I've been tossing a few ideas around for a new
topic of discussion and came up with this one.

Your thoughts please?

That's easy

An exchange of diverging or opposite views is an argument but typically becomes a quarrel when it becomes a heated or angry one

In "The Enemies of an Open Society" Karl Popper recommends not taking up time discussing definitions if they are unnecessary to get to the meat of the question. He gives as an example a problem given to investigate the behaviour of sand dunes. Instead of defining a sand dune the investigator would set out to study mounds of sand between one and one hundred meters.

I hope the above is an argument and not a quarrel.

Desmond Tutu once stated - "Don't raise your voice,
improve your argument."

With that thought in mind, I've come across an
interesting site on the web which tells us that -

Stephen Toulman, an English philosopher and logician,
identified elements of a persuasive argument. These
give useful categories by which an argument can be
analyzed.

The first element that Toulman lists is "the claim".
He tells us that many people start with a claim then
find that it is challenged. You're asked to prove
your claim and you have to provide grounds (or data)
and hard facts plus the reasoning behind the claim.
Grounds are the second element listed and they may
also include proof of expertise and the basic premises
on which the rest of the argument is built.

Anyway the site is worth a read:

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulman.htm

Possibly no difference at all (especially in the context of many OLO political discussions) -

argument /noun: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

synonyms: quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, difference of opinion, dispute, wrangle, clash, altercation, feud, dissension, war of words, contretemps, exchange of views

quarrel1 / noun: an angry argument or disagreement.

synonyms: argument, row, fight, disagreement, difference of opinion, dissension

Foxy glad to see you back posting.

Not dictionary definitions but I tend to think of an argument as broadly about a single topic or issue and a quarrel as covering all bases and being more about the conflict than the actual disagreement.

R0bert

Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Thanks RObert. I'm glad to be back.

Words mean different
things to different people. Many people have lost sight of
the difference between the words "argue" and "quarrel"
so much so that they often use these words as synonyms of
one another.

An argument is an opinion supported
with evidence. In other words - reasoning based on facts.

Quarreling is wrangling angrily over personal
preferences. In other words - a quarrel is an interaction
in which the parties
involved express angry disagreement with one another.
People often tend to quarrel from entrenched positions -
and of course these can become over-heated.

People argue to persuade the person they're talking to, to
change their view - and the one who usually succeeds
has more facts supporting their side. When people quarrel
they don't care about the facts. If a person they are quarrelling
with presents a fact that totally disproves their position
they then try to find a way around it by not replying to the
point being challenged or replying with a never-ending series
of irrelevant points and even at times - personal attacks.

The results are usually not good.

An argument is the exchange of differing viewpoints and may become heated; a quarrel is when it becomes personal.

It looks like this discussion has closed down.
I would like to Thank all those who took the
time and effort to contribute.

I look forward to seeing you all on other discussions on
this Forum.

All The Best.

Hot yet, Foxy I just found this thread - thanks.

Some people make assertions, as if they are not only self-evident, but only contradicted by fools or evil people. So any objection or criticism is greeted with hurt surprise, especially if the asserter has never really thought about the issue beyond his confident, but evidence-free, assertion.

For example, a friend was telling me about a massacre of Aboriginal people in NSW, probably in the late nineteenth century, in which a farmer's wife poisoned two hundred people with strychnine or arsenic.

I suggested that it would have been rare to gather two hundred people in one place, and if there were rationing points in that country already, why would they come to a stranger's house for flour that they could get already provided monthly, or even weekly, by the government ?

As well, what did she do with the bodies ? If she buried them, that would have taken a little time. If she burned them, at one tonne of wood per body, that would have taken a lot of scrub for her to cut down. Busy lady. As well, they would have been missing from the local copper's list of people in the habit of getting their usual issue of flour. Evidence, one way or the other.

He meant well, my friend, but was a bit pissed off: he suggested that I wouldn't believe in Vesuvius erupting without some ash in my own hands; I suggested that I would be happy to believe contemporary accounts of the destruction of Pompeii, archaeological evidence, novels, etc. He stormed off.

For many people, a contradiction or even doubt about a cherished belief can be very traumatic. But after all, a belief without evidence is no better than the prejudice of a bigot. As we know, people are allowed to be bigots - how do you stop them, who decides and rules on what is and what isn't bigotry - but we need to be careful with people who have such rock-solid beliefs, the mere questioning of which can devastate them.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Yes indeed there are quite a few people who
argue from entrenched positions - and the
key feature of their arguments is that it is
always rooted in generalisations and so ignores
the differences among individuals. These people
tend to think in terms of general categories, if
only to enable them to make sense of the world
by simplifying its somplexity.

