you have to respect people's opinion, so much. It's that you have to respect people. People think very strange things sometimes. Doesn't make them Bad People. Just means they are thinking from a framework that is different from yours, and has them view reality in a way that's different from your view.

It's fair to say that Terrorism as we now know it was defined on 9/11. Incidents prior to that were, to America at large, "no big deal". 9/11 and our response to it put terrorism right on the front burner and kept it there.

We're talking about unchecked aggression here, dude. :cool:

I think that respect should be earned, however. If they're just cranking out dumbassed ideas, why should you have to respect those ideas?

Maybe because at least one side in any conversation should be respectable? If you're both gibbering monkeys, there's nobody to respect. In a debate, there are other people watching, who are they going to see as rational? There are respectful ways to let someone know their ideas are poppycock. Minus the "dumb" statement, I think Mr. Sobchak had a very good answer for the statement he debated. ( and yes, this crap started decades before the most recent Bush, but that's another story )

I don't think the professor was really wanting to say you have to respect this other person's belief. I just think the professor didn't communicate well that you need to be respectful of other student's sharing their opinions.

Your response was more in line with how you may reply to a buddy that you've been drinking with all night. Not another student in a classroom environment. The forum, audience and other environmental factors should always determine how you should react to things. You are in college and this is just part of learning these things. I wouldn't sweat it or the other person's beliefs. Your going to see this kind of thing your whole life. Next time I wager you will react differently.

well, first off the problem was, like other folk have said, social.
there's no particular reason to respect what other people think or say, but there are reasons to respect the person. and there are tactical reasons within a debate context to try to remain a bit..um...nice, particularly if you harbor the illusion of changing someone's mind. roachboy isn't necessarily so good at this, but in 3-d his meat correlate is actually kinda gracious about such things. but i also don't hesitate to tell people they're wrong. sometimes pretty bluntly. but you have to pick your spots, know why you make that move.

o yeah--by the way, the change in the notion of terrorism from referring to a specific set of political tactics into something like it's modern form, which designates Enemies and evacuates the idea that they have a political agenda but are instead just Bad People, is usually linked to the 1972 munich olympics, the black september action, how it was framed, what it was defined as discursively. this ran alongside the other co-opting of the word by folk like baader-meinhof and the red army brigade, but folk don't remember them so much any more. maybe that's a function of the revision of the history of the entire vietnam period that was of a piece with the (mercifully ended for now) republican ascendancy, the shift to the hard right, the fashioning of the vietnam syndrome myth blah blah blah.

you can track the process. people have done it--i can give titles if you want.

I don't think you were out of line, and I would have challenged the professor following his rebuttal.

You are in a classroom where you are paying (a lot) of money to be taught fact. Seeing as it was a Political SCIENCE class this is especially true because an event either happened or it didn't (I get that some things are unknown, blurry, etc. but this is not one of them). Your role as a college student is two fold: first, to learn as much as possible; second, to learn how to evaluate available information and correctly arrive at the right conclusion. It is the professors job to teach you how to do both these things and by defending someone who is obviously capable of neither he is doing both of you a disservice.

As Douglas Adams so succinctly put it:
"I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue.

...Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."


Those who have a problem with Walter Sobcak's willingness to voice his own opinion seems to have made him a target for online criticism only because he was correct. Otherwise his opionion would be just as valid as the brain dead ditz he corrected in class. If the professor isn't willing to police his own class then the students need to do so themselves.

We need only tolerate the opinions of others, not respect them.

It really depends upon the tone of voice you used when you made this comment. I can see how these words, spoken in a mild even-tempered voice could be respectful. I more easily visualize an outraged, loud-spoken person screaming in the face of a fellow classmate. There are tactful ways to say someone is wrong. There are respectful ways to argue, which involve giving the other an opportunity to repsond without feeling put-off to the discussion.

Where did anyone have a problem with Sobcak's willingness to voice his own opinion?

