I Am NOT Stubborn

Some people use the accusation, "You're just stubborn," to win an argument.

The Case of The Arguing Brothers

Two brothers are standing in their front yard arguing. It's a large, Southern yard with oak trees and a curving sidewalk that leads from the porch to the curb. They are standing on the grass facing each other. Says the older: "Is too!" Comes the response, "Is not!" And so on, "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" Finally, the Older says in exasperation, "You're so stubborn!" and marches into the house, content that he got the final word. The humor is that both were being equally stubborn; neither would give up to the other. Yet, the Younger got labeled with "stubborn."

You've probably been in a similiar situation, where the other person accuses you of being stubborn, close-minded, or set in your ways, when in fact that applies equally to him.

In that particular case above, the Younger had discovered the Older was untrustworthy. The Older had tricked and deceived and mocked and humiliated and abused the Younger so consistently for so many years that the Younger had already determined he would no longer fall for or believe anything the Older said. The Older was a liar and an abuser. That doesn't mean the Older never told the truth; it only means the Younger could not trust the Older any more, for fear he was being set up for yet another humiliation.

The Younger could be convinced with evidence and proof, but not with another person's say-so. He figured his own unfounded opinions were just as valid as another person's unfounded opinions. When another person insisted people should believe his word with no evidence, and the Younger didn't believe him, then he would call the Younger "stubborn."

The Older brother had picked up Mother's habit of calling the Younger, "Stubborn." Unfortunately, she did the same thing as the Older: expecting to be believed and obeyed simply because she was she and she said so. Granted, Mother was older, wiser and far more experienced than a ten-year-old. But you cannot give a ten-year-old the experience that an adult has; he has to earn it for himself. Therefore, from this ten-year-old's point of view, if you want him to believe something, you have to show him why. Your say-so is just not good enough.

About Me

I've always (as far as I can remember) demanded reason, logic or proof for new thoughts. That doesn't mean I never offered bogus opinions; of course I have. But lately I'm ready to offer evidence, proof and logic to back up my opinion. And when I'm short of those, I frequently say, "In my opinion..."

Other people, it appears, are just as eager to share their opinions as I am mine. So, insead of asking me for supporting evidence of what I say, they simply rebut it with their own opinions, assuming I have no evidence either, and so no argument gets resolved. If only people would ask, "Why do you say that?" then productive dialogue would ensue.

The Case of The Arguing Theologians

I was talking on the phone with Richard about things in general when he told me about a thought he had concering his church, doctrine and marriage. I saw immediately this was a doctrinal problem and not a scriptural interpretation, so I quoted a verse in the Bible that contradicted (actually, corrected) his thought. Not willing to give up so quickly, Richard gave me another scripture he supposed supported his theory. So I gave another one that corrected his misapplication of that one. And so on for about three exchanges.

Finally Richard stopped the discussion and said, "Jerry, have you ever prayed about your argumentative spirit?" At first I thought he was joking and started laughing out loud because we both were giving our ideals equally and he was no less argumentative than I.

But I found out he was serious. He thought that because I would not simply accept what he said without question, therefore I had an argumentative spirit. It apparently never occurred to him to pray about his own argumentative spirit.

Bogus Evidence

That leads us to another aspect of arguments... offering bogus evidence for bogus opinions.

It's common for people to call on bogus evidence to support their bogus arguments. (That doesn't mean I have never done it; it just means I'm trying to get better at not doing it.)

The first bogus evidence is the expression, "Everybody knows..." thus and so. The person saying that then gives his own thought, which may represent the opinion of a very few people. Let's make up a straw man example. Suppose there's a Christian who is heavily into doctrinal eschatology. He says, "Everybody knows we're in the End Times and Jesus will return within the next ten years." (I have heard that one before... more than ten years ago.)

Excuse me...! Not everybody knows that at all. Even I, a Christian who is heavily into doctrinal eschatology, don't know that to be true.

