Comments on: Coulter Out of Control? http://www.civilityblog.org/2007/03/11/coulter-out-of-control/ facilitating dialogue... teaching respect... Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:01:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Tomas http://www.civilityblog.org/2007/03/11/coulter-out-of-control/#comment-6 Tomas Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:36:23 +0000 http://www.civilityblog.org/index.php/2007/03/11/coulter-out-of-control/#comment-6 Rob, you are right in saying that differences enrich a conversation, but wouldn't you agree that if the uncivil speech degrades another, that crosses a boundary line that is unproductive for the conversation? I think disagreements and different points of view should be mandatory because it helps all sides to stretch our minds a bit. But I can't see how uncivil speech helps when it degrades somebody else. That causes the other to hit right back and it's not helpful. Let's work together to develop better ways to state our differences and then we all learn from each other. Rob, you are right in saying that differences enrich a conversation, but wouldn’t you agree that if the uncivil speech degrades another, that crosses a boundary line that is unproductive for the conversation? I think disagreements and different points of view should be mandatory because it helps all sides to stretch our minds a bit. But I can’t see how uncivil speech helps when it degrades somebody else. That causes the other to hit right back and it’s not helpful. Let’s work together to develop better ways to state our differences and then we all learn from each other.

]]> By: rob http://www.civilityblog.org/2007/03/11/coulter-out-of-control/#comment-4 rob Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:36:43 +0000 http://www.civilityblog.org/index.php/2007/03/11/coulter-out-of-control/#comment-4 Let me preface this by saying I have never read nor have Read Anne Coulter tracks. The only point that I actually heard something from her mouth was when she was one a talk show. What Coulter said wasn't as interesting as one of the her fans. the fan said that she was challenged by one other friend why she read Coulter books and she responded that that the fan's mother use to said eat the meat and spit out the bone. this is what the fan what did with Anne's writing. Why I found this interesting was because some reasons. First it was far form a ringing endorsement. Admitting that there was bone you had to admit a some point what Anne said was unusable. As I though about this I can maybe incorrectly but still came to troubling insight. This ability to accept some of argument, the meat, and not the total is foundational principle to civility . Without understanding we have to accept or reject in total. However sadly the market place of Ideas,the media dose not accept this nuanced understand. A book seller, and i rightly think so should not concern him or herself with the Idea in the book more his or her aim ought to be to sell as many books, as possible. It falls a on the reader or the writer to reject the the idea. The reader won't because he or she should get as much information as possible before making a judgment an idea ergo bye and read the book. The writer won'treject the idea because the more earthy the language the more it sells. This is some way is iteration of the Paradox of civility: To have a civil culture you must have a free speech and thought. To have free though and speech and though you must be willing to some uncivil speech and though. Let me preface this by saying I have never read nor have Read Anne Coulter tracks. The only point that I actually heard something from her mouth was when she was one a talk show. What Coulter said wasn’t as interesting as one of the her fans. the fan said that she was challenged by one other friend why she read Coulter books and she responded that that the fan’s mother use to said eat the meat and spit out the bone. this is what the fan what did with Anne’s writing.
Why I found this interesting was because some reasons. First it was far form a ringing endorsement. Admitting that there was bone you had to admit a some point what Anne said was unusable. As I though about this I can maybe incorrectly but still came to troubling insight. This ability to accept some of argument, the meat, and not the total is foundational principle to civility . Without understanding we have to accept or reject in total. However sadly the market place of Ideas,the media dose not accept this nuanced understand. A book seller, and i rightly think so should not concern him or herself with the Idea in the book more his or her aim ought to be to sell as many books, as possible. It falls a on the reader or the writer to reject the the idea. The reader won’t because he or she should get as much information as possible before making a judgment an idea ergo bye and read the book. The writer won’treject the idea because the more earthy the language the more it sells.

This is some way is iteration of the Paradox of civility: To have a civil culture you must have a free speech and thought. To have free though and speech and though you must be willing to some uncivil speech and though.

]]>