On Friday August 25th, I conducted an experiment. I spent the day answering political questions using nothing by ultra-conservative fundamentalist rhetoric, deliberately written so that there was no internal logic or intellectual consistency to what I was saying. The experiment was to prove a point, and to pave the way for this question --
Which contributes more to a thorough debate: short sound-bites that state one viewpoint without any tolerance for differences, or long-winded sermons about tolerance and mutual respect, exploring the issue from multiple perspectives?
Do both contribute, by showing the ends of the spectrum as well as the middle? Is there any value in tolerance on issues that are so emotionally charged? Is there value to the rhetoric and the dogma that holds one end of the spectrum as being the One True Way™ ?
Is there a place for both, and is there a need for both…? Thoughts and comments appreciated.
2006-08-27
04:44:59
·
27 answers
·
asked by
coragryph
7
in
Other - Politics & Government