The "Economics" of Argument

At no point in this post do I hope to imply that either might makes right or that war = peace, however I have some thoughts that if not considered carefully might be construed in that fashion.

Growing up I learned something, not every argument is worth making, I learned to "choose my fights". How did that happen? As an example, if I didn't like the way a neighbor kid looked at me I might start a grudge with him, being 7 year olds we might start an argument over something trivial such as which of our mutual friends would play where. What did the grudge cost us? The loss of friendship, hard feelings, a bloody lip? Yes, the argument had a value in what was lost or in what was actually destroyed.

I learned that while some points were worth making to my parents that not all of them were. If I stuck to my "guns" on some issues it would just get me in trouble, a well thought out point might instead get a concession. So, I learned to balance the risk and reward of "arguing" with my parents. Always fighting about everything, whether on the playground or from the backseat of the car was virtually a sure fired way of losing. Of missing out on the good times, of assigning myself to misery.

I learned on the playground that angry impasse was a thing to be avoided, that getting punched or giving punches (something I was relatively good at) usually meant either an ice pack or a trip to the principles office, so i got a life lesson in the economics of argument. I was considering today how the internet (in most forums) takes much of the economics out of argument. We arrive here and no point is too small to debate, no point can be conceded, and angry impasse can be extended into perpetuity with no resolution. I would say that the internet teaches us that there are no underlying economics in argument, that there is no need to to deter belligerence since the social cost seems so small.

Woe to us who takes that "lesson" into "real life". Belligerence IRL ALWAYS HAS A COST. It costs us relationships, marriages, money, job opportunities, even violence, and on and on. I would humbly suggest that we carefully consider what it costs us, to realize that it does cost, that it robs us of our joy. I want to remember to count the cost, not every fight is worth having, not every grudge is worth bearing and some points are imminently conceedable. While I like to debate, more than anything (believe it or not) my friends know that I'm all about fellowship. I do care about people and I'm always praying for God to help me see those people that I disagree with the most through His eyes. I've often learned that those people are the ones I can learn the most from, if not in agreement, then in civil disagreement.

Here's the rub. The internet being what it is, it is much to easy to 'prove a point' and play 'gotcha' with a screen, playing out the scenario in our minds-even to the point of imagining what the other person looks like, adding in tone of voice, inflection, body language, etc. And in so doing we are justified, always coming out the victor. Therefore, EVERY argument is worth having and every point is worth being made. Economics go out the window and instincts on rampage take over to the exclusion of a mind governed by the Holy Spirit.

In any other circumstance, I'm sure much of the debate here would be just discussion fodder over coffee or whatever with fellowship following, but regrettably the internet just does not afford that luxury.

So how 'bout them Mets???

Well thought out. I agree and am often guilty of it. I comment on some threads I just would not see the point of talking about in real life also.

__________________
Quantum physics makes me happy…it’s like looking at the universe naked.
– The Big Bang Theory

I dotn see whats to be "guilty about"..the internet in these cases is ABOUT discussion thats the point..'comments" and "debate" ...thats the whole point ..why woudl you feel "guilty" ?You already know its anyonymous..(MORE so than FACE to face)..I dont see anything to feel "guilty" about..

Dallas

What if I happened to meet you (whoever) and your profile picture changes and then I'm like "I KNOW YOU!" or vice verse? It could be awkward if the debates between 'us' have been really heated.

__________________

A modern version of "You've Got Mail" only in reverse. Not nice.

Dallas? Who said anything about being "guilty", maybe I missed it. What I was asking is what is the cost? If my day was spent trying to make you miserable (even if I was holding a grudge) it cost me a day where I could have been obedient. I'm not trying to get all holier than thou, everyone here knows I can be the worst offender. I'm also not saying I'll never argue again, I am just trying to choose my fights more purposefully (and hopefully obediently). The rapid fire, slash and burn, melt all the barrels to slag just gets old. I know for a fact if we knew each other IRL most of us would find a way to tolerate, maybe even like each other. No, not guilt, just circumspection, and consideration.

two post up.."guilty about that'..

Dallas

This is true..so you shouldnt do that..

Dallas

Nobody should!

well Im glad you realize that..I on the other hand if you were honest would not "like you" IRL..Sorry..I also would not hold my beliefs back as I dont IRL..I say what I think AND I avoid people that well...lets say I don't like..I dont "like" people who hold beliefs that quite frankly ...well I dont like..

Im not a fake IRL and just pretend I like someone..in fact I dissown people who are liars and fakes and backstabbers IRL..I "shake the dust"..I dont pretend I like someone when I dont..Sure that makes me .....principled...but hey most people like me..So Im not too worried about it..

Dallas