If the title of this post sounds to you like a gimmick to catch attention (ding, ding, ding – “You win!”), why of course it is!
But before posting knee-jerk comments accusing me of unrepentant narcissism, allow me to define some terms.
ME = my explorations
YOU = your own understanding
Think of it this way – you can vicariously explore a few of your preconceptions, prejudices, and deep ponderings about life through me, since I have taken some time to dig out many sides of some complex issues that most folks (probably) don’t have the time to investigate (‘cuz most of us are too busy just trying to live life in this crazy hectic world).
I won’t always draw conclusions that anyone else might, but will try to argue equally for both (or as many as seem tenable) sides of a debate to draw parallels and distinctions that condense the conversation to something more than parochial pedantic posturing. This will require honing of my own critical thinking skills, so I am counting on commenters to point out my unfounded biases and logical fallacies.
As a side benefit to YOU, tips on logic and critical thinking will be offered along side the debate. My “logical thinking” style is pragmatic (engineering and computer science background), rather than formal (philosophy), so emphasis will be on extrapolating probable outcomes of various positions over the critique of the validity of the logical arguments offered by advocates. Which probably puts me closer to being an investigative journalist than a pundit, advocate, or critic.
Since one of my intentions is to encourage civil and thoughtful consideration of very controversial issues, links to “authoritative” sources representing competing positions will be provided whenever possible. If the positions are so diverse that the conversation seems entirely unbounded, it may be preferable to offer a matrix of competing ideas, listing pros, cons, and consequences of each.
Who are YOU?
The intended audience includes thoughtful, interested persons who are not subject matter experts (SMEs)in the topics of discussion, but would like a kickstart to understanding the current (and historical) field of the debate. If you are a SME, contributions to the discussion are appreciated for purposes of clarification. However, I reserve the right to moderate comments that are merely rhetorical flourishes to an argument and blatant advocacy (PR fluff) that do not add to further understanding of the debate. Attempts to reframe a discussion solely to set up an appeal to emotion will be edited or rebuffed.