Previously, I mentioned that I would discuss the nature of argument and debate after the Maltese divorce referendum had passed - and as it has, so I shall.
What is the point of a debate? Well, indubitably if a debate is handled correctly and both sides are capable of recognizing their own defeat then a debate would progress much like a mathematical proof, with one side's progression from an agreed point challenged by the other and possibly adjusted, until the progression is found to be valid by both parties and so the discussion moves unto the next point. This is repeated again and again from point to point until a conclusion is settled upon by both sides.
But of course, that is not what actually happens in reality, and the way Malta handled the divorce referendum is a sterling example of this. Nowadays a vast majority of debates make no effort to reach a true conclusion. Rather they try to make their side look better than the other. And that's it. There's no search for truth, there's no vigorous thought. There's a complete lack of interest in actually getting things right. The world is perfectly satisfied in choosing the conclusion which looks best, rather than the conclusion which is founded in solid and justifiable arguments.
For example, in Malta the religious side of the debate spent many a good euro in associating the pro-divorce side with unpopular and/or very scary (and in some cases, non-existent) things. These 'things' include hell, abortion, adultery, social disruption and Satan; I will leave it to the reader to decide which of these fall under the 'very scary' 'unpopular' and 'imaginary' categories.
It's also good to note how all religions also play part in the charade of appearances, rather than the study of reality. When was the last time a Catholic preacher showed a congregation how Hinduism is logically invalid by reversing the argument into nonsensical statements (reducto ad absurdum) ? Never happened - for the simple fact that the same method can be applied to any religion, including Catholicism as in the example, and hence disprove the preacher's own beliefs. Hence religions revert to showing how their side is better than the opposition's by having a scarier hell, a better heaven, more (unproven) miracles etc. etc. Alas, I digress, as my habit of lifting the veil on religious garbage has taken the best of me. Back to the point.
Even in casual environments like bars and domestic settings, the same frame of mind of "who looks best" was overwhelming. People spoke about how silly a representative of a side spoke, or of a representative's past or present personal life or this sort of irrelevant dribble. It was very rare that people actually spoke of what the representatives said, and even when they did, the representatives mostly spoke appearance-related sentences with no solid argumentative value. So as you can imagine, walking into a bar and hearing an intelligent point being made about divorce was the equivalent of walking into a church and finding an intelli- oops, almost slipped again.
I will refrain from giving my opinion on divorce here because I am exhausted and it isn't the point of this writing. I will say however, that I was pro-divorce from the beginning and am happily surprised by the referendum's outcome.
Now I must go to bed, for my keyboard will surely make a poor pillow.
No comments:
Post a Comment