How to Discuss Something

We spend a lot of time during arguments and discussions misrepresenting the other persons point of view, burlesquing it, and ascribing ulterior motives that often not much gets accomplished. It occurs to me that the most fruitful and satisfying discussions I’ve had with those I disagree with have been those instances where we both understand clearly each other’s point of view. I once saw Mortimer Adler (“The Great Books” guy with whom I disagree, respectfully, on many things) explain how he set up the ground rules for debate in his classroom: whenever someone made a point, it wasn’t allowed to be challenged until the opposing speaker was able to rephrase the first speaker’s argument to the first speaker’s satisfaction. To do this, the opponent would have to say, “Do I understand you to say that ………” and this would be followed by the paraphrase. When the first speaker assented to the opponent’s version, then the opponent would be allowed to continue with his rebuttal. This, of course, is not the way even formal debates are conducted but it is the way that productive and intelligent conversation can come about.
****
Wrong:
First Person: I think that the Roe v. Wade decision was unsupportable from a constitutional standpoint.
Second Person: I disagree. I believe a woman has a right to choose.
****
Right:
First Person: I think that the Roe v. Wade decision was unsupportable from a constitutional standpoint.
Second Person: Do I understand you to say that you don’t agree with a woman’s right to choose?
First Person: No, that’s not the point I wished to make.
Second Person: Do I understand you to say that the Supreme Court overreached its authority in making the decision?
First Person: That’s also not what I intended to convey.
Second Person: Do I understand you to say that the Supreme Court did not interpret the constitution correctly in this instance?
First Person: Yes.

Assuming the mantle from Barbra Streisand

Looks like Barbra has a legitimate heir in Sharon Stone when it comes to the subject of vapid pronouncements. My favorite phrase: "We can choose to have this alternative kind of growth that is a collective nuance of understanding. " Why didn't we think of this before? (Now if we'll all just cross and uncross our legs, can peace be far behind?)

****
A peaceful co-existence between the peoples of the Middle East is but a breath away, Hollywood star Sharon Stone said after a highly publicized visit to Israel.
"It feels to me that we have an opportunity ... to choose understanding in a new way," she told a press conference in Paris when asked about her trip.

"And it really is just a breath. It's just an agreement that's just a breath. We are not far apart. We can choose to have this alternative kind of growth that is a collective nuance of understanding.
"We are just that breath away from a peaceful co-existence," she added after her visit to Israel as a guest of the Peres Center for Peace, a foundation run by Nobel laureate and former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres.
Stone, 48, who visited several projects aimed at promoting peace, including a kindergarten for Israeli and Palestinian children in Jaffa, was also photographed praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, the holiest Jewish shrine.
Stone, who is also an ardent champion of women's rights, was in Paris ahead of the release of her latest film "Basic Instinct II".
She told journalists that she was delighted that women were stepping up to take their place in the world, taking on new jobs to which they brought something unique, "their feminine instinct."
"This is a new and very exciting time for women, because women by their very nature are creative and not destructive. And this is an extraordinary and important thing that we can bring into a world that awaits the opportunity for peace."