If you have a discussion, then uphold Republican ideals

Recently I had a long discussion on the internet after I was contacted by a fellow that disagreed with some of my assertions. Looking back I found it interesting how a discussion evolves or degrades into an argument. How can you tell who is winning or loosing? Some may say if you win an argument on the internet, well, you have accomplished nothing. The question is if you get out correct information and have honest discussion, then was it worth it? I think it is worth it, because communication is the basis for all conflict resolution.

It started out simply enough with the guy asking a simple question that was pretty easy to answer. The problem was he didn't like the answer he got, even though the answer was based on verifiable facts. See whether or not you argue or have a discussion face to face or on the internet, the most important thing is to have your facts in order. As long as your facts fit your conclusion, then you should win the discussion. But you must keep in mind that if your opponent presents you with different information, then you must honestly examine it. If it is correct, then you may need to change your conclusion to fit the new facts. You can never make the facts fit your conclusion, which is something many people like to try. This will quickly cause them to loose the argument. Founding Father John Adams said is best, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

What I'm advocating is honesty in your discussion. Not just with your opponent, but yourself. If you can't be honest with yourself, then how can you be honest with anyone else? Don't rationalize to make the facts fit your conclusion, it will not work. If you're a Republican, then the facts should be on your side. Republicans tend to see the world how it really is and not as it should be or how we want it to be. That makes it easier for us in the end. When you have your discussion always make sure you have your facts in order. When present a point, then make sure you give the source for your opponent to check. If your opponent is unable or unwilling to do the same, then you the first indication they are arguing from a point of weakness and may not be able to back up their assertions. If you can't back up your positions with sources facts, then quit because your conclusion is wrong.

As you put forth a logical argument and your opponent can not overcome your facts a logical thinker will begin to see things anew and come to a consensus with you. If your counterpart is not a strong thinker, then they will typically switch to a personal attack. Responding with emotion is a natural response for anyone cornered whether is in an argument or a dark alley. The personal attack is the sure sign the attacker cannot refute the logical sourced facts, but does not want to admit defeat. On an internet argument, the loosing side will typically call in reinforcements. More people repeating the same incorrect information does not make them right. They rarely offer any new information, but will increase the personal attacks and usually offer some type of statement saying the winner doesn't understand. This begs the question, why would you come to their point of view because they attacked you personally when their failed argument didn't win you over?

That should be the end of it, but sometimes in rare cases people want to escalate it further rather than admit defeat. Interestingly in the recent discussion I had some of the friends of the original decenter post on the internet a note and tied in many top politicians in the state. People that had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion and were never involved. As a Republican I believe in personal responsibility and I choose to enter into the discussion. With that, any political fallout is of my own making, but when it is important I believe in stand up for what is right. Dragging in innocent bystanders does not help you win a discussion you have already last it destroys your last ounce of credibility, not to mention making enemies.

If you feel the need to have a discussion about something you believe in. Then do it with the truth and make sure you can back up your facts. Always be honest and respectful, never make personal attacks. If your presented with verifiable information the contradicts your position, then re-examine your position as it is probably wrong. Never drag in anyone else that doesn't want to be part of your discussion. Be a graceful winner, be a Republican.

Wvjohn and our First Amendment Rights

The internet is a great tool of receiving and providing information. This blog which has been a quite successful example of how the internet can be used effectively to provide information and opinion. The News Tribune allows people to follow up to stories that have been printed, which is a great service that they offer.

What I find funny is the lefts use of it to attack those on the right personally. People usually attack people personally when they are unable to attack the message. On the News Tribunes website I have a personal attacker that goes by the screen name of “wvjohn.”

Now when I write on News Tribune website, the Potomac Highlands Conservative or for various news papers I always use my own name. I don’t have a problem with people knowing exactly who I am when I’m stating my opinion. I want to be challenged. Through challenging my ideas you maybe able to change my opinion, but some people believe in the personal attack as a way to make their point.

Now I’m not sure what they are trying to accomplish through the personal attack. Take my follower wvjohn; he takes issue with me using my real name when I write letters to the editor. I find that strange, because when people know who you are it leads to discovery. A follow up by letter by Gerald Frantz on my comments on the water studies wasting taxpayer money, led to and invitation to speak with him personally on the subject. I want to take him up on that offer because it will further my education on the water systems in the county.

If a person chooses to hide their identity, then they are unsecure in their own opinions. They do not get to follow up on opportunities like the one presented by Mr. Frantz. Now it is clear to me that wvjohn is one of these people that believe government should control our lives. In a recent follow up on the News Tribune website he states, “Some people just want to pettition their government and get their name out there in the public eye.” He is absolutely right, I want to petition government! After all the First Amendment of the US Constitution says I have that right; Congress shall make no law abridging my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yet, wvjohn thinks it’s awful that exercise my First Amendment right, which speaks volumes. Maybe wvjohn only believes I should have the right of free speech if it is something he wants to hear?

Wvjohn, I invite you to write for the Potomac Highlands Conservative. Only rules are no personal attacks and you have to use your real name. You will have a state wide audience of over 13,000 to here your opinion and see what kind of follow commentary they have for you.