There was a bit of an off topic exchange of views of the Cardinal Cahal Daly (RIP) thread between Turgon and ‘The Spectator’. ‘The Spectator revealed that he doesn’t read any of Pete’s threads and consciously avoids debating with Turgon, Turgon seems none too pleased. I would have commented there but I am tied to a cultural respect for the dead.
I have a confession to make. I do not read any of Pete’s entries. I occasionally read Turgon’s entries but to my recollection have not commented there in a long time. Is that wrong? Bad netiquette? There are a number of other commentaters who I do not read anymore either, and I am sure as hell that not everyone reads my ramblings.
Now let me be clear, I do not know Pete nor Turgon, I would probably agree on little with either but that would rarely stop me for reading someones material as I prefer to be reading the views of people I do not agree with.
That is why I read the likes of Slugger, to learn about other people and their views, that and I would normally work with computers and find the television invariably crap. I have no idea why others do but I know they do despite strong denials.
I must also say at this point that when I did debate with Turgon I found him to be a gentleman. The fact that I do not bother with his posts now should be no reflection on that, I simply feel that I have the right to chose how I spend my precious time, a glance at a blog for me is normally simply a quick break from working.
I would hope that no one would at all feel obliged to read my posts, I am of course, somewhat of a one trick pony after all.
Slugger is or should be about exchanging views and learning from other people but perhaps there is a limits on what is of value? Like me, most commentators on Slugger have very strong and set views. Are we by commenting trying to influence others? trying to annoy others? or is it just keyboard screaming?
What is the point in stating and restating set positions?
For example, I am essentially a critical follower of Marx. I am very interested in religons but I would find it rather pointless to debate many things with religous people as their views are based on faith rather than thought.
For example, what is the point in online debating the rights and wrongs of a greater Isreal with someone who believes in the legitmacy of that project simply because that is what it says in their bible? None whatsoever probably, at least not enough to merit taking time of of your work day to do so.
Having read the christian bible, I could venture into a theological discussion, being of the view that Christianity seems to be somewhat of a conspiracy to undermine the teachings of Christ (Seemed a bit of a Palestine Communist to my mind!) but people’s interpretations of the bible (and I have never met anyone who read it in Hebrew) seem to come from their background and upbringing rather than their own reflections.
Likewise, whilst I try and kept and open mind, short of God revealing himself to me and revealing which sect of Christianity is actually on the right path, religous people are highly unlikely to be able influence me with religous arguement.
I suppose the Turgon / Spectator exchange has made me question the value of blogging at all. Once in trying to explain the possible influence of blogging to a doubter I once compared it to trying to change the course of an oil tanker by pushing it with one’s hand, pointless as an individual but perhaps ten thousand hands could change its direction.
Now I am not so sure. Is is new media, or simply a new form of the soap box?