To get around generalized bogus evidence, some people cite bogus statistics. "Ninty-five percent of white Americans are racists." "Every year, 4,225 children are killed by handguns in their own home." I guess they think giving such words lends credence to their arguments.

But that doesn't sway me. I'm "stubborn," you know. And besides, such claims are supported neither by logic nor by FBI published statistics.

The Failing Media

Appealing to mainstream media for your sources of information generally compromise your credibility more than boister it. The media are notorious for their biased, unsubstantiated, bogus information and reports. Their errors and downright slanting of reports are so intertwined what what actually happened that generally none of it is believable. Believing newspaper reports requires independent substantiation of their own. Independent substantiation would include: follow up reports, speeches on television or radio by people who where there, and collaboration of detractors.

("Collaboration of detractors" is where a person opposed to the action or report addresses it to respond to it. They don't deny it; they address it, thereby lending their own authority that such-and-such an incident actually took place.)

The Case of The Arguing Partisans

I am a political conservative who frequently disagee with other conservatives on certain issues. But the real fireworks come when I discuss politics with liberals.

I have five cases in mind in which the liberal and I agree to discuss the differences in our political thinking. In every case but one, the liberal became firey angry and either cut off relationships with me or else threatened to. In every case I was not angry; I simply presented what I thought. In every case (but one) soon into the discussion, the liberal began calling me vile names, cursing me, trembling with anger, and ending the discussion and sometimes the relationship.

Lively debate is appropriate. Forcefully presenting your viewpoint is understandable. Emotional words to get the idea across is expected. But anger that takes the person beyond the ability to speak indicates something seriously wrong with either the person or his position or both.

The one exception I mentioned above was with a drunken English professor on the East Coast (I'm on the West Coast). We communicated via email. He was articulate, reasonable, calm and kind in every respect until the very end. The very end is when I made my point. I never heard from him again. Everything just went dead, as if he never existed. But he never berated me.

I reconstructed the email discussion with the English professor (about abortion) and you may read that reconstuction here: Conversation With An Abortionist.

Those Anecdotes Prove Nothing

That is a series of anecdotes that prove nothing but displays my general experience. When two people agree on a subject, they learn from each other and validate each other. Two church members agree on their doctrine, and when there is a new thought, they hash it out and frequently come to an agreeable conclusion. The same is true with two political liberals discussing their philosophy, or two political coservatives discussing their philosophy, and so on.

The fireworks come with two participants from opposing backgrounds. A Baptist debating with a Muslim, or a liberal with a conservative, tends to throw the subject into a whole new pattern, where each one appeals to bogus evidence and each one expects to be taken at his word with no further evidence.

People call me "subborn" because I demand verification for opposing ideas and do not simply accept their claims, allegations, accusations and arguments. I need proof, evidence, logic, definitions of words, and clear thinking. When that is properly administered, get out of my way because I might knock you over coming to your side so quickly. I can be persuaded when properly challenged; I'm not subborn, demanding my way simply because it's my way. Long ago, as a teenager, I decided that I would henceforth seek the truth regardless of where it took me and I would not cling to anything shown to me to be false regardless of what it was: God, religion, church, politics, anything. But I must have proper evidence, and I will listen.

I will listen, that is, unless the topic is something I've already addressed. If I have already thought about a question, such as "Is it better to be a pessimist or optimist?", and analyzed the pros and cons, and followed each to its logical conclusion, and have made up my mind based on proper evidence, then I'm pretty much set in that way. When another person comes to persuade me otherwise and introduces questions and thoughts that I've already had, examined and analyzed, then I will reject his words readily. My work has already been done; I already know the answer. This person may call me stubborn, but that's not true; I simply already know the answer.

Everybody knows the answer to some questions. Nobody knows the answer to every question. Don't be ashamed if you already know the answer to a question; just say so. That's not being proud or arrogant. And just because you happen to know the answer to one question, don't be swayed by people who say, "Oh, You think you know everything." Of course you don't everything; you just know about this one question.

But more important than that, don't hasten to announce your own opinions as if they were proven fact; know when to separate your opinions from your knowledge.