On winning at dialogue

A dialogue is by its nature not a debate, because there is no moderator, there are no points scored, and both parties are expected to be slightly civil and take one another at face value. Both sides are also expected to listen. There are generally no winners. Unless you can manage to turn the dialogue into a monologue.

With that in mind, well-deserved and slightly belated congratulations on winning the dialogue go to the aptly named Babble, when Dr. Janet D. Stemwedel (better known on the blogosphere as Dr. Free-Ride, attempted to host an honest dialogue between the pro-testers and the animal rights activists.

From my very first appearance in the comment thread, Babble attacked me as not actually being interested in hearing his side of the issue, accused everyone of dishonesty, said we were all actively engaged in trying to poke holes in his arguments (when in actuality most of us were actually just telling him what logically convinced them to support animal testing), and frequently and in every instance possible cried foul about everyone and every argument that disagreed with his position. I guess in certain circles, “dialogue” actually means “monologue”, or “tell your position and shout down anybody that tries to give their own”.

Interestingly, anyone in the pro-test camp posting on an animal rights blog in an effort to open a dialogue would (and did, as DuWayne can attest) have their position ridiculed, get called names, probably have their identity revealed to the world at large, and would eventually get banned when the hosts decide the conversation had become unproductive (or TOO productive at showing the flaws in their rationales). So, where rational dialogue rules, people have a platform, and where shrill and strident anti-negotiation sentiments run high, those same people have a platform to the exclusion of all others. In other words, everyone gets a say in one region of the interwebs, and only sycophants get a platform elsewhere.

So Babble turned on the firehose, and he was allowed to do so. 85 out of 138 comments belong to him. That’s 61%. That’s more than every other participant in the conversation. Counting me, him and Dr. Free-Ride, there were (by an eyeball count that I could be wrong about), 25 unique contributors to the thread. While he was the only representative of the animal rights brigade, and while we not only read his arguments but posited those places where they broke down, none of our own arguments were heard. Where they were, they (and we) were either denigrated, dismissed out of hand, or (and Babble is now famous for this in my mind) referred to as “gotcha questions”, even while Babble asked a number of such questions of his own.

In fact, even when I pointed out the areas he and I agree in an effort to convince Babble to try actually listening to us, he took it as some disingenuous attempt at scoring rhetorical points later. There was no listening, only refuting and allegations of wrong-doing. Any questions asked were not for clarification, but rather as an attempt at exposing some perceived hypocrisy or moral failing. It reminds me of this post at Bailey the Bookworm about arguing effectively:

-Be willing to listen. You cannot, cannot, cannot have a discussion with someone if you aren’t hearing what they say and understanding what they mean. Don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. I got into another (much friendlier) discussion with the author of an article about why evolution is bad and wrong (a whole other can of worms, that is) and I asked him to clarify what he meant by his claim of being a proponent of intelligent design. There are as many interpretations of intelligent design as there are interpretations of the Bible, if not more, and I didn’t want to argue about the wrong issue. Instead of just barging ahead with my points, I took the time to read and address what he had said before I gave my own reasoning. Not only did that prevent me from addressing the wrong ideas and being redundant, it also gave me a chance to really understand what this guy was saying -and it set an intellectual, friendly tone to the entire conversation.

I noted in one of my first comments that nobody had ever asked me what my position was. Lots of names like “coward” and “torturer” were thrown my way, but nobody ever asked about my position. I didn’t have to ask Babble what his was though — he was more than willing to provide it.

To prove I listened to him, here’s a synopsis of his argument: humans presently have more rights than non-human animals “because we say so”, and that’s our only good argument for using animals as food or performing testing on such animals — that we think our needs override those of the animals. It’s the “speciesist” argument without actually saying so, in other words. With one side corollary — one of the more common arguments against him saying that we as humans have a choice against eating animals, is that animals are not given that choice by other animals. Babble’s response to this is “how does you doing something immoral, allow me to do something immoral?” This implies that an animal eating another animal is somehow immoral. I’ve suggested that is not the case, with no reply (despite the high volume of Babble’s output).

But don’t read my words about his argument — read his argument yourself. I don’t want to poison the well. He makes some good arguments (despite the vast array of chaff he throws up), and some good points that we should consider if we plan on continuing to advance society for the benefit of everyone (including those species that can’t perform science themselves).

Pat Calahan absolutely owns this thread at the end, and argues at a much higher level than I can presently. I shall have to study him and learn his ways.

{advertisement}
On winning at dialogue
{advertisement}

4 thoughts on “On winning at dialogue

  1. 1

    Actually, if you would like to argue animal rights better, in this particular context – Speaking of Research (wherein we were both cited) has a lot of great information. Not that Pat didn’t do an exceptional job, but becoming solidly informed about animal testing is handy.

    Or you can jump the route that I am taking, which is seeing what the leaders of the extremist AR movement have to say. It is frightening, yet enlightening to see exactly where these folks are coming from. I actually threw up another post today and will have some more to come – though I still have to finish my earlier series on morality, which is actually somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand.

    And to be perfectly clear about it, this is not a movement that is entirely wrong. There is a great deal being said that is entirely valid – the problem being that there is no middle ground. This is why I was pressing for clarification on the whole bottom line dogmatic position. Because there is a lot that is reasonable, it is important to keep solidly in mind that it is not only the reasonable bits we are talking about – it is also a lot that is entirely unreasonable to contend with.

    Not sure about posting multiple links and I am guessing you will make it over to my post anyways. Read the essay by Dr. Best that I link to. It is relatively long, but it is also a quick read.

  2. 2

    Penn & Teller did a very interesting episode of Bullshit about PETA you might find interesting if you haven’t already seen it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0exLa6saV9o – youtube link, this is not the entire episode, it is there in several parts.

    My favourite part is when they point out that the leader of PETA is a diabetic who has to take daily insliun injections. Insliun of course having come about from dog testing.

    Anyway, enjoy the episode.

  3. 3

    I love that episode. In fact, I love Penn and Teller. Bullshit is one of the most informative and irreverent television shows ever, so it’s right up my alley.

    Oh, and on the freezer / euthanasia thing in that episode, here’s something I never thought I’d do — I agree with the NRA on an issue. Check this video out.

    DuWayne: that site is a hell of a slog, but you’re absolutely right, the resources on Speaking of Research are going to be invaluable. I’m working my way through the AR Beliefs page presently, and it rings true from my experience with Babble and that other crazy.

    (And here I thought it was just a blog, from the back-link… serves me for not exploring it thoroughly.)

  4. 4

    I posted a couple of times on that topic as well. I was interesting to read all that babble had to say and it was thought provoking. I certainly understood that we were coming from different directions and was pretty happy that the worst thing s/he could say was I’m a specieist.

    I did find it annoying that s/he would not answer any questions nor admit that any improvments had been made. And that s/he counted the Pro-test thing as a marketing tool. Apparently only the animal rights people are sincere.

Comments are closed.