Over the course of years, I have lost many arguments. In retrospect, some were really worth losing. I cannot imagine myself making the same arguments today. At times, I mansplain my sister on what's best for her. I often tell myself, she should not repeat my mistakes yet also should not be afraid to make her own. In this struggle, of educating her and telling myself that my heart is in the right place, I lose the argument. The loss is more than just a point on the scoreboard, with that loss everything I believe in demands a sort of revaluation.
Often when I am right, and when I am right, I realize much later - I could have framed my argument better. I could have quoted a better example, explained my stance in different words, should ask better questions so that I have something to learn from the experience even when I walk out of the argument with more or less the same belief that lead me into it.
A part of my brain is always prepared to challenge everything I assumed previously as true or obvious. For example I recall, there was a time I would defend Roman Polansky against the statutory rape case filed against him in the US. That time I argued that the age of consensual sex is different in different countries and therefore the case against Polanksy holds little water. I was and still am, an admirer of his iconic films especially the Pianist. Not until recently, I questioned myself if he had not been one of the most famous directors alive, would I have defended him? Would I have thought differently if the case was filed against a nobody? I think not. I felt defensive because I loved his films and felt if convicted he may not be able to produce the art that I am in love with.
As you may probably have guessed by now, I was wrong. Polanski's stature has no bearing on the criminal charges framed against him. If he was to get away, and he has, then justice is served only to those who run out their luck or are too vulnerable to put up a defense.
Next time someone I really admire is charged with heinous crimes, I will remember to think differently.
Often when I am right, and when I am right, I realize much later - I could have framed my argument better. I could have quoted a better example, explained my stance in different words, should ask better questions so that I have something to learn from the experience even when I walk out of the argument with more or less the same belief that lead me into it.
A part of my brain is always prepared to challenge everything I assumed previously as true or obvious. For example I recall, there was a time I would defend Roman Polansky against the statutory rape case filed against him in the US. That time I argued that the age of consensual sex is different in different countries and therefore the case against Polanksy holds little water. I was and still am, an admirer of his iconic films especially the Pianist. Not until recently, I questioned myself if he had not been one of the most famous directors alive, would I have defended him? Would I have thought differently if the case was filed against a nobody? I think not. I felt defensive because I loved his films and felt if convicted he may not be able to produce the art that I am in love with.
As you may probably have guessed by now, I was wrong. Polanski's stature has no bearing on the criminal charges framed against him. If he was to get away, and he has, then justice is served only to those who run out their luck or are too vulnerable to put up a defense.
Next time someone I really admire is charged with heinous crimes, I will remember to think differently.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments will be held for moderation. If your comment does not appear immediately, do not repost. I reserve the right to remove any inappropriate or off-topic comments.