posted
I posit this might be the interpretation if you are already in a defensive position, I'm not and therefore don't see the insults, rhetorically lumped or by implication.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it isn't changing the point at all. It was illustrating another facet of the same broader point. How you communicate is just as important as the message. And there are people on this forum who are most likely not awake right now, who are far, far pissier than I, about such things. I was using myself as an example because it was kindest.
Now if you don't care what they think of you, that's fine. But why are you posting on a forum at all if you don't care about what the people reading it think? If you do care, then you try to communicate in the form which will make them the most receptive to your ideas. If you don't actually care, then it's useless verbal masturbation. I believe that masturbation, of any kind, should generally be kept as a private activity for the good of society.
posted
That particular sentence doesn't even imply, Tim. It outright states that he believes he's rigorously considered his own beliefs in more depth than anyone on this board has considered their own -- although I'll concede that grammatical vagueness makes it possible that he meant he's considered his own beliefs more than anyone else here has considered his beliefs. But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense, most of the people who've read that sentence appear to have interpreted it the first way. And if so, that's an outright statement of moral superiority.
I do not automatically concede, for example, that OSC has necessarily considered his beliefs more than I have considered my own. I'm willing to grant the possibility, but I consider it a little uncharitable of him to take that as a given.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Actually it isn't changing the point at all. It was illustrating another facet of the same point. How you communicate is just as important as the message. And there are people on this forum who are most likely not awake right now, who are far, far pissier than I, about such things.
Now you interpret me as calling you "pissy."
I don't think you're pissy at all. I think you are a nice, polite, well-meaning and reasonably intelligent person who is operating on grossly flawed premises about how language works. Like this
quote: How you communicate is just as important as the message.
Because of false premises like those, you continue to misunderstand me, and Card, and others. You start by equating substance with style in importance, and you end up confusing substance with style.
I said that Tom's delivery had a pissy effect, and you disagreed. I tried to illustrate to you how pissy it would be for me to track-switch on you like Tom did on me, and you thought I was actually critiquing your spelling, and defended yourself. I then told you your spelling was fine, so you thought I was accusing you of being pissy. Look -- you might have a horrible opinion of me as a person, but I don't see you that way at all. I'm sorry if I offended you on Ornery, and I really appreciate your giving me another chance here. I think you're dead wrong about equating style to substance, but please don't take my disagreement personally.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are only a few people here who know me well enough to define what I believe in or what response I'll have to any given situation or comment. Card isn't one of those people. How could I assume that he was targeting me? It would seem to me to be either paranoid or self-agrandizing.
So while I do consider myself a part of the community, I don't pretend to speak for the community, nor do I expect the community to speak for me. I love this community specifically for the fact that it is so diverse, yet so cohesive. And, IMO, the glue is the concept that we all secretly or openly want to be "Makers".
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now Tom, you could have completely left out the "But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense" and said the same thing.
Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume that you aren't calling me an idiot.
Ping! You noticed that, you note, enough to reply. And yet even then it still wasn't as blatant as "people who are unfamiliar with human nature will tell you that this sort of comment isn't meant to be insulting," which is roughly parallel to the quotes in question.
(And no, I don't think you're an idiot. I'd appreciate it if OSC, now that we've questioned him about it, would clarify his own statements that way.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ghengis, you didn't call me pissy. I called myself pissy and only in a relative sense to others that frequent this forum.
There is an entire thread on the other side on Grammar Nazism and how judging people on incompetent grammar may be a less than ideal character trait. Those who would like to change their judgementalness discuss how it is also a hard habit to break. But, more frequently than not in Real Life their prejudgemnts of character based on grammar turn out to be true, even though they feel guilty for the genuinely nice people they accidently misjudged.
posted
Tom, I don't think you grasp what an ad homeniem is. An ad homeniem is not equal to a personal attack. It's the subset of personal attacks used to dismiss the substance of what someone is saying. Like the way most people use the word "bigot," as "a dangerous person whose views must not be listened to."
OSC does sideswipe, and you could reasonably take some of the remarks personally. But he isn't using those insults to dismiss the substance of what anyone is saying.
Your little victimization psychoanalysis, however, does dismiss the substance of his remarks, in context, when you don't otherwise address the substance. *That* is an ad homeniem.
