Search

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

A pregnant US woman has argued her unborn baby should count as a second passenger in her car in the wake of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v Wade being overturned</a>, after she was fined for driving in a lane that requires at least two people in the car. Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, was pulled over on June 29 after driving in a high-occupancy (HOV) lane by the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department looking for drivers violating HOV lane rules, as reported by <a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pregnant-woman-cited-for-hov-violation-says-her-unborn-baby-should-count-as-second-person/3010193/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC-Dallas Fort Worth</a>. HOV lanes, also known as carpool and T2 lanes, require drivers to have at least one passenger in their car when they use the lane. When an officer told Bottone about the rule and asked whether she had any passengers with her, she said she did. “I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person’,” the 32-year-old told <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dallas Morning News</a>. The officer argued that the rule applies to “two people outside the body”, to which Bottone responded that, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, her unborn child is considered as a living person. “And then I said, ‘Well [I’m] not trying to throw a political mix here, but with everything going on, this counts as a baby’,” Bottone recounted. She said the officer told her he didn’t “want to deal with this”, insisting the law for HOV lanes required “two persons outside of the body” to be in the vehicle. While the penal code in Texas recognises a foetus as a person, there appears to be no language in the state Transportation Department’s code that recognises a foetus in the same way. Though deputies told Bottone that her case would likely be dismissed if she fought it, she still plans to fight the $215 ticket, arguing that her in-utero baby should count as another occupant. “This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” she told The Morning News. “I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.” Image: NBC DFW

Legal

A new book argues Julian Assange is being tortured. Will our new PM do anything about it?

