From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 04:42:54 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>
>
>>>I say that people's reason and experience should cause them
>>>to conclude that they should obey even the laws they disagree
>>>with, (fanciful exceptions aside, and it being understood
>>>that one lives in a fundamentally democratic society).
>>>
>>You utterly refuse to consider that your position is
>>authoritarian nonsense even when extreme examples that have been
>>presented to you are shown to be altogether too real. Just
>>exactly what is your agenda? If you are serious about this
>>position I would not find you a trustworthy neighbor in these
>>increasingly irrational and litigious times.
>>
>
> Up till now, this has been a pretty solid exchange, but your
> language waxes intemperate. I "utterly refuse"? Not at all.
> I still have an open mind regarded this issue, and welcome
> criticism.
Some parts of the discussion, including some parts of your own
contributions, were indeed solid. But characterizing a rather
large list of objections and objectional implications of the
supposed goodness of obeying even bad laws as "fanciful
exceptions" is most certainly not an example of solid
discussion. It is dismissive of important points raised. It is
not the first time I have notice this in your part of this
discusion. It became tiresome enough to object.
Life is also short, I don't have time for endless "discussion"
air-splitting that ignores some of the core issues. Especially
not while our freedoms are being soundly ignored and over-turned.
>
> Did you see where I gently corrected your restatement of my
> position, where you had inserted the word "always"? Was I
> wrong? Did I get some emails confused or forget something
> that I wrote?
>
Actually the initial implication was of always. Your correction
corrected your own contextual implication. Which is ok but
where you corrected that you also dismissed with wording like
the above the valid and strong objections to your position. I
have a problem with that.
> Next, you retreat to accusing me of having some agenda. I'd
> really like to know what goes on in your mind and that of
> one other poster who used to make this same frequent charge.
> Surely you don't suspect me of infiltrating this list with
> some malicious intent? What do you mean by that, anyway?
>
I asked what your agenda is. Are you just taking a stroll
through an idea space or do you have a conclusion in mind or
what? That is different from "accusing" you of anything. I do
sometimes wonder, to be frank, whether you have more fun playing
a discussion for all it is worth regardless of whether this
leads to resolution or good communication, simply because you
enjoy that.
> As for my being a trustworthy nature, well, I could fire
> back that I'd probably not approve of your behavior on a
> jury, or wouldn't recommend you to counsel young people
> in trouble, or perhaps several other things. But where
> does that get us? Do you really think that there was any
> substance in your paragraph above? Are you making any
> attempt to understand my point of view? (I assure you
> that it is fairly common!)
>
Where indeed? I have made effort to understand your point of
view. I partially do understand it. What I don't understand is
the way you seem to continually bat objections to your original
statement of it that many found extreme aside while giving
minimal consideration of the objection (until some better recent
exchanges anyway).
> In other posts, I gave reasons *supporting* my statement
> above. Unless I missed it, you haven't attended to those
> reasons. I'll be happy to repeat them, if you'd like.
Please don't. I found them quite inadequate support for such a
broad statement.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:49 MST