These people see the world in very rigid and
stereotyped terms. Their concepts are vague and
sweeping in their scope and of course from various
studies done by experts it is generally accepted that
these people are psychologically more prone to
this sort of thinking than others.

My personal point of view is a preference for views
that are supported by facts and evidence. I am learning
to try - not argue with people whose opinions I don't respect.
As Christopher Hitchens famously said -
"There are all kinds of stupid people that annoy me -
but what annoys me most is a lazy argument."

And - "What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof."

In other words - let the other person look
over-heated and argumentative. Allow their words to pass
like a gust of air swirling some leaves along its way.
After all their words won't actually matter so much
in a week - a month- or a year.

As for our Black-arm band history?
Yes, it is often distressing, but today as
historian Henry Reynolds has pointed out - it does
enable us to explore the past by means of primary
sources - from archives, newspapers, large number of
books, articles, films, novels, songs, and paintings.
Today, we can know a great deal about the history of
Indigenous-Settler relations.

See you on another discussion

Dearest Foxy,

Many of us really did miss you, you know :)

Yes, I've been trying to provide - mainly for myself - a foundation of early documents, some sort of evidence, for what it's worth, of what was going on in the earlier days. Around twelve thousand pages so far. Queensland is the gap in all of that, but you can only do so much from Adelaide. I'll get around to it :)

My mate and I have just finished transcribing and indexing the 1935 Moseley Royal Commission evidence from WA, about a thousand pages compressed into only 700. Another goldmine ! I'm currently trying to finish a series of conference transcripts from the sixties, another couple of thousand pages. Sometimes a bit tedious, but little gems crop up all the time. It's one hell of a way to learn history. But it requires an enormous amount of red.

It must be so much easier simply to grab onto something that sounds about right, (after all, it fits into the paradigm) and stick to it, slagging anybody who disagrees. But real argument has to tolerate informed difference of opinion. As you point out, empty assertions can be effectively ignored, but that doesn't get you very far, so instead they have to be argued against, tactfully if possible.

But it's one way to lose friends. I wish I had your generous and forgiving spirit, Foxy, it is probably the way to go :)

Love,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Research is time consuming but it can be - so rewarding.
I wish you every success with the hard work.
I researched a great deal on various topics -
including compiling an anthology of anti-nuclear
Australian poetry, and also the subject of the
Holocaust in Lithuania. This was a real revelation -
and to me the Holocaust in Lithuania exemplified
the argument of those who insist that there is no
such thing as "objective history."
In discussing the Holocaust, as in any murder case,
one camp may call for uncompromising indictment of all
deemed guilty, while another, if not denying the guilt
of the "defendant," may argue extenuating circumstances,
ranging from temporary insanity through provocation.

I therefore understand well the problems involved.

Some of the problems that we encounter in arguments
are summed up rather well in the following website -
which may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015/04-30/green-weve-nothing-to-fear-but-our-sense-of-certainty/6432502

Dear Foxy,

I read http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015/04-30/green-weve-nothing-to-fear-but-our-sense-of-certainty/6432502 article and found the following:

"Where were McIntyre's defenders when blogger Andrew Bolt was prosecuted for a breach of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? Alternatively: how could you argue for individual liberty and deny that same courtesy to McIntrye?"

Green set up a straw man. He assumed that nobody who defended McIntyre would object to Bolt's conviction. Then he attacks those who were inconsistent on the assumption that those who were consistent didn't exist.

I thought Bolt's conviction was wrong and thought McIntyre's sacking was wrong. I am sure I was not alone in that. The author assumed that people having my position don't exist.

I objected to the comments made by Bolt and McIntyre. However, I don't think either legal sanctions or dismissal was justified.

McIntyre did not make his comments in the context of his broadcasting, and Bolt made his in the context of an opinion piece. There should have been no penalty in either case.

Green's straw man argument stinks.

Dear David F.,

I got a different take from the article.

As for Bolt - his article was full of factual
errors. He had not done his homework.
McIntyre could have expressed his views privately.
However he went against company policy in his actions
and ended up paying a price for it.

Dear Foxy,

Do you maintain as Green did that people apparently cannot be against both the sacking of McIntyre and the conviction of Bolt?

As far as I know, Bolt did not make statements that weren't true. He did not deny that the people he mentioned in his column had ancestors who were Aborigines. He denied that they were real Aborigines because they had no Aboriginal features and were blue eyed and blond. That is a matter of opinion. I disagree with Bolt's opinion not his facts.