It is easy to forget why Julian Assange has been on trial in England for, well, seemingly forever. Didn’t he allegedly sexually assault two women in Sweden? Isn’t that why he holed up for years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid facing charges? When the bobbies finally dragged him out of the embassy, didn’t his dishevelled appearance confirm all those stories about his lousy personal hygiene? Didn’t he persuade Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning to hack into the United States military’s computers to reveal national security matters that endangered the lives of American soldiers and intelligence agents? He says he is a journalist, but hasn’t the New York Times made it clear he is just a “source” and not a publisher entitled to first amendment protection? If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, you are not alone. But the answers are actually no. At very least, it’s more complicated than that. To take one example, the reason Assange was dishevelled was that staff in the Ecuadorian embassy had confiscated his shaving gear three months before to ensure his appearance matched his stereotype when the arrest took place. That is one of the findings of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, whose investigation of the case against Assange has been laid out in forensic detail in <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/trial-of-julian-assange-9781839766220/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Trial of Julian Assange</a>. What is the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture doing investigating the Assange case, you might ask? So did Melzer when Assange’s lawyers first approached him in 2018: <blockquote> I had more important things to do: I had to take care of “real” torture victims! </blockquote> Melzer returned to a report he was writing about overcoming prejudice and self-deception when dealing with official corruption. “Not until a few months later,” he writes, “would I realise the striking irony of this situation.” The 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council directly appoint <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-torture" target="_blank" rel="noopener">special rapporteurs on torture</a>. The position is unpaid – Melzer earns his living as a professor of international law – but they have diplomatic immunity and operate largely outside the UN’s hierarchies. Among the many pleas for his attention, Melzer’s small office chooses between 100 and 200 each year to officially investigate. His conclusions and recommendations are not binding on states. He bleakly notes that in barely 10% of cases does he receive full co-operation from states and an adequate resolution. He received nothing like full co-operation in investigating Assange’s case. He gathered around 10,000 pages of procedural files, but a lot of them came from leaks to journalists or from freedom-of-information requests. Many pages had been redacted. Rephrasing <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-von-Clausewitz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carl Von Clausewitz</a>’s maxim, Melzer wrote his book as “the continuation of diplomacy by other means”. What he finds is stark and disturbing: <blockquote> The Assange case is the story of a man who is being persecuted and abused for exposing the dirty secrets of the powerful, including war crimes, torture and corruption. It is a story of deliberate judicial arbitrariness in Western democracies that are otherwise keen to present themselves as exemplary in the area of human rights. It is the story of wilful collusion by intelligence services behind the back of national parliaments and the general public. It is a story of manipulated and manipulative reporting in the mainstream media for the purpose of deliberately isolating, demonizing, and destroying a particular individual. It is the story of a man who has been scapegoated by all of us for our own societal failures to address government corruption and state-sanctioned crimes. <h2>Collateral murder</h2> The dirty secrets of the powerful are difficult to face, which is why we – and I don’t exclude myself – swallow neatly packaged slurs and diversions of the kind listed at the beginning of this article. Melzer rightly takes us back to April 2010, four years after the Australian-born Assange had founded WikiLeaks, a small organisation set up to publish official documents that it had received, encrypted so as to protect whistle-blowers from official retribution. Assange released video footage showing in horrifying detail how US soldiers in a helicopter had shot and killed Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists in 2007. Apart from how the soldiers spoke – “Hahaha, I hit them”, “Nice”, “Good shot” – it looks like most of the victims were civilians and that the journalists’ cameras were mistaken for rifles. When one of the wounded men tried to crawl to safety, the helicopter crew, instead of allowing their comrades on the ground to take him prisoner, as required by the rules of war, seek permission to shoot him again. As Melzer’s detailed description makes clear, the soldiers knew what they were doing: <blockquote> “Come on, buddy,” the gunner comments, aiming the crosshairs at his helpless target. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.” </blockquote> The soldiers’ request for authorisation to shoot is given. When the wounded man is carried to a nearby minibus, it is shot to pieces with the helicopter’s 30mm gun. The driver and two other rescuers are killed instantly. The driver’s two young children inside are seriously wounded. US army command investigated the matter, concluding that the soldiers acted in accordance with the rules of war, even though they had not. Equally to the point, writes Melzer, the public would never have known a war crime had been committed without the release of what Assange called the “Collateral Murder” video. The video footage was just one of hundreds of thousands of documents that WikiLeaks released last year in tranches known as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Afghan war logs</a>, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Iraq war logs</a>, and <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump-10-biggest-revelations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cablegate</a>. They revealed numerous alleged war crimes and provided the raw material for a shadow history of the disastrous wars waged by the US and its allies, including Australia, in Aghanistan and Iraq. <h2>Punished forever</h2> Melzer retraces what has happened to Assange since then, from the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden to Assange taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in an attempt to avoid the possibility of extradition to the US if he returned to Sweden. His refuge led to him being jailed in the United Kingdom for breaching his bail conditions. Sweden eventually dropped the sexual assault charges, but the US government ramped up its request to extradite Assange. He faces charges under the 1917 Espionage Act, which, if successful, could lead to a jail term of 175 years. Two key points become increasingly clear as Melzer methodically works through the events. The first is that there has been a carefully orchestrated plan by four countries – the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and, yes, Australia – to ensure Assange is punished forever for revealing state secrets. The second is that the conditions he has been subjected to, and will continue to be subjected to if the US’s extradition request is granted, have amounted to torture. On the first point, how else are we to interpret the continual twists and turns over nearly a decade in the official positions taken by Sweden and the UK? Contrary to the obfuscating language of official communiques, all of these have closed down Assange’s options and denied him due process. Melzer documents the thinness of the Swedish authorities’ case for charging Assange with sexual assault. That did not prevent them from keeping it open for many years. Nor was Assange as unco-operative with police as has been suggested. Swedish police kept changing their minds about where and whether to formally interview Assange because they knew the evidence was weak. Melzer also takes pains to show how Swedish police also overrode the interests of the two women who had made the complaints against Assange. It is distressing to read the conditions Assange has endured over several years. A change in the political leadership of Ecuador led to a change in his living conditions in the embassy, from cramped but bearable to virtual imprisonment. Since being taken from the embassy to Belmarsh prison in 2019, Assange has spent much of his time in solitary confinement for 22 or 23 hours a day. He has been denied all but the most limited access to his legal team, let alone family and friends. He was kept in a glass cage during his seemingly interminable extradition hearing, appeals over which could continue for several years more years, according to Melzer. Assange’s physical and mental health have suffered to the point where he has been put on suicide watch. Again, that seems to be the point, as Melzer writes: <blockquote> The primary purpose of persecuting Assange is not – and never has been – to punish him personally, but to establish a generic precedent with a global deterrent effect on other journalist, publicists and activists. </blockquote> So will the new Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, do any more than his three Coalition and two Labor predecessors to advocate for the interests of an Australian citizen? In December 2021, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/02/labor-backbenchers-urge-albanese-to-stay-true-to-his-values-on-julian-assange-trial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guardian Australia reported</a> Albanese saying he did “not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange” and that “enough is enough”. Since being sworn in as prime minister, he has kept his cards close to his chest. The actions of his predecessors suggest he won’t, even though Albanese has already said on several occasions since being elected that he wants to do politics differently. Melzer, among others, would remind him of the words of <a href="https://theelders.org/news/only-us-president-who-didnt-wage-war" target="_blank" rel="noopener">former US president Jimmy Carter</a>, who, contrary to other presidents, said he did not deplore the WikiLeaks revelations. <blockquote> They just made public what was the truth. Most often, the revelation of truth, even if it’s unpleasant, is beneficial. […] I think that, almost invariably, the secrecy is designed to conceal improper activities. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-book-argues-julian-assange-is-being-tortured-will-our-new-pm-do-anything-about-it-183622" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Shutterstock </blockquote> </blockquote>

