From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:17:55 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>Alex writes
>
>>_Any_ use of personal abuse or personal derogatory comments or claims
>>without proof (such as 'so-and-so is naive and stupid because they don't
>>agree with me') is abhorrent to me and has no place in a rational
>>argument. Only you can know if you have stooped to this.
>>
>[snip]
>I will pay $1000 to anyone who can find an instance of me
>calling anyone else "stupid". I'm trying to imagine how
>I could even have called anyone "naive"---it seems possible,
>though, if I had a qualifier around it, e.g., ... no, sorry,
>I can't even think of how that might happen. But I will pay
>only $50 for each instance where I called someone "naive".
>
Right, Lee, we've got one! I mean, we've got, right here, an actual
real-time incidence of misunderstanding...
In my paragraph, I am using the words 'naive' and 'stupid' as examples
of _the sorts of things_ people might get called. You take it that I
mean those words literally and those words alone, to the extent of
betting you didn't say them. I sussed that, only because we were looking
for possible bugs; I may not have realised it otherwise.
I don't know if this is any use or not, but anyway...
>
>>Deliberately trying to confuse a person by jumping from subject to
>>subject or changing the subject completely or making arbitrary
>>connections where none actually exist because other people are too
>>confused or emotional to notice is mean and has no place in a rational
>>argument. Only you can know if you have done this.
>>
>
>Never. I strive for clarity.
>
This must be me then; not following the links in your reasoning...maybe
I classify 'subjects' in a different way...I _know_ I classify memories
in a bloody weird way.
>
>
>>Assuming someone is less intelligent than you because they are less able
>>to control their emotions or are particularly sensitive to emotive
>>issues is not interaction; it causes action / reaction and its only
>>results are mistrust and unhappiness. Only you know if you do this.
>>
>[snip]
>Amara once told me offline that I tended to make people
>feel stupid, or something. Unfortunately, she was going
>away at the time, and I couldn't follow up on this. I'm
>not sure what she was trying to say.
>
This is exactly what happens to me, all the time. I have no answer, but
I do forewarn people. : )
>
>>Only _you_ know the truth about yourself. I think
>>it is completely wrong for anyone to judge your
>>intentions without the information inside your
>>mind.
>>
>
>Well, Alex, thanks for the "not guilty" through insufficient
>evidence ;-) , but I must disagree. Conjectures about almost
>*anything* are welcome to me, provided that they're in good
>taste, conducted politely, and seem to be pointing at
>something interesting about our universe (including, of
>course, those of us in it).
>
Ooooh, brilliant, here's another one...Look at what I _said_, then
explain to me _what_ you disagree with...Do you disagree with the fact
that I think something is wrong?...I never said you had to think it's
wrong too...I just said 'I think'. I know it's true that I think that.
Am I getting too alien here?
Ramonsky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:18 MST