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