This is where I got it from.

Jozrael not only calls Walter an asshole, he goes on to imply that Walter's voiced opinions cast him in a negative light for the rest of his class as well as the average anonymous TFP member.

I was having a difficult time portraying three things.

1: How he came across to me (politely).
2: How I behave instead.
3: The motivation for why I behave the way I do: because of how I believe people will perceive my actions. (Note: this assumes that the general public would perceive his/my actions the same way I do. While not necessarily true, I don't have any framework to work off of but myself :s).

Obviously I failed at succintly explaining that because I came across quite arrogantly myself. I wish I was wiser and could have put it better :s. I didn't mean to say 'you are an asshole', but 'from the situation you've just described, it seems to me you acted in ways that had assholish qualities'. :P

This kid did not use logic to get himself onto the logical train in which he derived that the Iraq Invasion of 2002 caused the 9/11 attacks in 2001. He has a hatred for conservative politics epitomized in his mind by Bush. Therefore any issues he has with American international policies or history gets transfixed into this one man and he can (in his mind) take the blame for it all into one bad Big-Brother figure.

You can't use logic or reason to get a person out of a belief he did not use logic or reason to arrive at. Just treat this guy like I treat 9/11 Conspiracy theorists. Just shake your head, walk away, and smile as he pointed out his own mental weaknesses.

Yes.

Ad hominem attacks have no place in a university classroom. There are much better ways to make an argument. Learning them has proved invaluable to me over the course of my university career.

I'm not advocating calling the person cranking out the dumbassed ideas a dumbass. But by the same token I won't do the false-polite "well I hear what you're saying and I respect that but perhaps you would consider. . ."

i really don't see where the problem lay here. personally, i have no respect at all for conservative thinking, but at the same time i think of the folk who hold these positions as a curious lifeform and am curious about how they can possibly function in the world and think this nonsense. contrary to what seaver argued above, this doesn't follow from any "hatred" of anything--it follows from shabby premises being fed into one-dimensional logical machines and producing predictable results over and over. the logic itself typically follows without violating many rules like moving from a to b without bumping into things--the problems follow from the way premises are framed. and my contempt for conservatism follows in large part from the fact that, almost inevitably (note: almost) folk who hold these positions cannot defend their premises. so it's a cookie-cutter approach to thinking.
let's not act as though contemporary american conservatism is a coherent political worldview. the fact that people can invest in a framework says nothing about it's coherence.
i mean, look around.
geez.


but i wouldn't say as much that bluntly in 3-space simply because basic courtesy to others precludes it.
i can, however, be provoked--like anyone---particularly after a few beverages.
but that's not a great idea, so i try not to consume that many beverages any more.

anyway, thats not the issue in walter's post--it seems to me that the real problem followed from a fellow student having basic factual material wrong and allowing an in all likelihood semi-formulated political disposition to fill in the blanks. the subtext is that walter opposed the political disposition but decided (or defaulted--who can say in this sort of situation) into going after the factual material. i suspect that the teacher was playing social form police. i've taught alot, and in such situations, that's the position you find yourself pushed into adopting. it's a pain in the ass to have to do it. you'd prefer to think that folk knew the basic rules. but everyone gets testy from time to time, and everyone knows it---so i wouldn't take it too seriously, what was said.

anyway, i would assume that political disagreement explains the aggressiveness of the approach.
i would also assume that had a parallel kind of fuck up happened with someone who's political dispositions were more symmetrical with his that the whole incident would not have happened.

Screw his beliefs. You only need to respect them when he keeps them to himself. This is a political science class, not some religious tolerance class. He was spewing out misinformation. You shouldn't have to be the one that did it but seeing as how the professor didn't say anything. I don't think you were in the wrong.

I think I am probably saying again what everyone else has said.

But attack the idea, not the person.

Walter did not attack the person, he attacked the idiocy of the words coming out of his mouth. He didn't call the kid stupid, he called his statement stupid (which it was).

