Iron Sharpens Iron

It used to be popular to “poke” someone on Facebook. It was merely a way to get someone’s attention. Lately, much “poking” has occurred over political debate. It acts more like a provocation.

Oh, I know I’m stubborn. But, I figure if you’ve got an opinion, you should hold it so firmly that you can confidently promote it by provoking others to a healthy debate.

But, I’ve learned I’m a bit odd. I can champion my opinions and never get offended by someone else’s opposing opinion. In fact, I seek them out, because….

“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17

As I share my firmly held opinions and read the responses that too often devolve into personal attacks because I don’t share their firmly held opinions, I am clarifying my principles and conclusions. (I don’t quibble on facts!)

Usually, the “sharpening” results in stronger foundations and more precise descriptions of my principles and conclusions.

Opposing responses force me to ask myself, “How did I come to this conclusion?” So, I revisit the facts (sometimes there is additional information I need to consider) and re-examine my principles (Creationist- check. Conservative- check. Constitutionalist- check) to review my opinions.

While I rarely change my opinions (because I do my homework on facts and have very basic principles), this process helps me during a debate, because I’m forced to be more precise in my arguments, and am able to present them from the various perspectives I have considered. Granted, sometimes my sarcasm can do more harm than good- I need to work on that.

The commentary associated with Proverbs 27:17 admonishes believers to conduct conversations with the purpose of edification- making each other wiser for participating. Conversing only with those with whom you agree will never provoke deeper thought, and may do harm by reinforcing false assumptions. Challenging the positions of others provides opportunities to sharpen the mind and vocabulary by defending strongly held conclusions.

This can be done without giving offense as long as the discussion does not devolve into presumptions or personal attacks. Those who become offended and resort to name-calling are not as confident in their opinions as those who can argue without taking offense, and therefore do not reap the benefits of becoming sharpened in the process.

Sadly, healthy debate is not encouraged in school anymore. In fact, especially in establishments of “higher education”, it is discouraged. Dogma and politically correct constructs are indoctrinated. This eliminates the opportunities to challenge incorrect facts or weak principles and fosters the idea that opinions are inviolate- that they are somehow part of one’s person that should never be threatened.

Vigorous debate and pointed arguments are healthy if they are done with the motive of sharpening our tools of debate without actually drawing blood.

The Onset of the Binary Brain

Maybe it started with the advent of the digital age. It became epidemic during the 2016 election.

Binary brain.

When it became evident that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, Conservatives and Constitutionalists who refused to endorse him were assailed by those who had succumbed to the dreaded Binary Brain syndrome.

“No. Sorry. I still think Trump is unfit for office.”

“You must love HIllary!”

What?

“I guess you think Obama was a great President!”

What?

Do these people really believe there are only two choices here? When someone says they don’t like chocolate ice cream, do they automatically serve them vanilla? When their guest declines coffee, are they forced to drink tea? Guess what? It’s possible to disagree with more than two people at a time.

“No. I don’t consider Melania Trump a good role model because of the deceptive way she immigrated here and then worked illegally as a porn model.”

“I suppose you’ve never sinned!”

Wait. What?

Do they really believe we don’t judge people’s character by their actions? What does my sinful state have to do with discerning whether the First Lady is a good role model? Guess what? A person can recognize his or her own sins and those of others without considering any of them acceptable.

“I consider the nationalism and populism represented by Donald Trump to be very dangerous to our Republic.”

“You must be a Liberal!”

What?

Is that the only choice here? Guess what? Constitutionalist is another valid option!

“I’m afraid of electing a President who knows very little of the Constitution.”

“Oh, I suppose you’re a Constitutional expert!”

Um. What?

Many know that the Constitution has only seven Articles and not twelve, as Trump promised to protect right before the Republican leaders endorsed him. Guess what? Whether one is an expert or not, we should all expect the President to know the document he is swearing to “preserve and protect”.

It’s frightening to me that so many Americans have forsaken logic for blind allegiance, limiting their reasoning to only two options.

This is a dangerous psychological condition: “The false dichotomy is a logical fallacy in which only a limited number of options are considered in a situation when, in fact, there may very well be more options left unconsidered. Frequently, the person making the argument might express an assumption that there are only two options to choose from. This fallacy is often present in making false assumptions that if a person does not agree with X, they must necessarily be anti-X, when in reality they may hold some intermediate position or be undecided.”

Those who fall victim to this false dichotomy can be easily manipulated or threatened to make poor choices because they cannot consider a wide range of better alternatives. People in positions of power can deceive them into choosing poorly because only two bad choices are given.

I hope that this condition is short-lived, for their sakes and the sake of the nation.