Books

5 ways we can argue better

Argument is everywhere. From the kitchen table to the boardroom to the highest echelons of power, we all use argument to persuade, investigate new ideas, and make collective decisions. Unfortunately, we often fail to consider the ethics of arguing. This makes it perilously easy to mistreat others — a critical concern in personal relationships, workplace decision-making and political deliberation. The norms of argument Everyone understands there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">basic norms</a> we <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Systematic_Theory_of_Argumentation.html?id=DfMih3LWVBYC&redir_esc=y">should follow when arguing</a>. Logic and commonsense dictate that, when deliberating with others, we should be open to their views. We should listen carefully and try to understand their reasoning. And while we can’t all be Socrates, we should do our best to respond to their thoughts with clear, rational and relevant arguments. Since the time of <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html">Plato</a>, these <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0">norms have been defended</a> on what philosophers call “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884">epistemic</a>” grounds. This means the norms are valuable because they promote knowledge, insight and self-understanding. What “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-teach-all-students-to-think-critically-35331">critical thinking</a>” is to internal thought processes, these “norms of argument” are to interpersonal discussion and deliberation. Why ‘ethical’ arguing is important In a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1637776">recent article,</a> I contend that these norms of argument are also morally important. Sometimes this is obvious. For example, norms of argument can overlap with commonsense ethical principles, like honesty. Deliberately misrepresenting a person’s view is wrong because it involves knowingly saying something false. More importantly, but less obviously, being reasonable and open-minded ensures we treat our partners in argument in a consensual and reciprocal way. During arguments, people open themselves up to attaining worthwhile benefits, like understanding and truth. If we don’t “play by the rules”, we can frustrate this pursuit. Worse, if we change their minds by misleading or bamboozling them, this can amount to the serious wrongs of <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40237210?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">manipulation or intimidation</a>. Instead, obeying the norms of argument shows respect for our partners in argument as intelligent, rational individuals. It acknowledges they can change their minds based on reason. This matters because <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5">rationality is an important part of people’s humanity</a>. Being “endowed with reason” is lauded in the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> to support its fundamental claim that humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Obeying the norms of argument also has good effects on our character. Staying open-minded and genuinely considering contrary views helps us learn more about our own beliefs. As philosopher <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/">John Stuart Mill observed</a>, <blockquote> He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. </blockquote> This open-mindedness helps us combat the moral perils of <a href="https://psychologenie.com/concept-of-group-polarization-in-psychology-explained">bias and groupthink</a>. What’s more, the norms of argument aren’t just good for individuals, they are also good for groups. They allow conflicts and collective decisions to be approached in a respectful, inclusive way, rather than forcing an agreement or <a href="https://theconversation.com/comic-how-to-have-better-arguments-about-the-environment-or-anything-else-98554">escalating the conflict</a>. Indeed, arguments can make collectives. Two arguers, over time, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282544990_What_Virtue_Argumentation_Theory_Misses_The_Case_of_Compathetic_Argumentation">can collectively achieve a shared intellectual creation</a>. As partners in argument, they define terms, acknowledge areas of shared agreement, and mutually explore each other’s reasons. They do something together. All this accords with everyday experience. Many of us have enjoyed the sense of respect when our views have been welcomed, heard and seriously considered. And all of us know what it feels like to have our ideas dismissed, misrepresented or caricatured. Why we have trouble arguing calmly Unfortunately, being logical, reasonable and open-minded is easier said than done. When we argue with others, their arguments will inevitably call into question our beliefs, values, experience and competence. These challenges are not easy to face calmly, especially if the topic is one we care about. This is because we like to think of ourselves as <a href="https://positivepsychology.com/self-efficacy/">effective and capable</a>, rather than mistaken or misguided. We also care about our <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?__s=goqjzsqdzqpwcb7jc8de">social standing</a> and like to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/changepower/201808/11-ways-project-confidence-and-be-taken-seriously">project confidence</a>. In addition, we suffer from <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586162">confirmation bias</a>, so we actively avoid evidence that we are wrong. Finally, we may have material stakes riding on the argument’s outcome. After all, one of the main reasons we engage in argument is to get our way. We want to convince others to do what we want and follow our lead. All this means that when someone challenges our convictions, we are psychologically predisposed to hit back hard. Worse still, our capacity to evaluate whether our opponents are obeying the norms of argument is poor. All the psychological processes mentioned above don’t just make it hard to argue calmly and reasonably. They also trick us into <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417084524.htm">mistakenly thinking our opponents are being illogical</a>, making us feel as if it’s them, and not us, who’s failing to argue properly. How should we navigate the moral complexity of arguing? Arguing morally isn’t easy, but here are five tips to help: <ol> <li> Avoid thinking that when someone starts up an argument, they are mounting an attack. To adapt a saying by <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/oscar_wilde_128481">Oscar Wilde</a>, there is only one thing in the world worse than being argued with, and that is not being argued with. Reasoned argument acknowledges a person’s rationality, and that their opinion matters. </li> <li> There is always more going on in any argument than who wins and who loses. In particular, the relationship between the two arguers can be at stake. Often, the real prize is demonstrating respect, even as we disagree. </li> <li> Don’t be too quick to judge your opponent’s standards of argument. There’s a good chance you’ll succumb to “<a href="https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn">defensive reasoning</a>”, where you’ll use all your intelligence to find fault with their views, instead of genuinely reflecting on what they are saying. Instead, try and work with them to clarify their reasoning. </li> <li> Never assume that others aren’t open to intelligent argument. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/lets-argue-communicative-action-in-world-politics/F785E45F33231B4E600F97281BA5A6A3">History is littered</a> with examples of people genuinely changing their minds, even in the most high stakes environments imaginable. </li> <li> It’s possible for both sides to “lose” an argument. The recently announced <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-question-time-becomes-political-theatre-does-it-still-play-a-vital-role-in-government-121177">inquiry into question time in parliament</a> provides a telling example. Even as the government and opposition strive to “win” during this daily show of political theatre, the net effect of their appalling standards is that everyone’s reputation suffers. </li> </ol> The upshot There is a saying in applied ethics that the worst ethical decisions you’ll ever make are the ones you don’t recognise as ethical decisions. So, when you find yourself in the thick of argument, do your best to remember what’s morally at stake. Otherwise, there’s a risk you might lose a lot more than you win.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121178/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Written by Hugh Breakey, Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University. Republished with permission of <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/actually-its-ok-to-disagree-here-are-5-ways-we-can-argue-better-121178" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Relationships