The veracity of Walter's statement justifies his having made it.

I think if the best someone can do is "thats a stupid thing to say, only a stupid person would say it" you have a pretty weak case.

In my own personal opinion, one of the big problems we have in the world today is everyone is too damn nice. There was a time, when a person acting like an idiot was dealt with as an idiot, and they either wised up, or got run out of town. However, now a person can act like an idiot and whenever someone speaks up against them, that person is chastised and ostracized until they back down, thus leaving the idiot to feel that they have the right of things.

If only we could smack people in the back of the head for their idiocy, much like Gibbs does on NCIS, the world would be a much nicer place to live in.

I don't think the consensus was for the OP to be nice but tactful and respond appropriately for the situation.

The bottom line is if you want to be influential, there are better ways than others for going about communicating something.

Well, I am in agreement. Lending too much credit to an un-creditable position goes too far. Him just not saying dumbass is good enough. He can pretty much tear up the logic of the other person's statement and make him look like a dumbass without ever having to say it. But no, you definitely don't need to play up your "respect" of the other person either.

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

You really think people are too nice? Really? I don't see it at all that way. From the "media" to the guy on the street all I see daily is people being very disrespectful of each other. The loudest and meanest are ones who have no reality based facts to back up their stances, just vile rhetoric. I think we are living under a mythology that there really is a PC police, without any evidence of it actually occuring.

See I didn't call anyone or their ideas dumb.

[QUOTE=
You really think people are too nice? Really? I don't see it at all that way. From the "media" to the guy on the street all I see daily is people being very disrespectful of each other. The loudest and meanest are ones who have no reality based facts to back up their stances, just vile rhetoric. I think we are living under a mythology that there really is a PC police, without any evidence of it actually occurring.

See I didn't call anyone or their ideas dumb.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps nice was not the best word. My intent was to say that years ago, if you were being a complete idiot, and speaking offensive stuff (such as Bush is responsible for terrorism in the world,) then someone would come along and correct you in a satisfyingly capital way. Nowadays, in the environment of pro-bono lawsuits and multi-million dollar tort awards, fear has taken over, and if you even look at someone cross-eyed you end up in court spending thousands to defend yourself. Therefore, the days of smacking someone upside the head for acting like an idiot are firmly and definitively over. As such, our society is quickly devolving.

Just because you have freedom of speech does not mean you should say whatever lunacy is in your head.

See, even though I used the word idiot, I never actually called anyone any names either, nor did I personally attack any specific beliefs. I am proud of me.

I agree with this, but I have to say that freedom of speech actually does mean I can say whatever lunacy is in my head. And you can hurt my feelings however you want (with words, that is) by correcting me.

To the OP, you should have been more cordial or perhaps even curt if not polite in addressing the statements. It helps for exercise. You don't have to respect his beliefs, just respect him, even though he deemed himself unworthy of your respect. This is because your lack of disrespect in the matter made you, in turn, less respectable.

The difference comes in the wording. I said should, you said can. Absolutely you CAN say whatever you feel like saying (with a few caveats) but that doesnt mean you SHOULD say it.

It is kinda like the bathroom book my mom has in her bathroom says...

"never miss a good opportunity to shut your mouth"

of course, that is the same book that says...

"never squat with your spurs on"

As others have pointed out, your opening sentence was out of line.

Dude, yeah.. but.. it's all backwards.

Used to, you could count on someone to not be full of crap. You could expect that the person who spoke loudly, and with great confidence probably knew, and believed what he was talking about.

It's not so, these days. From the start of your social life to the end, you'll encounter all kinds of people who do not do because they can, they do because they're "supposed to."

If you're "Supposed to know things" so you "read newspaper titles" and you're "supposed to have an opinion" on world affairs.. you get -

Bush sucks
Terrorism
related
bad
obama
yay!

