NMMR: Do you think it's possible...

MommyLiberty5013

...to attack or correct a person's ideas about a particular issue without attacking them as a person? Or, ideas and people just too intertwined and mingled?

 

I'm asking because I got into a discussion with my ILs (out-of-state) pastor via private Facebook messages (I know, not ideal for discussion, but we live in different states) about a particular topic and he claims it's possible to attack/correct a person's idea without attacking/correcting them as an individual.

Thoughts?

ljs4117

Yes and no -- really depends on the topic and on the belief.

Take the above topic.  Using the word "murder" would imply that those who have had (or even those who are ok with other's having?) an abortion are murderers or at the least accomplices to murder.  That's an attack on the person and their moral code.

(disclaimer:  my beliefs are not voiced in this post so please do not read it as such)

hoffse

I agree that it's possible.  I think that MANY people interpret a discussion of beliefs as a personal attack, but that's really not correct.  I think one problem is using the word "belief" vs. "viewpoint."  I view a belief as something that you accept based largely on a leap of faith (God) or a gut feeling that might be attributed to humans having a higher intellect ("Killing is wrong").  A viewpoint is a stance on one side of some hot issue vs. the other.  Both can get personal when folks disagree, but beliefs (to me) are more fundamental than viewpoints, and therefore discussing them can be dicier.  I think that anybody who is willing to spout off about their viewpoints in politics ought to be able to take some disagreement from the other side - after all, pretty much half of everybody who lives in this country is on the opposite side of the fence as you.  I think that alone demonstrates that reasonable people can disagree on issues.

Sidenote: I do have trouble talking to priests/pastors/clergy sometimes because I often get the sense that there is a "their way or the highway" approach to certain issues.  That's definitely not true for all, but I've encountered a handful of really stubborn clergy over the years.  Or maybe I just attract the unfortunate ones.

Xstatic3333

In terms of simply correcting facts, I think it's very possible. One place where I've seen that happen (going to stay tone and opinion neutral here) is with the ACA. Someone on one side says something factually incorrect. Someone from the other side corrects it, based on facts. It shouldn't be taken as a personal attack unless one of the parties brings it there.

When you get into issues like abortion, marriage equality, the death penalty, etc. you can get a point where the issues are so entwined with one's identity and values that it's hard to stay factual without someone getting offended. Plus, what's tough for one person to stay unbiased about may be fine for another. I have a hot button issue from the above list that it's hard for me to stay rational about if someone disagrees with me. It strikes my values in a personal way. The other two don't get to me personally, even though I do have my opinions.

The other place it's hard to avoid offense is if you're insulting one's profession. This happens a lot to my H. He works on a well known, federally funded project that isn't super popular in our area, and for some reason many of our acquaintances are very comfortable bashing it to his face. It's not technically personal, but it is because he works hard at his job and believes in his work.

hoffse

@Xstatic's point about professions is interesting.  I hear plenty of lawyer jokes (from clients!), and I can roll with it for awhile but eventually I have had enough.

Law school was really interesting because we talked about many of these hot-button issues in constitutional law.  Boiling it down to legal arguments has an interesting way of making the topic suddenly much less sexy and/or emotional. Not going to lie - when people post rants about SCOTUS opinions on facebook, I want to be like, "A) You didn't read the opinion; If you had you would know they probably weren't ruling on what you THINK they were ruling on; C) The guy who wrote the newsbite that you are sharing also did not read the opinion; and D) Actually, their decision was fairly consistent with the current state of constitutional law in the US."  But I don't.

Sisugal

Absolutely possible and we should all work to do this more often.
Because someone disagrees with a position, or hold a position differing than that of another, does not make them "bad" people. 
More non judgemental discussion as to why those beliefs are held is needed.

When a measuring cup holds 1/2 cup of fluid -- it is both 1/2 full and 1/2 empty.  Both perceptions are true . The question is - are they looking to fill the cup or empty it or looking at the change in the amount of fluid in the cup? etc. What is the ultimate goal? Why and how they plan to accomplish it.

Often we have the same goals, but take different approached to seek the desired outcome.

emily1004

I "attack" my friends and colleagues views a lot. Do I "attack" them as a person? (Maybe I prefer the word contradict, than attack)  No, it's not my intention. BUT, if they feel my view is a personal attack on them, well, I know it sounds harsh, but that's their problem. I never feel the need to apologize for my belief. I may say, I apologize you feel this way. Not to mention anyone can manipulate the facts to argue their point. This issues happen when people try to argue politics and law, yet they don't understand politics or law.

@hoffse Maybe they read the opinion, they just didn't understand it because they never took a substantive law course in their life. (Or they're too busy reading Buzzfeed.)