Are Good Faith Conversations Possible with Lunatics?

--Caller discusses how to have good faith conversations
---
---
Leave a Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
---
David tech:

-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!

-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!

Broadcast on June 3, 2022

#davidpakmanshow #debates #conversations

[PDDYWCK]

Trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable is like administering medicine to a corpse. -Tom Paine

[ericblair]

The first question you should ask is this; "Is there anything I could possibly say that would make you reconsider your opinion?" If they answer, "No", you walk away. Life is too short to try reasoning with those who admit they cannot be reasoned with...

[fretnesbutke]

After all the practice he's had, David has the skills and techniques of a hostage negotiator..and the patience of a saint.

[TheFunGun]

You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.

[pondartinc]

No, its like talking to a radical christian.

[tc]

N to the NO! You can't reason with the disillusioned. The redirects are futile.

[vaunniethayer]

I have reached a point where I can no longer tolerate people who support this insanity whether they are delusional or in denial makes no difference. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say, no more. If friendships are lost and families break up as a result so be it. My first allegiance is to the truth and to respect for all in word and deed. I don’t wish ill toward them but to stand by or try to reason with the the unreasonable is no longer an option.

[jeffjr]

as someone that voted red for a long time... absolutely not.. not with this cabal.. they gotta go first.. then the conversations and education can start..

[thaisstone]

I find that I can get by quite nicely by listening INTENTLY to whatever pseudo-subject a "yappasaurus" is indulging in a total bender on. Then I say: "And what EXACTLY was the FINITE point you were trying to convey to me?" For SOME arcane reason, they fail to grasp the meaning of "finite".

[Lilylanauze]

Congratulations on your precious baby!

[victorbergman]

You must always keep an open mind. The Founders disagreed with each other yet still spoke with each other.

[IMeMineWho]

Actually I have a friendship with someone who is a Trumper. We do listen to each other because we started out as friends who value each other's friendship. We explore why we might have reached the opinions we have. It all depends on why someone decides to arrive at their conclusions and we never go low and throw insults. That also applies to romantic relationships and other friendships..never insult and theres a better chance of making some inroads.

[redsparks]

YES but
(a) have a saintly amount of patience for both stupidity and cringe
(b) break explanations down to short sentences and simple words
(c) be aware not to introduce new side-topics to the current topic
(d) be aware when they introduce new side-topics to the current topic
(e) always keep in mind that any side-topics muddy the waters
(f) be aware that new introduced topics may move the goal post
(g) where possible try and lighten the mood but don't joke or ridicule
and lastly ...
(h) be prepared for a LOT of mental gymnastics.

[t.a.k.palfrey]

This is not a quick fix for the riven state of US discourse today, but my experience in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere, is that debate of very divisive issues can only be effective if schools inculcate the skills of independent thinking. At schools my kids and grandkids attend (similar to my own schools), students are encouraged to debate from the position opposite to their own views. It is only by recognising the argument of those who disagree with one that anybody may effectively argue against those views in a non-agressive way. It is only by understanding ones opponent that one may hope to defeat him.

[t.a.k.palfrey]

If one starts from the position of referring to those of diametrically opposing views from oneself - even of the most extreme and paranoid variety - as "lunatics", then one is very unlikely to succeed in having a reasoned, fact-based dialogue with them.

[jasonhill]

Here's an idea, don't assume people you disagree with are lunatics.

[charlescaldwell]

You call people you don't agree with lunatics, then you say you want to have a good faith conversation? You left wingers are just priceless.

[chrisgregory]

Two sides meeting and achieving consensus is the bedrock of democracy so No, you cannot have a good faith argument with someone who as no intention of changing and views you as evil. These people don’t understand democracy

[jnagarya]

You can't control others' decisions. One can converse in good faith with anyone but can't force others to converse in good faith.

But there is a "freedom" in that: if the other person engages in personal attacks, they give permission to respond in kind. While at the same time engaging in good faith conversation.

[drummerxkun]

caller should watch innuendo studio's alt-right playbook series