1. Reaching solutions based on an unbiased, reasonable assessment of all available pertinent "data" is a reasonably good approach to determine appropriate solutions to problems.
2. Only presenting small snippets of unsourced, one sided "data", is not a good way to accomplish #1.
3. Assuming that one's underlying premise is objectively correct, while failing to demonstrate that fact and excluding other possible underlying premises is also not an effective way to accomplish #1, or to encourage broad discussion.
4. In the case of school shootings, there are two possible options. 1. Prevent the shooting by identifying and neutralizing the shooters before they show up. 2. Prepare a response plan that mitigates the damage that can be done and protects as many potential victims as possible. Both are laudable goals. One requires a significant look at our justice system and a willingness to impose restrictions and limits on people based on what they might possibly do in the future. The other requires an assessment of the conditions that surround most school shootings and a plan to implement the conditions that appear to deter shooters, while eliminating the conditions that seem to attract them.
5. If the problem in society is "violence", then the necessary starting point is to demonstrate why "violence" is always, under all circumstances, bad.
6. Define the difference between violence, force, "physical management" and coercion.
7. Explain why we should ignore the fact that Orthodox Christian and Jewish theology as well as philosophical and methodological naturalism teach that we are either fallen and sinful creations, or that we are the product of materialistic/naturalistic forces that reward the "fittest" with "survival". ("Nature is red in tooth and claw.")
8. Look at all aspects of violence in society in general and schools in particular and determine where resources are best used. ROI.
9. Don't minimize the impact of culture, on behavior. Specifically the breakdown of the nuclear family and the effect that fatherlessness has on children.
I"ll probably add to this list as I feel led. I am 100% open to disagreement, I expect it. However, I probably won't invest much time is disagreement that isn't supported by fact.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm beginning to think Dan is no longer willing to venture from his own blog to deal with the few of us who still welcome his participation...such as it is.
No, I think it’s about having control. It’s easier to lead the conversation off on a tangent, then berate, and finally delete comments instead of simply having a conversation. It’s ok to disagree, it’s ok to disagree strongly. You and I have done so multiple times, yet neither of us has deleted the other for disagreeing.
You’ll note that even when he does venture out, it’s for short periods and usually involves leaving conversations hanging and unanswered questions. It makes me wonder why I bother.
Cuz it's fun
I’m not even sure that’s it’s fun any more, it’s just dealing with his games. I guess it’s about trying to get the truth out there. It’s less amusing and more distressing to see what passes for Christian nowadays.
As even a blog is a public forum, particularly so long as the host invites comments, I feel compelled to address clearly false or misleading statements and claims that appear in such forums. Who knows how many are actually persuaded by doing so, but it's just too important in my mind to allow false or misleading statements to stand without response.
I have no problem doing so, it’s just that the absence of even the slightest bit of compromise and the condescending attitude when agreeing make Dan’s a unrewarding place to do so.
Post a Comment