Comments on: The Sin of Nice

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:41:36 +0000

Perhaps, but there's something to be said for good bedside manners.

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:08:08 +0000

An argument is only profitable or edifying among people who are amenable to being convinced of the truth. For those who are not, stronger medicine is required. It is nevertheless charitable to deliver that medicine.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:10:32 +0000

Steve,

As I reflect on the two years that have passed since the writing of this post, I can't help but wonder if sometimes, perhaps even often, you give the impression of quarreling when you mean to be arguing. Your presentation can be a bit caustic.

By: Steve N

Steve N — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Ideally, in most circumstances we can do both. But I would argue that even tact is not the same as nice-ness. I would put tact more in there with diplomatic skill, using the right level of forcefulness in the right situation at the right time. This does not necessarily exclude not-to-nice-ness.

I think of Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" as one of those tactful (but not really that nice) things to say. Of course, whether this had anything in particular to do with the USSR's demise is quite debatable, but a completely different thing...

I would say as a corollary to Chesterton that quarrels, in fact, avoid the argument, and this is the worst part of it.

Cheers!

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

We do often place a higher premium on tact than we do on truth.

Unfortunately, those who seem capable of civil disagreement (argument-like, not quarrel-like) appear to be the minority, and all to often we avoid the legitimate arguments for fear of the quarrels.