|
|
Quenching it With Silence
June 29, 2004, 12:44 p.m. Last night, dinner with Elf-boy, Elf-boy’s friend, Elf-boy’s father and Elf-boy’s sister. It was good – I had pasta and a mud cake and finished both – but for some reason the conversation kept straying to controversial topics. As much as I like getting up on my high-horse here, and going off on rants and writing Letters to the Editor, I’m not big on having these discussions in person. I guess I just don’t feel as comfortable in the spoken word as I do in the written – I mean, I’m willing to debate it over ICQ, but get me in front of the person and I feel surprisingly scared and insecure. I think there’s two reasons for this – one, I’m afraid it will degenerate into an all-out screaming match of “No, I’m right!”, and I hate confrontation; and two, I don’t trust my own memory, so if I don’t have facts and figures on hand, I don’t have any ammunition (because all I’ll say is “I think I remember reading somewhere that this is true, but I could be wrong”, and how can you win an argument with that?). The topic of debate in this instance was mandatory detention for refugees (who, according to Amanda Vanstone, aren’t actually refugees until we say they are, apparently). I am against it – I accept that we need to do background checks on these people, and yes, it’s a long and laborious task, but I think it’s inhuman to lock these people up for the duration of it. We signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14 of which grants the right to seek asylum in another country to all people, so they haven’t done anything illegal by coming here - we have no right to lock them up. Most other countries don’t, in fact they find the practice abhorrent. Politicians are always bleating about Australia’s falling fertility rates, and the fact that so many people are leaving our country towns. Hey, here’s an idea – we have approximately 4000 people “illegally” knocking on our door every year, trying to get in: why not let them in and set them up in some of our failing country towns? We’ll have an increased population and a much-needed injection into our rural economy at the same time! Ah, bugger. Ranting again. That’s really not what I wanted to do. Once, I beat a guy I knew into submission about this issue. I just threw fact after fact at him until he capitulated and admitted I was right. I still feel bad about that, despite the fact that it was at least two years ago. I don’t like convincing people I’m right. I like having my own opinion, and being able to back myself up on it, but I’m not out to change your mind. If I make you think about what you’re saying, that’s great, but it’s not my place to make you agree with me. There’s no point in arguing with someone if you’re trying to convince them you’re right. It’s great fun to debate with someone just for the sake of debating, or just to make your own position clear – I have a few friendships based purely on this relationship dynamic – but to argue with someone just to evangelise, that’s wrong. Anyway. In person, I’d rather let someone just tell me their views and, while not explicitly agreeing with them, put up no fight to their opinion. It’s simpler that way. Unless, of course, it’s religion we’re discussing. For some reason, I feel completely confident discussing religion with people. Probably because I can usually get us to agree from the outset that our views are all completely subjective, and that all we’re going to do is be expressing our own opinions : ) Also, I consider myself fairly well read on most major religions. Except Islam, but that shall be rectified soon enough. Speaking of subjectivity, Ramona and I have come to the conclusion that Michael Moore is nothing but left-wing propaganda, but that we don’t mind. We see him as a sort of jumping-off point – he gets enraged, he gets entertaining, we get interested, we go out and do our own research. Besides, we’ve had right-wing propaganda for years, and it was just accepted – a left-winger does it and suddenly it’s bad and wrong? Please.
|