If you had made a coherent substantive response to OSC's remarks, and then, at the end, made your complaint about his style, I don't think his response would have been hostile. The problem was that your rhetorical critique came in lieu of a substantive response. That is track-switching, and like I said, it's a bore.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pete, did you see my little summary of the thread above? Go back and read it. What you consider "substantive" and what I consider "substantive" for the purposes of this thread are two different things, as we clearly disagree on what the substance of the thread actually is.
And, again, I'm perfectly willing to drop out of this conversation if you'll tell me when exactly you planned to bring this up with OSC. Unless of course you don't think we should ever mention it -- which kind of puts the lie to your whole "timing" bit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure I noticed it. And I only pointed it out to tweak your nose, as you probably also guessed.
Tom, I used to find you insufferably rude and dismissive until I realized that you aren't... if that makes any sense. Now, I don't focus on the flack, I focus on your substance. For me, the turning point was when I was faced with a situation where I was 100% sure you were not trying to be a dick. You were simply trying to help me understand and the subject was close to your heart. (False sexual harrassment charges in the workplace.)
At that point I realized that your writing style is part of who you are, not an indictment of me. I'm a much better and appreciative reader of TomDavidson since that time.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what it comes down to, is the question of "Is Appearance Reality?" which is what I was trying to get at by my grammar discussion. Considering what percentage of the human race runs their lives on the premise that appearances are reality, I think it can be taken as a working fact.(the statistics on beautiful people being sucessful in the workplace are only the tip of the iceberg)
It doesn't mean it's actually true, because appearances aren't necessarily reality. But so many people act as if they are, you are stuck with it. Even those of us who try not to succumb, still do in certain areas. Maybe it's just plain human nature.
Either way This is why the appearance is as important as the message if you want the message to be interpreted correctly and marketing is a gazillion dollar industry.
posted
In certain contexts, appearance is reality; in others, appearance is not reality. In some contexts style is more important than substance; in others; substance is more important.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Tom Wrote
quote: That particular sentence doesn't even imply, Tim. It outright states that he believes he's rigorously considered his own beliefs in more depth than anyone on this board has considered their own -- although I'll concede that grammatical vagueness makes it possible that he meant he's considered his own beliefs more than anyone else here has considered his beliefs. But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense, most of the people who've read that sentence appear to have interpreted it the first way. And if so, that's an outright statement of moral superiority.
This sentence does not "outright states" that he "rigorously considered his own beliefs in more depth than anyone on this board has considered their own", otherwise there wouldn't be any discussion. And we have no way of knowing how many people have interpreted this to mean your first or second interpretation but I'm sure you would agree that if you are defensive you will be offended more easily than if you are not. Ultimately, I wonder why you would chose to be offended rather than not? Wouldn't it be the most prudent to give the benefit of the doubt, if you in fact have doubt?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Will you concede, Pete, that style is pretty darn important in a persuasive essay?
I already did, when I agreed with what you said.
I merely suggested that you should have delivered it in a useful way, rather than tying the message to a brick and pitching it through his window.
Note that when I critiqued your delivery, that I at least took the trouble to address the substance of what you said first.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I translate it as, those who disagree with me are uneducated idiots and those who agree with me are uneducated idiots.
Kind of insults everyone and puts himself in a nice little ivory tower, even though he purports to hate ivory towers. Follow that thought through to its conclusion and it makes him a hypocrite.
OSC isn't a hypocrite, but he sure leaves himself wide open for the interpretation. And when a good writer leaves himself that wide open, you wonder if he really might have meant it that way, since you know he could write well enough to avoid that interpretation if he'd felt like it.
quote:I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
Much of his essay is a diatribe against people who don't question their beliefs, but rest complacent in their own little ideological ghetto. So in context, it certainly seems that he is referring to people questioning their own beliefs, not his.
Look, these sort of unnecessary and negative comments are like waving a red flag at a bull. It's bull nature to charge at the flag, and it's human nature to charge at the comments. Yes, the bull will soon find out that the point isn't the flag, but the sword that the bullfighter has, and we already know that Card's point isn't those negative comments, but if you are writing persuasively, or even expository, you don't want to detract from your point with red flags.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not track-switching. Card has left us with two tracks, and there is more to debate about on this track.
There are accusations that we are deliberately missing the real point by focusing on these issues. Well, there was more than one point to that essay.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because he does it for a living, doesn't mean he won't make mistakes or be misinterpretted.
I'm having a hard time understanding all the venom. Maybe I'm just not emotionally invested enough to find offense.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My venom and offense have passed. What remains is a mystification: Why does someone of such talent and understanding choose to dilute his message? For heaven's sake, I agree with almost everything he said, but there is enough in there that is distracting to make it less convincing.
