Call Gabrielle Giffords, Gabrielle Griffins, and you could be in for a lashing. In the court of debate, any advantage to be found is often relished.
The person with a civil tongue, though, well might not even correct such an error.
Other errors demand correction.
Take the immigration issue. Some have suggested Utah implement a program allowing the immigrants to work here. No, that won't work, as federal authorization for work is required under 8 USC 1324a, comes the reply. Well, comes the counter response, we will get a federal waiver that allows those from other lands to work here.
No such waiver covers such work, comes the reply.
Sometimes, the corrections go back and forth, one correcting the other, and the other correcting the person who corrected him/her. In the example above, if a person were to find a waiver that applied to immigration, they would offer that as a correction.
So, the civil person considers which errors are in need of correction, and which are not. The civil person does not simply look for something to make the other person look bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment