From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 16:42:14 MDT
Alex writes
> [Lee writes]
> >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!
Don't *DO* that! 8^D it's *scary*! (just joking, of course)
> I mean, we've got, right here, an actual
> real-time incidence of misunderstanding...
> In my paragraph,
> _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.
> 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.
You're right! It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part,
and I did not review the paragraph carefully that I
was responding to.
> >>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.
Well, even if I was *always* totally clear, this is
bound to happen unless you studied my posts extremely
thoroughly. But even then, suppose that I had a
coherent essay, and then decided some paragraph was
superfluous, failing to notice that it tied together
a couple of things.... well, you'd still have that
impression.
But yes, we do classify things differently sometimes.
And yes, sometimes the links in other people's reasoning
are not as clear to one as they are to the writer.
>>> 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?...
No. It was clear to me that you thought that something
was 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.
Yes, I understand. But if you said "I think that
snow is black" I would probably disagree. That is,
I would disagree with the results of your thinking.
> Am I getting too alien here?
Perhaps. ;-) My guess is that it's customary and okay
to disagree with people when they've said "I believe X"
or "I think X" if you don't believe or think X yourself.
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:18 MST