McIntyre did not make his statements during his broadcasts. He made them on social media. I think it was an unfair restriction on his speech to penalise him because of statements he made which were not made in the course of his duties. McIntyre did express his views privately since he did not express them while he was on duty as a broadcaster. I am expressing my views privately right now even though I am on olo. Privately does not mean that one does not have an audience. Privately means to me that it is not in the course of one's employment or duties. That is one's private as opposed to one's public life.

I found the statements of both Bolt and McIntyre offensive, but free speech includes the right to say what others may find offensive. In the most lamentable tyranny one is free to express what offends nobody.

I disagree with what both Bolt and McIntyre expressed, but I think both had a right to express it without penalty.

I agree with Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court that speech which does not present a clear and present danger (He gave as an example of speech that one should be restricted is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre where presumably there is no fire.) should not be restricted.

I usually agree with what you write but not this time.

Dear David F.,

We will have to agree to disagree.

Especially in the Andrew Bolt case.

The following website explains Justice Mordecai
Bloomberg's decision:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

As for Scott McIntyre - yes he did go on social media with
his comments - however he was asked to delete them by his
employer when they caused such a stir - McIntyre refused
and apparently his actions breached the SBS code of Conduct
and Social Media Policies and Protocols.
Of course it did not help matters that Malcolm Turnbull -
the Minister responsible for funding to SBS - also objected
to the tweets.

Dear Foxy,

I read the article. I am wrong. Since they have been identified as Aborigines all their lives Bolt lied in declaring that they had chosen to identify with their background for gain.

In regards to Scott McIntyre SBS as a broadcaster is supposed to be independent of the government. However, no entity funded by the government can really be independent of the government. When Malcolm Turnbull who has a big voice on funding for SBS 'pointed out' McIntyre's comments SBS got the message. If Turnbull had not called I doubt that McIntyre's comments would have breached the SBS code of Conduct and Social Media Policies and Protocols.

I don't like the expression 'agree to disagree'. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, and that expression sounds as though one must be in some sense agreeing when one is not disagreeing.

Dear David F.,

"Agree to disagree," does seem like a cliche/overused,
to the point of almost having a negative connotation.

Perhaps - "Let's leave it at that," might be better.

Hi CDavid,

You may not be as wrong as you think you are:

People may 'have been identified as Aborigines all their lives' but still, in spite of not doing too bad, play with 'with their background for gain.'

There was a lovely young bloke in the paper today, who had gained a scholarship of $ 22,000 (I think, per year, for some years) whose mother is a teacher and whose father is a dentist, i.e. whose family may be doing allright. Surely, after all these years, scholarships should be carefully awarded for those Aboriginal people in need ?

I wish him the best, but surely scholarships should go to those who need them most, among other criteria ?

Anybody who has worked in Indigenous affairs knows precisely why I am making the connection with Bolt.

Sometimes the connection is quite shamefully nepotistic. I also recall some years ago, at a university, when the Indigenous staff selection panel for a plush scholarship, % 30,000 if I remember, was awarded to a fellow staff member, who then sat on the next year's selection panel while another staff member got the next year's scholarship, and so on.

Yep, poor bugger me, it's hard yakka being a blackfella. Bolt cast his line in but caught the wrong fish.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Abbott's daughter got a $68,000 scholarship. I don't believe any other qualification was necessary. People may use whatever connection they have to advantage. Bolt apparently lied. The fact that other people with Aboriginal connections have used them to advantage does not make Bolt less of a liar.

When I went to university one of my classmates was named Carruthers. He was given a scholarship in a will which gave him a generous stipend as long as he was in school. The scholarship probably was to give him a debt free education so he would have a good start. However, Carruthers kept getting bachelor's degree after bachelor's degree for his entire working life. The stipend was too good to give up.

I get four pensions, will be 90 this year, need no medication and expect to be around for a while. I will continue to get those pensions for as long as I live. Should I refuse them?

Hi David,

No, I don't think it was right that Abbott's daughter got a $ 68,000 scholarship, aren't these things means-tested ?

And neither should anybody snaffle scholarships or cadetships or jobs or whatever which implicitly are meant for someone else, someone more in need. Black or white. And there are certainly many, many Aboriginal people in far greater need, not just of an immediate benefit but more importantly, of how to tap into the pathways that eventually lead to those benefits, where to get the help from to advise on how to go through the steps, over perhaps years, to be able to apply for those benefits - which on the face of it, are actually meant for them.

Meanwhile, some people know very well from the outset what's around, and they may well, for legal reasons I couldn't possibly say for sure, put their hands out, with encouragement from minders.

Corruption is corruption, no matter what color it's painted. Perhaps it is so common in Indigenous affairs that everybody - almost - has no qualms about grabbing what they can. But that does rather lower the bar. Once you know it's happening, you do feel a bit less like going the extra mile.

Joe