From: Josh Martin (martin.907@osu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 05 2001 - 15:59:48 MDT
Anders wrote:
>
> One problem is that a voice of reason might not be what they
> want. Many of
> the groups of this kind are more built on shared views, a sense
> of purpose
> and community rather than a rational idea. The more opposition,
> the better:
> then they will be forced to work hard together against the
> uncaring/evil/uneducated world, themselves experiencing terrific
> community.
> Logical arguments have little to do with this, they are better at swaying
> people not belonging to the dedicated group. Hence a voice of reason will
> only affect those not really part of the shared emotions.
>
>
This is why I have a dual-pronged approach. I go to places where I can
express my opinion, preferably to both the adversary and the fence-sitters,
and explain my position in a reasoned argument. While doing this, I smile a
lot, speak calmly, act friendly, and make minor concessions to let them know
I value their opinion. It has been said that a great portion of influence
an argument has on people is whether or not they like the person who is
presenting the argument. In a debate such as this, where supporters of
animal research have been characterized as heartless monsters, showing that
I'm a nice guy does a lot to temper the luddites and sway the
fence-straddlers.
That said, does anyone have any references to well-thought out arguments in
support of animal experimentation? I have my own, but I'd like to compare
notes with some references to refine my argument.
josh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:51 MST