How to make excellent arguments

From as early as Grade 3 teachers start teaching children how to put across their own points of view. It’s not about winning arguments, but ensuring kids grow up to be <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0260137032000138158">thoughtful and engaged citizens</a>. These skills might come in to play at school in essay writing, in oral presentations or in debates. And whether we’re talking about making arguments for in life, there are three things present in all good arguments. 1. Reasonability Reasonability is about connecting reasons and evidence to your opinions. This serves two purposes. The first is for our own clarity of thought, so we understand how concepts and events relate to each other (or realise when they don’t). The second is so others can assess our reasons. We need to respect the person we’re arguing with and that means giving them the opportunity to agree or disagree with our reasoning. Without this, we’re tricking people into agreeing with us. One shortcoming in the <a href="https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/?strand=Language&strand=Literature&strand=Literacy&capability=ignore&priority=ignore&year=11581&elaborations=true&cd=ACELA1536&searchTerm=Modality#dimension-content">Australian Curriculum</a> is that it asks students to write persuasively, by using <a href="http://docs.acara.edu.au/curriculum/worksamples/Year_9_English_Portfolio_Below.pdf">emotive language</a>. We should be teaching our students to provide the reasoning behind their opinion as well as backing it up with evidence, not to manipulate emotions. So if students are asked to write a persuasive essay against same-sex marriage in Australia, for example, it’s not enough to assert an opinion such as “it’s bad for public morals”. They need to say which morals, how the public would suffer, and present any historical or contemporary evidence to support this claim. An argument needs to have reasoning to make it reasonable. 2. Charity Charity is one of the most overlooked aspects of debating, which is ironic considering many prominent philosophers, including <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/heyj.12009">Thomas Aquinas</a>, <a href="https://eet.pixel-online.org/files/etranslation/original/Mill,%20On%20Liberty.pdf">John Stuart Mill</a> and <a href="https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1751.pdf">David Hume</a>, saw it as as the highest of virtues. In the context of argumentation, charity means looking past the text of what someone is saying to see the heart of their issue. We’ve probably all enjoyed watching our opponent struggle to articulate their points or deconstruct arguments (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AioJbNL1JS8">President George W. Bush was famous for these gaffes</a>), but doing this serves no purpose but to humiliate. We all fail to make our arguments clear and coherent from time to time, and we need to be generous when interpreting what’s being said. If we approach all people as having worthwhile ideas that might just not be fully developed or expressed, we’ll not only reveal clearer ideas but also make everyone feel valued. And making people feel valued isn’t touchy-feely nonsense – there are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9256.12069">demonstrable benefits to learning and democracies</a> when we feel our contributions matter. Say another student has done an oral assignment on the dangers of migrants in Australia – of them supposedly taking jobs or causing fights. This may be a racist argument but a more charitable interpretation might lead the listener to take a look at the job security of the debater’s family or their experiences of safety. Their conclusion may be entirely false, but it’s worth looking into whether there are underlying reasons for their argument. Our charity here brings knowledge rather than conflict. 3. Fallibility It’s a struggle for anyone – child or adult – to admit they don’t know the answer. But the willingness to be wrong is crucial to learning. We improve our ability to find solutions when we recognise that we might be wrong or limited in our point of view. There are several major benefits in recognising our own fallibility. The first is in learning; children are far more likely to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pits.10092">be willing to try and participate</a> if there’s no need for them to get it perfect the first time round. <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46412880/Exploring_transformative_learning_and_th20160612-12330-c3kvju.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DExploring_Transformative_learning_and_th.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20190822%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190822T014719Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=14bb04b603f483a9af8462714a41fad2e76efef7bf051ed6eb40c7685e6d1dac">Failure and learning are linked</a> The second benefit is we engage in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6">more meaningful inquiry</a> <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6.pdf">if we don’t treat any one argument or perspective</a> as objectively correct. Imagine a school debate on “students shouldn’t have to do homework”. Children aren’t going to be in favour of homework and they’re going to struggle to find reasons in favour of it. At the same time, it’s the perfect topic to separate how they feel (I hate homework) from the practical benefits of doing homework (revision and improved retention). Students don’t need to change their minds and come to love homework. But having them recognise the limitations of their own perspectives is valuable. Try this out A fun way to try this out in the classroom is through a “fishbowl” exercise. This involves having some of the students sit in a circle and discuss a contentious ethical topic. The other half of students sit in a larger circle around them. Their task is to individually analyse the arguments of a specific student and look for fallacies. The outer ring gets the chance to critique the inner ring for their reasoning. After this, the inner ring gets the chance to critique the outer ring for charity. Throughout this, students develop a willingness to be wrong when they discover everyone makes mistakes. Genuine inquiry, reasonableness and open-mindedness become more important than score-keeping. It’s perfectly acceptable to want to win and to be heard. But we want to teach our kids inquiry and making everyone feel valued is more important than winning. After all, we can win and still be wrong. Written by Luke Zaphir. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">The Conversation.</a>

