Purpose of a Discussion Group

The purpose of any Internet Group discussion (and ours is NOT different) on any subject is to express/ascertain  how individual members view a topic from various perspectives so that the members of the group benefit overall from the perspectives of so many different minds. Those who express their views are NOT "imposing their views" on any members. In contrast, they are submitting their views on any subject so that others can examine it and validate it  or critique it and  refine it  to bring out an aspect that might have been missed by the original initiator.

That is the purpose of all discussion.

 If we are using the forum to just share internet links, then we could as well go to some of the link aggregators who publish all the interesting links  of every day. (There are many on the internet and they do a far better job than any individual member of this group can ever do. e.g http://popurls.com/ )They publish every day of the week, month and year  all interesting links where interesting content is available and no individual member of the group can beat them on their coverage and quality because it is the contribution of active members of a very large group!

If any one has fundamental problem in understanding the following  concepts, it is not worth engaging in a discussion before the fundamental concepts are straightened out from the mush of cobwebs in the head:

1. Is expressing views imposing  one's  view on others? (We are all independent individuals and no one can impose ones view on others. To  assert that all those who express their views by the very act of expressing itself are "imposing their views" on others is not only missing the point but engaging in "personal attack" on the  members who express their views questioning their intention and motivations. )
   
2. Attacking/ supporting,  however fiercely,  ideas expressed ( not attacking individual who express ideas )  is to be welcome by all members. An idea get refined further and further as more minds examine it and bring out some aspect or perspective the original author might  have missed. Human mind has inherent limitations and to think otherwise is arrogance.
   
3. When expressing views on a subject/idea, it is in no way a denial of opportunity for others to express ideas if they have any. (one person expressing n ideas in n different mails does not prevent or constrain some one else to express his ideas on the subject. The only way one can "prevent" others from expressing their ideas is by covering their keyboard and enter key and thus preventing them from sending out a message. 
4. The other way of preventing one from expressing ideas is by statement such as: "Enough is enough"!(That is preventing free flow of ideas and expression of it. Is it so difficult to understand?)
   
5. On the other hand, with every mail/idea expressed in the group, one is submitting ones views for examination by others and hence rendering more opportunity to express ideas or perspective the original author might have missed.  (To assert that others are prevented from expressing ideas when few people express their own  is   simply not only  untrue but even cynical and diabolic..)
   
6. When we are engaging in a discussion in this group, we are very clear that the M of D or M of F is not going to use the ideas expressed in this group to make their decision. To think otherwise  is an irrelevant consideration because we are trying to influence our community so that we can examine dispassionately whether we have a case at all and also whether our case for it can be argued more convincingly.
   
7. So equally true is that  the newspaper articles, TV interviews  or open debates like the one we had last week are also of the similar nature and it does not change the decisions taken in the M of D or M of.
8. But what is true unequivocally,  is  that the discussion facilitates examining the issue  from perspectives one mind could not have conceived and it facilitates crystallizing many aspects which might have escaped one mind if we were to lock ourselves in a room and were to think up the various aspects of the issue.
   
9. In fact, the whole purpose of a discussion forum is this and if some one has problem understanding this, it is too fundamental and will need some serious surgical intervention  to correct the perception. The open discussion facilitates getting the mush cleared from your head. If you approach the discussion with a closed mind, no one on earth can help is also evidently clear.
   
10. If all that is needed to examine an issue is to ask the following questions:
1. Are the members of IESM who presented case known to you personally?
2. Are the members of IESM who presented the case unselfish and devoted to the cause?
   
3. Were the members of the IESM who presented the case your erstwhile colleagues?
4. Were the members of the IESM who presented the case your erstwhile seniors?
5. Were the members of the IESM who presented the case doing it with their own time?
6. Were the members of the IESM who presented the case doing doing it for a selfless service?
7. Were the members of the IESM who presented the case doing it at a great cost to their health and peace at home
11. and, if the answer to any of the questions above is yes, then you support the ideas expressed by them is totally opposed to the fundamental tenets of any discussion in a discussion group. Of course it could be your personal philosophy, but I have every reason to assert that "Please for God's sake, do not impose it on me, and I am sure you have the sense to honor the  simple request!
    
12. If an alternate idea is an assault on authority of seniors and is termed as "senior bashing",  there may be serious problem of under supply of rationality. ( What's right with America is the willingness to discuss what's wrong with America.. [Harry C. Bauer])
13. Disagreeing with "our seniors" is NOT blasphemous. It is stupidity to think so. It is blasphemous to impose such stupidity on others. Although Aristotle studied under Plato in his academy for most of his life, he fundamentally disagreed with his teacher on just about everything. So did Newton disagree with Aristotle on most of his thesis. If they had not critiqued their "seniors", world would have been poorer to day.
    
