[EM] Comments re Robert's Rules of Order

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

There is a technique of debate which consists of pointing out apparent 
inconsistencies or contradictions in what another writes, and then 
inferring from these some major flaw in the other's argument. Yet often 
such apparent inconsistencies are just that: apparent and not real.

One who wants to learn from the writing of others, as distinct from trying 
to find out what is wrong with it so as to discredit the other writer, will 
look at apparent contradictions as resulting from incorrect interpretation 
of what was written, and will not easily assume that the contradictions are 
inherent in the writer's world view.

There is another technique of debate which consists of attacking the chosen 
opponent as biased, perhaps with a conflict of interest, and narrow-minded. 
A sign that this technique is being used is that the sole evidence of bias 
that has any basis in truth is that the opponent is advancing a different 
opinion than that of the debater.

I once rode in a car with Charles Manson. He had decided that he needed me 
to join his group, and he needed it so badly that he was willing, he told 
me, to give "everything" to me. I did not fall for it. How did I know not 
to trust him? (He hadn't murdered anyone yet, as far as I know, he did not 
seem all that dangerous.) Well, for one thing, he clearly did not know 
himself. To bring the kind of thing that he did into relevance here, he 
would have said something like

"I'm not debating, I don't like to debate" when he was, without any doubt, 
using debate techniques, attributing false views to opponents, charging 
them with contradictions which are actually not relevant, attacking them as 
biased without presenting any clear evidence of that, and generally 
demonstrating that he does not understand what is said to him, but has his 
own internal agenda.

Don't think that any accusations are being made here that, somehow, a 
participant here is like Charles Manson. Except perhaps in one way, a lack 
of self-knowledge (which is, perhaps, a charitable interpretation). It is 
not only common but it is also remediable. If....

And if I am wrong in what I think I see, so what? I've been wrong before, 
won't be the first time. But....