Legal

7 tips for arguing with someone who is "always right"

<div id="page1" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> We’ve all been there: in the middle of an argument it suddenly dawns on you that, no matter what you say or do, your opponent is going to take the win. Not because they’ve used reason and logic to secure their triumph but because they have an insatiable need to Always. Be. Right. It can be incredibly frustrating to enter into an argument with a person like this, but this character flaw can be managed. Remember, a person’s constant need to be right is most certainly masking their desperate fear of being wrong, and in the end, that fear is driving them to prevail by any means necessary. Try these tips to make these arguments and conflicts as painless as possible. <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/">Stay strong but stay calm</div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page2" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> It’s important to maintain your confidence if you truly feel you have a strong position. However, allowing emotion to enter the equation is almost always a recipe for disaster – because this tends to be seen as weakness by your challenger. Those that feel they are “always right” often pride themselves on being extremely rational. Be firm in your stance but never angry or desperate. A clear head and a steady tone will get you a lot further every time. </div> </div> </div> <div data-fuse="21833175956">Qualify each point with evidence</div> <div id="page3" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> Your rival will be intent on breaking down your argument, so make sure you can give clear evidence for each point you make. It can be pretty difficult to tear down a well-structured defence. This means you’ll need to be prepared for the pending confrontation. Ultimately, this isn’t always possible, of course, because arguments pop up at the most inopportune times, but do your best to be prepared in any case. </div> </div> </div> <div id="page4" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-title">Present facts rather than opinions</div> <div class="slide-description"> Opinions are great, but they lack power during a conflict. While how you feel is certainly valid, it is not the best technique for winning an argument. Try facts that cannot be disputed. Alternatively, you can ask for facts or proof from your challenger. Statistics and case studies might be a little bit of overkill but try to present some seriously strong data to win your case. Be warned, though, that even with a mountain of legitimate data, your adversary may still decide they’ve come out on top. </div> </div> </div> <div data-fuse="21833175500">Pick your battles</div> <div id="page5" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> If you feel your battle has become hopeless you might want to move on. For example, if you’re arguing with your work buddy over who’s the best football player of all time, there’s likely never going to be a resolution. There are too many ways to stack the deck for your player of choice. Instead, you may want to skip that argument and concentrate on things that, although might seem a little more mundane, really do affect your day-to-day life. <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/">Avoid sarcasm</div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page6" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> Sarcasm is widely considered the lowest form of humour, and is often used to hurt or insult someone. It can be easy to resort to sarcasm during an argument but it doesn’t often strengthen your case. Sarcasm will only make you seem petty and contrary. Take the high road in any encounter you may have. You feel better for it, at the very least. </div> </div> </div> <div id="page7" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-title">Consider alternatives</div> <div class="slide-description"> Just because your opponent always thinks they are right, does not mean they are always wrong. The truth is, they may occasionally be on the winning side. Consider their point of view for a moment. Could they truly be correct this time? Has their penchant for never backing down caused you to become so defensive in their presence that you can no longer see the other side? Take a minute to explore the dark side and you might be surprised at what you discover. <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/">Live to fight another day</div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page8" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> Walk away, because winning this one just might not be worth all the strife. Take your energy out of a losing battle and conserve it for another time. Don’t feel bad about conceding even if you feel you still have a horse in the race. After all, what does one really gain by arguing with someone who fails to see the legitimacy in the ideas and opinions of others? Take a step back and ask yourself if the outcome of the argument, wherever the victory falls, will really make any difference to you, at all. Written by Shanell Mouland. This article first appeared in <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/" target="_blank">Reader’s Digest</a>. For more of what you love from the world’s best-loved magazine, <a href="http://readersdigest.innovations.com.au/c/readersdigestemailsubscribe?utm_source=over60&utm_medium=articles&utm_campaign=RDSUB&keycode=WRA93V">here’s our best subscription offer.</a> </div> </div> </div> <img style="width: 100px !important; height: 100px !important;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7820640/1.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/f30947086c8e47b89cb076eb5bb9b3e2" />

Relationships

How can you heal a family fracture?

