I am intrigued by all the videos on youtube where people who want to share their ideas and beliefs and why don’t really know much about how to do so in persuasive way. while it is nice to share your views and life stories and the like, people respond better to appeal to their intellect then their emotions. I have learned through bitter experience there is a right and wrong way to approach people with a differing opioion or perspective on life experiences.
if you want to share a differing opinion with the intent to educate or persuade others to your side of the issue, then you need to do so in logical way. you need to present the evidence, the data you use to come to your conclusions. example, I was watching videos on meat eaters vs vegans, and I find it a little disturbing so say the least, it seems the discussion focus more on mud slinging and religious dogma or even personal opinion that has no bearing in science/fact/data/life experiences.
ambiguous and head slapping doesn’t persuade, it only infuriates, it only closes minds. I am amazed how opinions are treated as facts. example, while it is true producing meat does use a lot of water, as was pointed out, they fail to mention why that is bad. why is using water to grow a pound of veggies is better than one pound of meat, and I was unaware we had a water shortage in the usa. maybe in other countries that might be a problem, but here we get amble rainfall in most places (except I am aware of the middle of the country).
And they fail to show the scientific data that water use is unsustainable for meat production or how crop production is more sustainable, considering all that is involved. They fail to explain how we will grow food in low water areas like the plains states, semi deserts and the like? Or how we can farm areas where crops will just not grow due to poor soil quality and lower water tables/rainfall? Or how we will be able to eat the tough grasses in these areas that do grow that only cattle and sheep can digest?
what is needed is good scientific data on this, taking consideration all the factors of what where when how why. the why is most important of all, why is water scarce? development? drought? diversion? naturally low water areas? how many nutrtious and caloire dense foods can we grow in say n dakota, wyoming, arizona, texas, ohio, pennslyvania and at what costs for fuel, storage and transport? How many chemicals will be needed, such factors must be considered in ones arguement to persuade another to your side of an issue.
You cant persuade people to change their minds if you are hitting them over the head with a stick. using emotional appeals, guilt trips, ambiguous statements, only worsens your position. you must be specific in your arguements. Stick to what facts you do know as facts.
I find the throwing around of words like sustainable and unsustainable a little disconcerting. these words are propaganda terms, they can mean whatever your audience understands them to be. You must be specific why are ski lodges unsustainable? meat production? economic progress? technological advancement? pastures? energy production? commercial fishing? what changes can be made to make them sustainable(or less damaging to the enviroment?) rather than banning them altogether?
when you present your facts as you know them, don’t just focus on one possible solution to a problem, offer many, example, if commerical fishing is unsustainable because of _______ then we can do this_____ to make it more sustainable. If treadging is destroying non targetted species do we ban treadging? do we ban selling of fish? regulate it heavily? require a limite on catches? what will be the consequences of such decisions to the oceans, fishermen, customers, middle men who process the fish, fish stocks, how will this affect prices, viability of the oceans or prevent unwarranted fishing. why are we sure that oceans are being overfished, what are the facts that are available?
too often propagandists (appeal to emotion rather than logic)offer only one solution that doesn’t really solve the problem but push an agenda that is not about the issue at all, but just a foot in the door. cap and trade is an example, how will that solve the climate problem? do we even have a climate problem? if we do could we do better by using all that money in the hands of technitions and entrapraners to find better ways to make and use energy rather than fill the pockets of the rich speculators and investors who do not produce anything of value? Does the climate even need to be corrected? how do they know that a warmer earth is a more hostile earth? what are the facts, evidence? does anyone here want a colder earth? why is the solution presented the best one? are there other options too? if you present your arguements in such a manner you will get a better reception and more likly persuade others to at least consider your point of view.
so when you present an arguement don’t use threats of violence in all it’s form, or attack the person, rather present the evidence, facts etc and show why. why is it bad, good, why will it do that, how do you know? why should we do as you say? remember if your arguement is bogus then it will be found out, and your credibility will be gone and no one will believe you when you are telling the truth, remember the boy who cried wolf. and remember don’t use the sky is falling method either.