How can I point people, especially not on Hatrack, to this when the tone will drive them away? I want to convince people, and Card is a much better writer than I am, and his logic is better than mine as well. But it's the packaging. Okay, Card is acting as a pundit, not as an author here. But who is more convincing: Doug Giles or Charles Krauthammer? Packaging does affect effect.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, accusing those who disagree with Card or his methods as "Card-bashing" is a "poisoning the well" argument.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's careless interpretation on your part.
quote:So when I address, for example, the possible consequences of redefining marriage in a way that I think poses a serious threat to our ability as a community to provide the reproductive security that a civilized community absolutely must provide to survive (and I'm not speaking of homosexual marriage here, all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers, or not JUST that
Those not reading what he said in a self-centered way, notice that his barb goes BOTH ways, not just to pro-ssm folk, but to anti-as well. That's more obvious when he says:
quote:But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
There are more of them in his essay. I don't get how you and Tom miss these clues. No; this isn't about you. OSC is talking about tribalism, and that cuts both ways.
Over the years, OSC has zinged me more than a few times. Sometimes it annoys me, and sometimes it outright angers me, but never has it dulled my senses to the point where I started whole threads about my wounded feelings and about how OSC ought to change his ways in order for my sake.
For example, I'm pro-choice, meaning that I don't trust the government with sovereignty over a woman's body. I consider abortion a horror, but giving government right to make reproductive choices on our behalf, for me is a greater horror. OSC appears to consider my position monstruous. Why would I want to respond "how dare you call me a monster," and all that gas? OSC can consider me a monster, and still contemplate and respond to my arguments.
Much easier to converse with someone who thinks me to be an interesting monster, than to try to reason with someone who dismisses all of my arguments and perceptions, because of my religion, and treats me like I'm not a real individual, but just a mindless spokesman for my church.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: Incidentally, accusing those who disagree with Card or his methods as "Card-bashing" is a "poisoning the well" argument.
And arguing against a statement that no one on this thread made, is a "straw man" argument.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
quote: I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
tern Wrote
quote: Much of his essay is a diatribe against people who don't question their beliefs, but rest complacent in their own little ideological ghetto. So in context, it certainly seems that he is referring to people questioning their own beliefs, not his.
Again, it would appear this is a matter of personal interpretation. I do not take offense to this statement. I have not even debated on this forum with anyone about knowing how to question my own beliefs. How would the signs be known to him then? Why would I be personally insulted? In general though, I have to admit I hardly see anyone, anywhere questioning their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree that this is rare to non existent? When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs? And how was that shown to you?
I guess I choose to believe the statements are not personal attacks. And your right OSC is a great author.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
Card did what, other than accurately anticipate some of the responses here?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom was just playing with your house rule that places substance and style on equal levels.
Substance is far more important than style in some situations; in others, style is more important than substance. The only situation I can think of where they are exactly equal in importance, is when you are writing a postmodern essay.
But it's not just stylistic: OSC made some pretty bad accusations, and he made them about pretty much everyone here. Responding to that is substantive.
It's not related to the substance of what OSC was trying to say. But it is related to the substance of what he said.
quote:I see that there is a bit of name-calling, but it is minor and it is directed at an undefined "them".
It's also an attempt to claim sole possession of a credential that I know for a fact he does not uniquely possess, especially when the "them" he claims does not possess it includes the posters of Hatrack.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
Card did what, other than accurately anticipate some of the responses here?
OSC pretty much accused all of us of being masters of self-deception. I've seen OSC use his perception of someone else's "real motives" to seriously insult him.
Either OSC doesn't think these are wrong (which I don't think is the case), or he thinks it's appropriate to comment on people when they do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are more of them in his essay. I don't get how you and Tom miss these clues.
I don't. I'm not complaining about his partisanship. I'm complaining about his use of insults. That he insults a whole bunch of people does not in fact negate my argument.
quote: OSC can consider me a monster, and still contemplate and respond to my arguments.
I have trouble understanding why you believe this. I believe he can call you a monster and still contemplate your arguments, but I think it's very unlikely that they'd get a fair shake if he actually considered you one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the substance of OSCs post was that communities that thrive will have values that benefit the community.