While family disagreements are normal from time to time, it can be difficult on all family members when there is ongoing conflict among one or two individuals. It can lead to feelings of hurt, stress and serious anxiety if problems are not addressed in a peaceful way. This expert advice from relationship counsellors can help you deal with a painful family rift. According to the government’s <a href="http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/">Family Relationships Online</a> some of the most common triggers to family conflict include separation or divorce, a house move, travelling long distances or commuting interstate for work and financial insecurity. However, even seemingly joyous family events such as birthdays, holidays, weddings and the birth of children can create unforeseen stress or conflict. According to experts, you don’t have to accept family conflict as the norm. Effective communication from both parties and coping strategies can help turn your family gatherings into a more positive situation for all. Communication is key “Communication is always the best method to remedy a situation. This means providing a safe environment for both people to converse and exchange feelings and thoughts,” says counselling psychotherapist <a href="http://www.drkarenphillip.com/">Dr Karen Phillip</a>. “It can be resolved even if both people may not completely agree. However, if they can agree to have different perspectives and beliefs this is a big step to acceptance and unity,” she adds. Dr Phillip says trying to walk in the other person’s shoes can often be the most challenging task during a family conflict situation. “We need to always remember that each person has a firm belief they are correct therefore it is not a matter of one admitting fault but both accepting their own differences and beliefs.” Focus on the solution Many individuals are unable to see through the problem, says Dr Phillip, when they should be focusing on the solution instead. “Before discussing the matter, have two solutions worked out and allow the other person to select the best one for them and the situation. As long as you are comfortable with either solution and they choose and own one of them, you are both on the same page and a resolution is easier and more permanent.” Dealing with family events and parties Family and relationship expert <a href="http://www.marinabakker.com/">Marina Bakker</a> says forcing people who do not want to be in the same room together, for example during family functions, can cause a great deal of hostility and animosity, which is often felt by everyone else in the same space. She says the key is to take control of only what is within our control. “We cannot change other people but we can change how we view the situation and respect people’s decisions if they decide not to attend family functions and so on,” she says. “If family members decide to attend the same function and they are prone to outburst or fights you can lay down a few boundaries prior to the event about what behaviours will or will not be accepted.” Don’t assume all of the responsibility “Family rifts and ruptures do happen and it is important not to take on other people’s responsibilities for repairing their relationship rifts,” says Bakker. Instead, focus on strengthening family relationships by practising positive behaviours such as acceptance and understanding. “When we accept things as they are it provides us with the opportunity to focus on what we can influence in a way that is not controlling or meddling,” she advises. Useful links and resources <ul> <li><a href="http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/AboutYou/Pages/default.aspx">Family Relationships Online</a> </li> <li><a href="http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Services/FRAL/Pages/default.aspx">Family Relationship Advice Line</a> (1800 050 321) </li> <li><a href="http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/BrochuresandPublications/Documents/family-counselling.pdf">Family Counselling Factsheet</a> </li> </ul> Written by Mahsa Fratantoni. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.wyza.com.au/articles/lifestyle/relationships/how-can-you-heal-a-family-fracture.aspx">Wyza.com.au.</a>

Caring

6 ways to deal with aggressive people

Unfortunately most of us will have to deal with aggressive people at some point in our lives. Whether it’s a family member, a colleague, friend, or even a neighbour – it seems as though it’s virtually impossible to get through life without having to face up to someone that can make you feel quite uncomfortable. In general, a person becomes aggressive when they feel that they are about to lose something important to them (respect, money, power, friendship) and so they want to protect themselves. They tend to be focused on themselves rather than trying to find a solution to benefit both of you. An aggressor will speak over you or talk loudly to get their point across. They dismiss your point of view or belittle you in order to ‘win’ an argument. Interacting with these sorts of people can leave you feeling exhausted as they use up your emotional energy. If you need to deal with aggressive types, follow our advice below which will allow you to be heard. <ol> <li>Out-shouting them is unlikely to resolve anything, so you are better of trying to keep your cool if you can. You can stay calm by doing some deep breathing before you speak.</li> <li>It can also be helpful to even ask the person to calm down and speak to you in a more respectful way, as often they don’t even realise that they are doing it.</li> <li>Ask them if you can set up a time to discuss the issue further when you’ve both had time to cool off and think about the outcome you want to see.</li> <li>Use words like “we can do this” or “let’s find a solution together” rather than things like “you never do this” or “you always say that”.</li> <li>Try and put yourself in their place and consider what they’ve got to lose. This can help you work out why they may be feeling upset, which will give you a potential solution to the problem.</li> <li>Keep them focused on the issue by saying things like “let’s get back to the issue at hand” or “I can see that you’re upset but there’s no need to shout at me when I am trying to help you”.</li> </ol> Have you had experience in dealing with an aggressive person? How did you handle it? We would love to hear from you in the comments. Related links: <a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/07/the-signs-of-emotional-manipulation/">How to tell if someone is trying to manipulate you</a> <a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/06/4-truths-of-forgiveness/">The 4 truths of forgiveness</a> <a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/06/steps-to-recover-from-betrayal/">13 steps to recover from betrayal</a>