That is failure. That needs to be labeled failure. People need to know that they are failing when they establish a baseless belief on something totally circumstantial.

Instead, we need to look at terrorism as a development of a mind identical to our own, and try to understand how someone COULD feel "right" about destroying something we believe to be so beautiful, and fix it! The best way to end terrorism is to give the terrorists something about the country to love. Terrorists aren't terrorists, they're people just like you and I. Albeit their minds are stuck on some whacky thought chains, but these things can be remedied I think.



Furthermore, this is not to suggest that it is all because we are "supposed to" A lot of times you'll encounter a person who does not KNOW what to believe, but poses the same question other people you're "supposed to believe" have posed to gauge their responses to it, and compare it to ones self.

In an instance where someone speaking is not vocal or confident, expell what you believe if you wish for someone else to have a chance to grapple with your idea as well. That is your opportunity.

When you get the feeling that the person speaking doesn't really believe what he's saying, and in some cases it might sound like more of a question than a statement. Hit em hard at that point for best results, but if you're mean about it, you gotta be real good at wordcraft to have that person not instead be offended by what you say.

Your professor was wrong. What the other student stated was not a belief, but an incorrect opinion.

Aside from that, respecting other people's beliefs is simply a matter of being courteous and not telling them that your god will smite them for following a false god. It's just never a nice thing to tell people they're going to burn in hell or whatever punishment is doled out for non-believing heathens.

Wha-wha-wha... my feelings!

I pull a Sobchak all the time in my criminal justice classes. I'm glad I do. Being polite to college kids is a great way to not get your point across.

As was stated above, Walter's retort attacked the bullshit statement, not the future genius spouting it. A little polish via blunt force.

...

There is so much courtesy thrown around in academia that content suffers. I see it all the time here at Big Name School.

That piece of paper everybody has hanging on their wall doesn't mean dick unless you have the Oomph! to prove it.

Ergh.

^^ Channelling Gregory House?

Who? And no, I'm channeling Old Man Crompsin.

This was the stupidest thing I've read all day. You really need to get your head out of your ass...

VS.

I am not sure you read what people have been saying throughout this thread. Nobody is defending Walter's ability (or right) to tear down the guy in his class for his statements. It's all in how you do it that matters... especially in an academic setting.

Is this different from what you're thinking?

If I'd been the professor, I would have promptly clarified that the next person who makes a completely baseless and uneducated statement as fact will fail this class.

^^-- Seriously, this is what I get from what this entire thread is about. The professor is the key ingredient here. He is the "most knowledgeable" person in the classroom for a reason.. To teach what he knows. I would assume a political science professor would be just as pissed as I am that, not only are random, baseless statements made just about every class period, but also they are encouraged by the professor, as if to say.. "Good job, I liked the way you said American."

Isn't it that the kind of behavior that would lead a kid like the one in question to say what he said? Never really having an interest in the subject of course, TV is far more important, but his degree plan requires him to have that class apparently, and that's what the professor expects.

How many people do you personally know who have been sued for anything like this? I know it feels like this is true, but it's pretty rare that people are sued for speaking their minds, unless they are speaking libel, which is actionable. So, while we are in an atmosphere that feels like we're expected to be PC, the reality is ( from my perspective ) that we are really more aggressive than ever. I don't think there has ever been a time that literally smacking someone upside the head for his opinion was really acceptable....

You don't have to respect their ideas or beliefs, but you should respect their right to have them.

The professor as the class mediator is the key in this situation. What you have to understand about professors is that they are not teachers per se. First and foremost they are researchers that publish their research. Second they "teach" classes. Most (all?) have less training as teachers than Primary and Secondary teachers.

This is not to excuse his behaviour but rather to understand the context that not all Tertiary professors are very good at teaching.

A good professor would not have shut either party in the OP discussion down but should have opened the discussion up. He was right to correct Walter's tone of response but should have encouraged a debate on the topic if it was relevant to the course.

