Times Future (3)

IT’S A HARD TIME to be writing this post, having swung from yesterday’s euphoria of London’s 2012 Olympic success to the reality of 33+ people dieing just down the road.

But I want to respond, given that this thread is picking up some momentum, and there have been some interesting responses to my invitation to hear examples of people NOT posting because of the ‘editorial tone’.

I have strong memories of the Franklin dam debates of the early 1980s, when I argued passionately with anyone who came within earshot about the merits of saving the rivers.

I also remember the first time I heard the phrase ‘you can never win an argument’ and my growing realisation that simply trying to win over someone holding a different point of view, simply by advocating more strongly than they did, was a pointless exercise.

Indeed the stronger the advocacy, the stronger the ‘other side’ dug their heels in.

Indeed I must admit that moving to the UK in the early 90s and leaving behind the brewing forestry debate, brought some sense of relief. And this despite my own natural sympathies for and experiences of Tasmania’s forests.

This is all a preface to my main point. I’d like to see less advocacy and more genuine inquiry going on, via this site and elsewhere, into the important issues faced by Tasmania and Tasmanians.

Forestry is undoubtedly ONE of many such issues. What else needs discussion? (I’d also like to see more postings of the calibre of the Saul Eslake economic reports.)

I wonder why it is apparently so difficult to engage in an open, non-defensive dialogue that seeks to understand (and note that understanding does not imply agreement with) the different perspectives that arise from important issues?

What would help to increase the quality of postings so that they tease out a greater appreciation of the facts, the differing values, and the varying needs of the Tasmanian people?

Over to the many readers (not just the regular contributors;)

Jonathan Males left Tasmania in 1992 ostensibly for three years to complete a PhD in psychology the UK. He’s still there, as living proof that plans are a way to make God laugh.

Earlier, including debate, and link: Times Future (2)