I am not one to enjoy slapstick, however, the Monty Python skit I viewed from the Blackboard post was very funny this evening. I am not sure if it was based on being so silly, and thus so funny, or if it really had a point. I feel like we argue at times in circles, whether intentionally or not. So whether arguing for argument sake or for a true point, an argument can be very silly. In our professional life, one may have felt like this skit where you were very serious about a situation or a point or issue and you get the round around and not matter how much you know it is the round around, you continue to argue the point. I believe that men and women are this way naturally, perhaps that Venus and Mars thing is true.
In light of the assignment, persuasive argument, we need to take a stand, have a good foundation, solicit solid coalitions, and continue to advocate for our passion. The need for competent, yet practical argument is essential. Keeping in line with the issue, we need to be in touch with the audience we may have and effectively “get what we want”.
Very good lessons drawn from a very silly skit. When I first came across the whole Monty Python genre many years ago, I was more embarrassed that amused.
Eventually I came to terms with the close relationship to reality of this form of parody, and could just relax and laugh at it. In a very boring interview, Cleese addressed the genesis of the MP form of humor. (Another of my favourites is the opening scene from the “Holy Grail”–the discussion about the power of leaders–with which I think you are already familiar.