Argument Tangency

I’ve come to the point where blogging is more an act of personal motivation than expectation of dialog or social refinement. My tunnel vision pursuit to describe, design, and develop a formula to bring democracy to an intelligent argument causes the interjection of tangent discussion into many blogs. I’m no longer going to apologize for this. I blame it on the forum. Blogs do not facilitate intelligent discussion. Heresy rules, the focus is short lived, and the problem is lost in the mix.

You can’t force a point of view. You can only guide it from the clarity of your perspective. The Do Good Gauge describes a formula to give citizens a better chance of being heard. Coherency and respect are instrumental to the formula. The freedom of speech does not provide a freedom to be heard. Screaming or the threat of violence does not provide motivation to listen.

Like it or not, everyone has a point of view. Some points of view are just plain bad. I’m not ashamed to admit my own erroneous perspective has been swayed by respectful individuals with more knowledge than myself. When a point of view is foggy, it is up to an individual to change direction or clarify his or her position.

One of many premises of the Do Good Gauge is that an argument is developed by an individual or like thinking group. The continuous refinement and feedback of an argument provides the means to clarify a point of view and/or steer the argument in a more optimal direction.

I worry about the fate of citizens when hate, fear, ignorance, and chaos becomes the most effective methods for political change. Respect, coherency, and community should be given equal opportunity.

Based on the tangency of this essay, I'm seeking help clarifying my point of view to provide a new a public sphere.