Family & Pets

How to find common ground in a disagreement

Susan Krauss Whitbourne is a professor of Psychology and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She writes the Fulfilment at Any Age blog for Psychology Today. In midlife, our close relationships can experience considerable strain. The stress of work, family responsibilities, finances, and health problems can make you tense and irritable. Before you know it, you’re in an acrid disagreement with the person you love the most. How did this happen? You were hoping to have a relaxing dinner and now it’s turned into an emotional mess. As you attempt to restore harmony, you search through your recall of what just happened to find what to say that will get things back on track. You wish the problem would just go away and don’t know how to make that happen. You may be surprised to learn, then, that conflict doesn’t have to be damaging at all to a relationship and, according to recent research, it may even help keep the relationship healthy and vital. University of California Berkeley psychologists Amie Gordon and Serena Chen (2016) decided to examine the factors that allow couples to argue without destroying their relationship quality or perhaps even improving it. They believe that conflicts are caused by misunderstandings, and “conflict between romantic partners is detrimental to relationship quality only when people do not feel understood by their partners” (p. 240). It’s fine to engage in the inevitable conflict with your partner that accompanies any close relationship, as long as you can communicate a message of understanding in the process. Gordon and Chen investigated their hypothesis through a series of seven studies, ranging from correlational to experimental, in which they assessed whether partners who felt more understood could emerge from a conflict retaining their previous feelings of satisfaction. Rather than rely on the typical college student sample alone (although they did for one of the studies), they sampled from a nationally recruited range of adults in long-term relationships. Key to their method was a focus on how partners perceived the conflict, not necessarily how they behaved. The most intriguing study in the Berkeley series involved creating, experimentally, the feeling of being understood during an argument. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in a fight with their partner under one of two conditions. In the “understood” condition, they were told to imagine their partner could see how they felt, and in the misunderstood condition, participants were told to imagine their partner did not understand them. The results consistently pointed to that sense of perceived understanding as counteracting the potentially negative effects of conflict. Indeed, It’s this sense of being understood that becomes the buffer against feeling hopeless about your relationship. Perhaps this is why, when you see couples staying together despite what looks to you like a miserable relationship, you’re not getting the full picture. They may bicker constantly all day long but they can still go to bed feeling content with each other. In midlife, we may have more stresses that cause conflicts to bubble up during the course of an ordinary day. However, we also have greater and deeper knowledge of our intimate partners. As long as you use that knowledge to show that you “get” your partner’s point of view, that conflict may turn out to deepen your relationship even further. When is a time that conflict helped your relationship? Let us know in the comments below. Written by Susan Krauss Whitbourne. First appeared on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a>. Looking for love – or perhaps you just want to meet some new people? <a href="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/301420739;128433504;u" target="_blank">Why not sign up at RSVP today by clicking here… You never know who is just around the corner.</a> Related links: <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/2016/08/attracting-emotionally-unavailable-partners/">3 reasons you attract emotionally unavailable partners</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/2016/08/why-some-people-take-breakups-harder-than-others/%20">Why some people take breakups harder than others</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/2016/07/relationship-advice-to-ignore/">5 pieces of relationship advice you really should ignore</a>