One thought: Any time you're arguing politics or religion, you very probably aren't going to reason someone out of a position that reason didn't get them into. It's almost a waste of time to argue with some people - either Bush is the reason for all our woes... or Obama... or Clinton... or some race or belief or whatever. A "debate" with someone intent on scapegoating someone/thing will work out according to the prejudices of the audience. But while being polite, rational and even-handed may not prevail on your opponent, keep in mind that there is an audience. Sure, some of them may be indifferent, or prejudiced one way or the other, but your position can look pretty good when the opponent is waving his/her hands, sweating, losing temper, et c. Being calm and self-assured in the face of dispute looks like you have confidence in your position. Freaking out can be a display of weakness. Besides, verbal attack is classier when it's genteel. I've always liked "That's an interesting position, but it doesn't appear you're clear on the concept/facts"

In my opinion, everyone should have to do at least a little study of rhetoric and logic, especially logical fallacies. It's good to understand the mechanisms of logical argument and reasoning, and I never experienced a single thing in public school to promote that. Interestingly, in University I was pushed towards rhetoric and logic by several professors, including one political scientist with whom I strongly disagree on almost everything. We disagreed strongly, but always respectfully - and luckily he had the integrity to grade me on my performance and not on my position.

So what would drive a person to instantly condemn someone's position? Are they afraid of it? Is there a human competency issue here?

NOTE: We can already observe how one will instantly support someone's position. From Obama, we can deduce that the inspiration of the masses can/will occur when you have an ultra-sweet voice, an unusually vague message, and a cooperative national news network complete with jaw-dropping special effects to really draw the audience in.

People keep going on and on about feelings, being nice, etc. And it has nothing to do with that. As some have mentioned, it has everything to do with persuasion.

There is nothing more sophomoric than intellectual chest thumping, especially at the undergraduate level.

I've taught a few times. And I say this not to claim I am a great teacher, but to say that I've heard and read some pretty stupid things being said out loud by supposedly smart kids. Teach anything for some period of time and you will be constantly amazed at how stupid some can be. However, I would never say that whatever they said was stupid, for a couple of reasons:
- They'd kill me in class evaluations, and nowadays you can't have a career teaching without stellar evaluations.
- The kid would tune me out and/or shy away from discussions, etc. therefore being obviously less susceptible to trying to understand what I have to say.

Now, you may ask "and what does that have to do with me and my opinions? I don't care about the kid."

Well, it's simple: any employment in the sciences, especially social sciences, is about persuading someone else. This class was in political science. Political scientists in all likelihood will end up working as either academics themselves, or in political campaigns, or in governments analyzing policy, or in think tanks. All of them require the ability to engage others (often of differing opinions) and be persuasive.

So while being correct is important, learning how to discuss and present arguments is also at least as important. Heck, in graduate school most of what you are learning is how to persuade your peers that your work is correct. Being right is of no use if you can't convince anyone of it, so like it or not form is as important as content.

Think of it as signal-to-noise ratio. Keeping the "noise" down is as important as having a good signal.

This has been making me irate today--in Maricopa Co, Arizona, four boys raped an 8-year-old girl. This is bad enough, of course, but now her father says he doesn't want her back BECAUSE SHE HAS BROUGHT SHAME ON THE FAMILY. They are from Liberia, in West Africa and apoparently, it's a "shame-based" culture. The girl is now in Child Protective Services. As I see it, this issue is somewhat more important than an academic debate. Should we be "culturally sensitive" and try to reconcile her with the family? Or should we just place her in a loving adoptive home and be done with it? I'm weary of "political correctness" and wonder why we SHOULD "have" to respect their opinions.

If you KNOW they're wrong, there's no reason to have any respect for their belief. But always get your facts right first.

I agree, and it applies even outside of graduate school.

He that complies against his will,
Is of his own opinion still;
Which he may adhere to, yet disown,
For reasons to himself best known.

-Samuel Butler, Hudibras