Exams are coming, so I'll just start this series which I will update once in a while on HOW peopl can con you, and that you always should be careful.
Sometimes for the sake of selfish argument, I catch myself using these unethical tactics or argument - so here... the Christian version of "me" will disarm the selfish version of "me"
This post, I will be talking about giving false impression. Its quite simple, and it is subtle, consider this:
A person who eats very unhealthily wants to justify himself that he is not exactly doing the wrong thing.
A few characters for your understanding:
John - the unhealthy Guy
Mr. EatGood - a guy who eats a lot of health food
He gives you an example:
Did you hear about the news of Mr. EatGood who died last thursday? I know
you are going to say that it was a freak accident - but he still died.
You see, we don't really know when we are going to die, so the thing is as
long as we are not taking drugs which kills us, then it is really alright to
just enjoy our food - and not be over health conscious.
Consider Mr. EatGood2, and Mr. EatGood3 - they all died - I know they
didn't smoke, but the second hand smoke they came into contact with still killed
them ( and yes we know that non smokers die of lung cancer too, for something
not their fault ).
You see, there are a few tricks that are being played here:
1) Diversion -
He brings in the element of enjoyment vs. non-enjoyment, and also whether we know when we die or not. We have to be confident of our point. We are not saying that eating healthy will prolong your life most indefinitely, i.e. if you eat healthy you are destined to live to 100. We are stating a rule - i.e. be healthy, eat healthy. A few exceptions do not break a rule.
2) Impression of truth being generalized -
He takes exceptions out of context. For every Mr. EatGood that died, hundreds of Mr. EatGood lived much longer. We know this by rule, not by exceptions. Example: Exams are coming tomorrow and we study for the exams, we don't wonder that we might die tomorrow on the way to College and decide that since we are never certain of how long we live, therefore we don't study. That is called irresponsibility.
Note: They do not need to say wrong "facts" to win the argument. All the need to do is de-emphasize on what we are REALLY saying, and overemphasize on things that we might be implying.
When these two elements come into play (there may be more that I missed out), we who argue for the right thing are blurred by:
1)Too many ideas that are brought into play
If you are ready, i.e. you know how to counter the arguments - do it point by point. Finish one argument then the other. At times when I speak with those who try to disprove God's existence, these patterns are most obvious. Halfway through talking about historical facts, they ask "Why then is there suffering in the world". As with any important issue, we know that the answer is not a one liner - halfway explaining why there is suffering, they ask me "then how about evolution".
Whether they are intentional or not I do not know, but what I know is that I cannot continue talking to him in that pattern. We ought to know we are not likely to convince a man who is set against your opinions - how much more within one argument? So, make your point and leave it there. Gently acknowledge the other person's questions, and refuse the others, or postpone them for a better time.
2) Too many words
The accusations are always the same. The reason being that many people have probably accused him or confronted John who eats unhealthily... So he is very very well versed in defending himself. Wherelse, it is our bad day to enter a foolish argument. Why on earth would we have so many prepared arguments on our mind to attack his stand? Either do not enter the argument, or use the "closed ended final word" method. That is, say a one liner that you need to say, and refuse to talk further. For example:
John, you know its bad for you - but if you do not think so, it is up to you - you reap the consequences anyway, not me. I don't want to argue, you just think about it okay?
You have refused to argue and he can only say YES or NO. To say yes is to somewhat say that he acknowledges the truth you speak. To say NO is too degrading for a person who likes to argue - how can he chicken out of an argument by saying " I don't want to consider your point of view ".
No comments:
Post a Comment