Relationships

How to tell if someone is trying to manipulate you

A healthy relationship is inherent with ups and downs. At its core it must be based on trust, mutual respect and security. That doesn’t mean that everything will always run perfectly or that we will never make a mistake. It does however mean that disagreements and arguments won’t dismantle the foundations upon which the relationship is built. Unfortunately, some relationships lack the respect, trust and security necessary for a long-term, healthy relationship. Emotionally manipulative or controlling behaviour can be a subtle and deceptive way of completely dismantling and derailing a relationship. Here are the five signs of an emotional manipulator. <ol> <li>They turn your words to benefit them – A manipulator struggles to accept responsibility for their behavior and even when in the wrong, find a way to turn things around to make you feel bad or guilty. For example, if you were to raise a concern about their lack of participation at meal time, a manipulator wouldn’t apologise or acknowledge their actions, instead throwing the onus back on you and your inability to ask for help or cope with simple events.</li> <li>They say something and later deny it – A manipulator is very good at saying yes to a request or commitment then pulling out at the last minute while forgetting they ever agreed in the first place. They’ll find a way of twisting your previous discussions to make you look like the forgetful or irresponsible one.</li> <li>They use guilt trips as a control mechanism – This is the ultimate in manipulative, passive aggressive behaviour stirring up sympathy and guilt in equal measures. “Don’t worry about doing the dishes, I’ll just do them like I go every night, even though I have this awful dermatitis on my hands that gets irritated by the dishwashing liquid.” This is playing the victim role to get what they want; their own way.</li> <li>They diminish your problems as insignificant – If you say you’ve had a bad day with the traffic, they’ll tell you they had a worse one. If you mentioned your bad back is playing up, they’ll remind you of their awful recurring neck injury. You can’t win in these situations and it’s generally better to just walk away.</li> <li>They suck the energy out of a room – A manipulator has a way of making everyone and everything in a room ‘all about them’. They want the attention and focus of the room and want to make sure everyone notices how they’re feeling. People will often scramble to accommodate a manipulator. The best thing you can do? Leave the room. You don’t need to share your energy with anyone else.</li> </ol> Have you ever had experience with an emotional manipulator? Tell us about your experience in the comments below. Related links: <a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/06/the-best-way-to-apologise-according-to-science/">The best way to apologise, according to science</a> <a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/05/why-always-being-right-is-ruining-your-relationship/">Always being right is ruining your relationship</a> <a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/05/marriage-secrets-from-relationship-experts/">6 marriage secrets relationship experts want you to know</a>

Relationships

All families argue. Don’t they?

Any family will tell you they’ve had their fair share of arguments. Fighting with the people closest to you is a fact of life but when squabbles become particularly heated or frequent it’s a problem you need to take some care in handling. You only have one family so it’s important to deal with the fight. Families have been torn apart by regretful words and actions. It’s a situation nobody wants so here are a few ways to deal effectively with family arguments.Cool offIt’s hard to do after a fight but try and stay calm. Often our emotions get the best of us during an argument and we do or say things we regret. Go for a walk to clear your head so when you come back, you will be in a much better frame of mind to have a calm discussion. Similarly, don’t force the issue and let other family members cool off.Talk and listenLeaving the issue alone will not resolve it. Talk to each other about your problems but avoid being accusatory. Remember, listening is just as important. Try and understand the perspective of the other person. Just like you, they will have valid concerns that you should consider.Be the bigger personDon’t be the stubborn one; be the bigger person.  Someone has to make the first move to mend the relationship. Often you’ll find your family member just as eager to forgive and forget.Choose to forgiveYou may still be angry but think about how the future will be if the relationship is not healed. Holding onto a grudge is not healthy so choose to let go of any resentment or hurt.Don’t gossipEven if you are just relaying what happened to another family member, consider how the other person will view it. They may feel like you are talking about them behind their back and trying to get other family members on your side. Of course, this is not true but with hurt feelings the situation may be viewed differently. It’s always best to talk to the person directly.Stay in contactWith families spread so far and wide these days, it may be tempting to just pretend the fight didn’t happen. However, it’s not healthy to completely cut off contact with your family - it often leads to an irreparable relationship. Keep them up to date with any important news (birth, marriages and deaths) and send them out the annual Xmas card. With time arguments often resolve themselves.Professional helpRather than dragging another family member to mediate, consider professional help. These are people qualified to help families deal with conflict. Often it helps to have an objective third party who can help solve the issues.

Family & Pets

Arguing can lead to weight gain

Battles with your spouse can be linked to battles with your weight finds a new study.Researchers at Ohio State University discovered that arguing with your partner was linked to an appetite-triggering hormone called ghrelin.The study looked at 43 couples who had been married for a minimum of three years, ate a meals together and then tried to resolve a conflict in their relationships. They also completed questionaries, which included responses to their general anxiety symptoms and sleep quality, and had a sample of blood and saliva taken, so levels of stress-related hormones and immune cells could be tested.The study results, published in Clinical Psychological Science, indicated there was a link between marital distress and poor food choices, with the aftermath of fights typically leaving couples reaching for junk food.Lead study author, Lisa Jaremka, a University of Delaware assistant professor specialising in psychology and brain sciences, said: “Ghrelin's not just pushing you to eat. It's creating a craving for specific types of foods: those that are high in sugar, high in fat and high in salt.”Jaremka says the study was prompted by data that suggested couples who experienced high levels of marital difficulties were more likely to suffer from weight-related health problems and tended to have shorter life spans.She emphasised there was nothing to suggest fighting caused hunger, but there findings suggested a strong correlation between the two. It is hoped these results will lead to greater understanding of the link between marital hardships and health problems.Related links:<a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/09/tips-for-working-through-relationships-problems/">10 great tips for surviving challenging moments in relationships</a><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/09/signs-of-unhealthy-relationship/">6 signs of an unhealthy relationship</a><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/08/cheeky-older-couples/">11 cheeky couples who prove love only gets better with age</a>

Relationships

Arguing can lead to weight gain

Relationships

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws