Thoughtful discourse

Les Knoll's letter in the June 23 "Reader Forum" raised a couple of concerns with me that I'd like to address:

First, Les, I like to tell my students that there are four types of assertions:

Facts and statistics: These are verifiable statements.

Opinions: Viewpoints based on facts.

Beliefs: Viewpoints not based on facts, yet strongly held, such as a belief that God exists.

Stereotypes: Viewpoints held contrary to fact, such as all women are bad drivers.

I tell my students that the first two create logical arguments; the last two create emotional arguments and that the most successful arguments are a mixture of both. I also tell them that the absence of the emotional is boring, but the absence of the logical is unfair. There, Les, is the cause for my concern in your argument: you've omitted the facts and any opinions based on facts.

Secondly, Les, most of us, both Democrats and Republicans, love our country very much; we just have different beliefs about what we want for the future, and we have different opinions about how to achieve those goals. Most of us, both Democrats and Republicans, are fully cognizant of the richness of our lives, the privileges we enjoy, the bounty in which we share because we are citizens of this marvelous nation. I know this to be true from personal experience and from a belief in the commonality of human experience.

So Les, who do you think these evil liberals are? These people who are planning the extinction of life as we know it by concerning themselves with human rights, global warming, academic freedom, and hypocrisy and criminality in the public and private sector? I'll tell you, Les. They are the man mowing his lawn down the street who volunteers as your kid's baseball coach. They are the woman who performs your MRI at the hospital. They are those you pass in the mall, whom you sit next to in church, whom you wave to from your vehicle. They are fellow citizens, and like you, they bear the weight of their duty toward their country and their fellow man in their personal convictions.

Labels and generalizations are convenient -- even necessary at times -- but often inaccurate, and most of us would do well to avoid them in favor of more accurate descriptions that lead to more thoughtful discourse.

Jaime Oss

WaKeeney