about scoring own goals in persuasion

An interesting piece today about persuasion.


Scoring own goals – perils of passion
TODAY, Thursday • November 15, 2007
Adrian Tan

As Singapore attempts to become a global city like London and New York, there will be more diversity, more debates and more issues that generate plenty of emotion.
But if the recent debate on Section 377A is anything to go by, Singaporeans have a lot to learn about how to persuade others of the rightness of their cause.

Engaging in debate is not all about persuasive arguments and scoring points. It requires strengthening your defence as much as spicing up your attack. It is about avoiding own goals such as gratuitously saying or doing things that upset your target audiences.

Ultimately, a good, civilised debate is about good public relations and knowing which emotional buttons to push or not to push. In the debate about whether to decriminalise sex between men, bad public relations spoiled the message that each side tried to convey.

Those who supported the repeal of the law, a loose coalition of human rights and homosexual activists, suffered at the hands of one of their own.
There was poet Alfian Sa'at's email to Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann. Not only was it in bad taste, but he also had not checked his facts before sending it. And he had sent it after a night of partying.
Mr Alfian's email and the threat of violence later against Prof Thio made me wonder if, as a supporter of the repeal (because I cannot understand the logic of having a law that will not be "actively enforced", not because of minority rights), I was associating with the wrong people and that those who wanted to retain 377A had a point when they talked of standards dropping if it were to be repealed.

Fortunately for Brand Repeal, the insults hurled against the pro-377A camp were not via the mainstream media. Many neutrals were not aware of the offensive language used on the Internet against those seeking to retain the law.

No such luck for Brand Retain. Their insults appeared in the letters section of newspapers. I am not the only person appalled by the tone of the language against homosexuals.

Then, there were Prof Thio's remarks in Parliament on anal sex. I do not know how it came across to others, but I was annoyed that someone of her intellect and standing would say what she said (about shoving a straw up your nose to drink). It was not even relevant, as the very same Penal Code (Amendment) Bill being debated had proposed that anal sex between a man and a woman be made lawful.

In fact, the moralists' silence on heterosexual anal sex is disconcerting, given that many of them consider it perverse or unnatural.
By loudly opposing the repeal of 377A, but not anal sex per se, those who believe that morality has a part to play in the framing of our policies and laws have raised the issue of whether they will publicly oppose all policies that offend their morality.
True, they did speak out against the licensing of casinos, but another topic seems taboo.
As a supporter of a woman's right to abort and of the Government's stance on abortion, I find the silence of moralists on this issue deafening.

Are there exceptions to the view that law and policy must be grounded in morality? Or am I wrong, and abortion is not offensive to morality here?

But just as moralists can be perceived as selective in their targets, homosexual rights activists, too, possibly have a blind spot in their defence. I am not the only person who thinks they can be extremely pushy and often have the "I'm smarter than the average bear" attitude. They may want to reconsider their tactics. A bit more subtlety and humility would help.

The best takeaway from the 377A debate would be if both the Repealists and the Moralists, as well as others passionate about their pet causes, were to learn to see things from the perspective of those who have not invested any amount of emotion on the cause. Passion is useful in selling an idea, but it can lead to own goals. And the best way to have more civilised debates is to avoid such own goals.
After all, a successful football manager once said that "strikers win games, defences win trophies".

The writer is a freelancer who usually writes on financial and commercial matters.