The developing discussion about the true character of Islam probably belongs in some other thread. (This one, currently ongoing, seems a likely choice.)
But one aspect of that tangent which does matter to this conversation, perhaps, is the potential existence of the unpersuadable. Are there people who can no longer be reached by reason (like the jihadis)? If there are, how do we recognize such a person in conversation? (I view this as a separate question from whether it is worthwhile to try to converse with anyone in particular; the proper answer to the initiation of force is retaliatory force, and jihadis don’t need a strong rebuttal, they need to be stopped.)
Potentially this opens up a broad area for exploration which certainly matters to the questions I’ve raised, and the arguments I’ve advanced, which is: how does persuasion (or persuasive conversation) actually work? And who does that work?
What I mean is (and I’m fumbling a bit here, so please bear with)…
Suppose a teacher and a student. When the student learns successfully, is it because the student has been successful? Or the teacher? I would argue that both have performed work and both have been successful.
This is contra those who might contend that a good teacher can impart knowledge upon an unwilling student – he cannot. (You can lead a horse to water…) It is also contra those who would hold the student singularly responsible for his learning success, regardless of the teacher. (You can’t draw blood from a stone.) If there exists any such thing as a “good” teacher versus a “bad” one – and I contend that there does – then what could that mean except, in part, that some methods of teaching are likelier to be successful in imparting knowledge than others? All else being equal, a good teacher will have better success in imparting knowledge than a bad teacher, just as a good student will have better success in gaining knowledge than a bad one.
Learning (in the context of the classroom) is a two-person activity. The teacher and the student both must show up and perform in order to achieve success, and both must accept responsibility for their efforts, for their actions, and for the results of the same – which is their contribution to the learning process.
Discussion is also a two-person activity, at minimum. All participants (if they desire success) must come to a discussion equally ready to perform and to accept responsibility for the success or failure of their discourse; that is, their contribution to it, and whether that contribution is likely to breed success or failure. Just as someone can be a good or bad teacher, a good or bad student, we can be good or bad partners in discussion, depending on our understanding of what discussion is, how it functions, and our choice of method and action for achieving success.
I have seen it before where Participant 1 presents an argument and Participant 2 “doesn’t get it,” so Participant 1 comes back with, “well, it’s not my fault you don’t understand.” (I may, at times, have also been Participant 1.)
Strictly it’s true: it’s not Party 1’s job to do the understanding of the argument he presents; however, he is responsible for his own end of the discussion, which includes crafting his arguments in such a way as to best be understood (and sometimes this includes answering objections, or questions, or being willing to reformulate his arguments). When Party 1 attempts to communicate and Party 2 doesn’t adequately receive the communication, it is not necessarily the case that Party 2 has failed in his role. The initial communication may not be correctly fashioned. It might also not be a simple case of “either one or the other has failed.” They both might have to accept some share of the “blame,” and/or we must also recognize that discussion, like education, is neither effortless nor instantaneous.
If a teacher presented a student with calculus for the first time – laid the whole thing out in a single go – we would not hold the student as deficient if the student were not immediately able to grasp its entirety, remember it in every detail, or apply it without misstep.
Neither should a discussion be evaluated for success on the basis of whether or not a participant is immediately made aware of having been wrong, or understanding all of the implication.
To attempt to bring this all together… I think that sometimes people come to a conversation with the intention of being polite, perhaps, but when their arguments fail to make immediate headway, rather than concentrating on their own efforts and whether they might be improved upon (for after all, their arguments are sensible to themselves!), or understanding that learning/changing one’s mind is a process, they conclude that their “opponent” is either evasive, deliberately obtuse, or intellectually deficient such that they are unpersuadable – not accessible to reason. Then, seeing no further reason to be polite, or having rationalized that this is the case, they let loose their frustration (along with whatever other psychological/emotional distress) in insult, perhaps in the desire to wound for its own sake, perhaps in the hope of shaming their partner into accepting their arguments, not in reason, but to avoid abuse.
It might be the case that some people are simply not open to reason (in general, or on a specific topic). I don’t yet know my own position on that, or whether I could identify it with justice, but thoughts on this topic are welcome.