 | |
|
Saturday 9 June 2018
TRUMPKIM FEVER I
 |
| Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com |
 |
| Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com |
No one seems to have noticed that both the American and North Korean national flags have the same basic colours of red, blue and white. Both parties should realise that there is much commonality in their national psyche! I hope this will put them on a more friendly frame of mind to bring their two countries together onto the path of peace and mutual prosperity.
Thursday 7 June 2018
THEY ARE NOT COUNTRY TRUMPKIMS
The Dems said he is Forrest Gump,
Yet Heaven dotes on Donald Trump.
We called Kim a mad Rocket Man,
But he is really a savvy statesman.
Now, on the twelve of June,
They are going to call the tune.
Watch how bigly they will score
In the lovely island of Singapore.
A nuclear peace for the human race
Will put all detractors in their place.
Neither a simple country TrumpKim,
They’ll win Nobel prizes in a whim.
Tuesday 5 June 2018
THE REAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MANICHAEISM
AND THEIR REMEDY
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/graciousness-charity-vital-for-healthy-debates
"I hope that we in Singapore can do better by being committed to respectful, reasonable and robust discourse with one another," says Straits Times Forum contributor Zhang Jieqiang.
That I certainly agree, but I do not think that the lack of charity or grace is the reason why debates often degenerate into mutual demonization, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and accusations of bad motives. There are three main reasons why such degeneration occur:
First, people get into debates with the wrong frame of mind. They think that debates are about winning and losing, so they will do or say anything, however ridiculous or unreasonable, to maintain indefensible statements at all costs. Sometimes, in a mistaken effort to save face or to appear to have a superficially amicable outcome, they would suggest having a very unsatisfactory and pointless "agreement to disagree". In reality, debates are about exploring ideas from both sides so that each side can benefit from a clarification and enrichment of their own thinking and learn new ideas from others.
Second, people engage in debates with the wrong ends in mind. They want their own views to prevail and therefore, all their inputs into any debate are designed to support their own original stand. Ideally, they should present their views in the hope of receiving a contrarian rebuttal with the aim of re-evaluating their own stand. Perspectives and views don't "belong" to anyone and people should be able to adopt and abandon views at will depending on how a debate proceeds.
Third, people in some societies or cultures wrongly think that a debate is a quarrel or an adversarial conflict that is best avoided. This is because of the basic assumption that people are incapable of changing their minds or their views. They expect everyone to be afflicted with an irreversible and highly tenacious dogmatism. On the contrary, the whole point of debate is to seek to change one's own mind for the better, with the help of your debating partner(s).
In short, you go into a debate not to win, but to learn; not to prevail, but to explore; not to change the mind of the other, but to see whether your own mind should be changed in the light of arguments from others.
So, political or social Manichaeism is not the outcome of a lack of charity or grace. Rather, whether in America or Singapore, it is because people got into debates without knowing what debates are all about! Until and only if political and social discourses are informed by an enlightened understanding of the true nature and spirit of "debate", they are destined to be both frustrating and counter-productive everywhere.
AND THEIR REMEDY
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/graciousness-charity-vital-for-healthy-debates
"I hope that we in Singapore can do better by being committed to respectful, reasonable and robust discourse with one another," says Straits Times Forum contributor Zhang Jieqiang.
That I certainly agree, but I do not think that the lack of charity or grace is the reason why debates often degenerate into mutual demonization, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and accusations of bad motives. There are three main reasons why such degeneration occur:
First, people get into debates with the wrong frame of mind. They think that debates are about winning and losing, so they will do or say anything, however ridiculous or unreasonable, to maintain indefensible statements at all costs. Sometimes, in a mistaken effort to save face or to appear to have a superficially amicable outcome, they would suggest having a very unsatisfactory and pointless "agreement to disagree". In reality, debates are about exploring ideas from both sides so that each side can benefit from a clarification and enrichment of their own thinking and learn new ideas from others.
Second, people engage in debates with the wrong ends in mind. They want their own views to prevail and therefore, all their inputs into any debate are designed to support their own original stand. Ideally, they should present their views in the hope of receiving a contrarian rebuttal with the aim of re-evaluating their own stand. Perspectives and views don't "belong" to anyone and people should be able to adopt and abandon views at will depending on how a debate proceeds.
Third, people in some societies or cultures wrongly think that a debate is a quarrel or an adversarial conflict that is best avoided. This is because of the basic assumption that people are incapable of changing their minds or their views. They expect everyone to be afflicted with an irreversible and highly tenacious dogmatism. On the contrary, the whole point of debate is to seek to change one's own mind for the better, with the help of your debating partner(s).
In short, you go into a debate not to win, but to learn; not to prevail, but to explore; not to change the mind of the other, but to see whether your own mind should be changed in the light of arguments from others.
So, political or social Manichaeism is not the outcome of a lack of charity or grace. Rather, whether in America or Singapore, it is because people got into debates without knowing what debates are all about! Until and only if political and social discourses are informed by an enlightened understanding of the true nature and spirit of "debate", they are destined to be both frustrating and counter-productive everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)