a friendly argument

[Guest guest]

I said:

> > According to the rules of argument, Braja Sevaki, you should now be

> > asked the question, What would it take to change your mind?

 

You responded:

> The rules according to whom?

 

The author of a book that the course "Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking" is

based on.

 

The idea is that in a friendly argument, if someone takes an inflexible

position, then her opponent asks, What would it take to change your mind?

 

If the answer is, "Nothing will change my mind," well, then, there is no

point in continuing to argue.

 

> > My rules are based on what Srila Prabhupada

> > has taught me. Maybe you should be asking yourself why are you so keen

> > to change my mind from that?

 

That is not what I was trying to do. For I doubted that your mind is as

consonant with Srila Prabhupada's as you arrogantly claim (your arrogance

indicates that it is not). He was not like your mind. Rather, I hoped that

you would control your emotion and step back and see your position from

another perspective. So I wrote:

 

> > Suppose someone argued that seeing a psychologist *had* helped in

> > overcoming a difficulty and enabled this devotee to go on with chanting

> > Hare Krishna. What will your reply be?

 

You replied:

> How long was this person observed? What constitutes "improvement" or

> "help"? This is a moot point if one has accepted that nothing helps except

> chanting Hare Krishna.

 

Thanks for offering a sample of how you would reply. Although you asked two

relevant questions, you quickly asserted that for one with an inflexible

position, the questions are useless; nothing will change her mind. So there

is no point in having a friendly argument.

 

--ys, td