The reasoning OSC asked us to follow was as follows: Many / most / at least my religion require their members to adopt certain beliefs about marriage, divorce, promiscuity, extra-marital affairs Many / most / at least my religion can be deemed to be a successful community due to the size and cohesiveness of the society. Other communities that do not adopt these beliefs can be shown to be unsuccessful (ie decline and fall of Rome)
Therefore the beliefs that many / most / at least my religion regarding marriage, divorce, promiscuity, extra-marital affairs are fundamental cornerstones of community / society and civilisation. These beliefs are important and true and because they are important and true they are part of our religion.
So, to my question: 1) Is Hatrack a successful community? 2) If so what are our values and beliefs that make it successful?
My take on this: 1) Yes it is a successful community. There are many REAL (see other thread) Jateraqueros (sp?), many Jateraqueros invest a lot of time in this community, many of us care about each other deeply 2) Well to answer this we have to look at our behaviours, how they have changed, how we police ourselves in order to get an indication of what behaviours are sufficiently disruptive to be seen to be disruptive to our society.
Possible Behaviours for analysis 1) Using OSC rather than any other name to refer to our host 2) Not flaming our host 3) Being able to politely disagree with our host 4) Understanding that style and substance are equally important 5) Understanding that any failure in our communication is always the fault of the party that posted and not the fault of the person reading it 6) Ascertaining that Jateraqueros are real 7) Having a number of ‘fluffy’ threads 8) Sharing out problems 9) Landmarks 10) Not posting ‘I agree’ and then reiterating all the same points 11) Back up arguments with evidence 12) Requiring sources 13) Not expecting our status in the real world to carry any weight here
Please add to the list and let me know which of the above you think are intrinsic to keeping this community together.
One difficultly however, is that OSC has more latitude when it comes to breaking the Hatrack social norms ....
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
This is an utterly useless statement, one whose only possible intention could have been to insult everyone who read it. It essentially said, "If you disagree with me, you don't understand what we're arguing about, and if you agree with me you also don't understand what we're arguing about, but you're happy we have same opinion."
That said, I didn't take offense, because the best way to respond to blanket statements that are meant to provoke is not to.
GhC -- Your assertion that Tom's critique was stylistic in nature and poorly timed is foolish.
He has a valid criticism of OSC's op-ed style. OSC does fireball and alienate whole groups of people in his essays, and everyone in this thread seems to take that as a given. So no matter when or how this is brought to his attention it'll be a stylistic critique.
And by whose definition of 'poorly timed' are we going? Yours? I can't see why. Bottom line, most of the regulars know that OSC swoops in, posts back to back on the threads he feels like posting in, and disappears for weeks. So if the goal of the "stylistic critique" is for the person at whom it's directed to actually see it, then it was perfect timing. And OSC did see it, which bears out my postulate.
quote:How you communicate is just as important as the message.
This is not a false premise. This is a widely held theory that's backed up by numerous studies. Most prominently here: Mehrabian, Albert. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Oldie Atherton, Inc.
This is the theory that says that face-to-face communication is divided into three components:
The words themselves which communicate 7%
The tonality used in delivering those words which is meant to convey 38%
The body language accompanying the other two, which is said to convey 55%.
Now obviously there's no body language in an online forum, which is why most of our miscommunications occur. But that doesn't change the fact that how you say something is roughly 5 times as important as what you say.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general though, I have to admit I hardly see anyone, anywhere questioning their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree that this is rare to non existent?
No, at least not here.
quote:When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs? And how was that shown to you?
It happens all the time on the other side. It is the most evident when someone posts a belief or questions their belief, reads some responses, and then reconciles the belief with the new information.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well camus, if what you claim is true then this is really a very spectacular and unique place. In my experience people's beliefs are rarely changed and in fact held to more tightly when challenged. I think I'll post a new topic asking for testimony to the transformation of beliefs. I hope your right.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are more of them in his essay. I don't get how you and Tom miss these clues.
I don't. I'm not complaining about his partisanship. I'm complaining about his use of insults. That he insults a whole bunch of people does not in fact negate my argument.
I never said it did. Again (4), I tentatively agree with your argument; it was your timing and delivery that sucked.
quote:OSC can consider me a monster, and still contemplate and respond to my arguments. ---- I have trouble understanding why you believe this. I believe he can call you a monster and still contemplate your arguments, but I think it's very unlikely that they'd get a fair shake if he actually considered you one.
As far as I can tell, OSC listens to monsters. So do I. You don't have to trust someone in order to give their reasoning a fair hearing.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs?