14. Ideas are right or wrong NOT on the basis of WHO expressed it but on the basis of the intrinsic strength of ideas.
15. On almost every issue, major and minor, public opinion has shifted over time. Examples: slavery, women's rights, Indian mascots. How did this happen? Through debate. It may not have happened fast enough for you to perceive it, but it happened. The winning arguments eventually changed enough individual opinions that the collective "public opinion" changed.
16. You can choose to be part of that process. Or you can choose to let it happen without your input.  You can choose to support every thing that your "colleagues and seniors" propounded with out questioning it. That is a choice you make.  If you have made that  your choice, perfectly alright. Don't thrust  your own concept of what is right  on others is all I can assert. (It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.)
17. "I'm reasoning with people, not preaching at them. If they don't see the reason of my arguments, they're being unreasonable."
18. To say that "If you are NOT satisfied with the ideas as propounded, then you start your own movement" is as ridiculous and stupid as saying that "there should be no discussion, no debate and no refinement of ideas. Take it the way it is, if you are not satisfied, go start your own movement/ party/organization etc."
    
19. The above under cuts the very fundamentals of open discussion  and shakes the  very foundations of democracy itself and does not merit any further discussion or any application of ones mind. There is no negotiation on the very foundation of discussions.
    
20. Even in a political party, internal discussion and debate are to refine the strategy and action plan. To say that "either agree with the powers that be or get out and start a party  of your own" under cuts the democratic approach to problem solving.
    
21. And,  when one is expressing ones view, the very purpose of submitting the view for further examination  by the group itself is sufficient statement that it could be faulty and invitation   to examine it  and validate it or point out the weaknesses in it. One does not have to state further:" I agree that it may not be correct"! That is understood and that is the fundamental tenet of all discussion.
    
22. To say that Barka Dutt can express her views, other TV channels can express their views,  news paper editors and writers can express their views, the authorities in the government can express their views but you the veteran  can not express the views  because you are bound by the fact that you are the veteran  and because they are your "erstwhile colleagues and seniors" is nothing short of insanity and stupidity.
    
23. "Attack the ideas expressed, not the people who expressed it, their motives or intentions" seems to be forgotten. If it so difficult to get, you can not have open discussion.
24. Lastly, the appeal for "enough is enough" is the most ridiculous. That is stifling the discussion. ( We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. )

Do you think I am talking non sense? Does it make sense that we need open forum to express our views unconstrained by such appeals to "shut up" but under  the cloak of so called "sane voices". I have no patience for such "pseudo sane voices".


If you are in an argument to "win", then, I'd say you are in it for the wrong reason. It's tempting to believe that our own way of thinking should be the final word on a subject and that, perhaps, the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with our point of view. It's also tempting to attach too much personal currency to the fate of your argument. You are not your argument; it stands and falls on its own merit and has nothing to do with your worth as a human being.  The point of arguing is to get closer to the truth.  That should be the prime motivator.

All that is stated above does not change whether we are in our 20's 30's ...... or 60's or 70's or any where in between. Validity of an argument stands apart from any attribute of the people participating in it not excluding age!

The take home from all this:

1. You have only the right to start a discussion on any topic you want,
2. but what you have NO right to is  to terminate it by saying "enough is enough".
3. If you had enough of it, go climb a coconut tree and play the fiddle.
4. You have all the right to take what ever view including licking the ass holes of those who are above you while climbing the coconut tree,
5. but what you have NO right is to demand your demeaning demeanor from others participating in the discussion, calling it " Senior bashing" or what ever you like. 

Thanks for your time and attention.

Nath

(Would you happen to know what the relationship is (if any) between the words "demean" and "demeanor"? Funny what questions arise after only a small amount of alcohol. -- Mary Maxwell, via the Internet.
It seems logical to conclude, even when sober, that there would be some connection between "demean" and "demeanor." Not only does "demeanor" contain the word "demean," but both words have to do with the general subject of behavior. My "demeanor" is how I behave, and if I behave badly, I am said to have "demeaned," or degraded, myself in the estimation of people around me. "Demean" and "demeanor" seem to go together, as gin and tonic do, I am told. It's a bit of jolt to discover, therefore, that the two words have absolutely nothing to do with each other.)