For one very good example, do a search for threads started by KarlEd.
quote:In my experience people's beliefs are rarely changed and in fact held to more tightly when challenged. I think I'll post a new topic asking for testimony to the transformation of beliefs.
It should be noted that changing ones beliefs is very different than questioning ones beliefs.
One can change ones beliefs without ever questioning them, and one can question ones beliefs without ever changing them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, then. By saying "I don't know how you missed these clues," you appeared to be implying that his selection of targets might be relevant to my argument.
"You don't have to trust someone in order to give their reasoning a fair hearing."
I disagree completely. This is practically my definition of trust.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Mr. Cohen. If discussion of Card's style is pointless, a discussion of discussion of Card's style is pointless squared. Talk about the quicksand if that's what you really want.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I'm running into your binary reasoning, Tom. Something can be relevant to your reasoning without supporting it or completely negating it.
quote:"You don't have to trust someone in order to give their reasoning a fair hearing."
I disagree completely. This is practically my definition of trust.
Yet another example of the contrast between your absolutist world view, and my relationist world view. To me, communication benefits from trust, but many communications do not absolutely require trust.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius: So, Mr. Cohen. If discussion of Card's style is pointless, a discussion of discussion of Card's style is pointless squared. Talk about the quicksand if that's what you really want.
Card was trying to make a point, not score one. If you call that pointless, then sink in the quicksand while scoring points, if that's what you really want.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Something can be relevant to your reasoning without supporting it or completely negating it."
My assertion here is that whether or not Card insults liberals as much or as often as conservatives is completely irrelevant to my reasoning. Can you explain why I should consider it even slightly relevant?
"To me, communication benefits from trust, but many communications do not absolutely require trust."
I may have been unclear. In a communication about values and opinions -- which this has so far been -- trust is absolutely essential. It's not necessary that you trust me in order for me to tell you to buy me a pizza. It's necessary for you to trust me in order for us to engage in a fruitful conversation about abortion, however.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general though, I have to admit I hardly see anyone, anywhere questioning their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree that this is rare to non existent?
No, at least not here.
quote:When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs? And how was that shown to you?
It happens all the time on the other side. It is the most evident when someone posts a belief or questions their belief, reads some responses, and then reconciles the belief with the new information.
the other side? Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Something can be relevant to your reasoning without supporting it or completely negating it."
My assertion here is that whether or not Card insults liberals as much or as often as conservatives is completely irrelevant to my reasoning. Can you explain why I should consider it even slightly relevant?
"To me, communication benefits from trust, but many communications do not absolutely require trust."
I may have been unclear. In a communication about values and opinions -- which this has so far been -- trust is absolutely essential. It's not necessary that you trust me in order for me to tell you to buy me a pizza. It's necessary for you to trust me in order for us to engage in a fruitful conversation about abortion, however.
I disagree. I changed my own position from pro-life to pro-choice, based on arguments made by people for whom I have no trust whatsoever. I simply thought over the new arguments that I had not seen before, made a few mental connections, and realized that I could no longer hold the same position.
Same happened with hate crime laws. The woman who explained the laws to me had opinions that made her repugnant to me. It horrifies me that a person with her agenda is in a position to influence lawmakers. (For example, she said that rape is not a hate crime, because that would "trivialize" hate crimes. ) But she clarified some of my concern about hate crime laws, and her factual claims checked out, so now I tentatively support them.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I tentatively agree with your argument; it was your timing and delivery that sucked.
I think this point has been thoroughly disproved. Just because you refuse to acknowledge this doesn't make it any less true.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Card was trying to make a point, not score one. If you call that pointless
He didn't call it pointless.
I didn't say that discussion of Card's style was pointless, either. I said that the timing and delivery sucked, resulting in OSC leaving the discussion.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I disagree. I changed my own position from pro-life to pro-choice, based on arguments made by people for whom I have no trust whatsoever. I simply thought over the new arguments that I had not seen before, made a few mental connections, and realized that I could no longer hold the same position.
I'm curious as to why you would even consider an argument from someone for whom you held no trust whatsoever. I submit that there must have existed at least a basic level of human respect -- one that denies the possibility of "monstrousness" -- before you would have done this.
----
And I'll freely concede that my timing -- if not my delivery -- may have been bad. When had you intended to bring the subject up in conversation? IMO, no "ideal" time was ever likely to present itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
) But she clarified some of my concern about hate crime laws, and her factual claims checked out, so now I tentatively support them.
