posted
Reshpeckobiggle, you have consistently even after my explaining (with the help of others) belittled, insulted, ignored, or twisted arguments I have made to suit your own interpretation. Even when I say, "No, I am not saying what you're saying I'm saying," you've still done it.
That's not miscommunication on my part, and it's very likely not a misunderstanding on yours. I'm not going to agree that the routine insults you make just "come out wrong", given that you keep on doing it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my favorite events in life is when I have a nagging feeling about someone, and then they come right and and prove my feeling to be completely substantiated.
posted
I may have belittled, insulted, and even ignored your arguments. I don't know that I've twisted them. Maybe pointed out some implications you haven't considered, which can look a lot like twisting. But here's the thing: Aside form however much an argument is a reflection of the arguer, I have never done those things to you. I respect you; I don't respect bad arguments. I do repsect the possibility that some arguments are good and I incorrectly think that they are bad. The abortion one we are having elsewhere right now is one of the few where my personal boubts have been greatly minimized because of how often I've had the debate and seen my opponents fall flat against it.
[Edited] for clarity.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Resh, believe me: your considerable ego is undeserved.
I believe you. How could anyone's enormously inflated ego be deserved? But what does my ego have to do with anything? Does it make me wrong? Or just annoying?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I fear the fisheye.
It's the best part of the fish if you ask any Chinese person, you must never pick it up for yourself, it must be offered to you.
I fear I'm actually being off topic by not jumping into the argument, which is a curious thought. Anyways, as your next post points out, "not all Chinese people are identical", and I am proud to be one that definitely does not like eating the eye.
I also know a fair number of Northerns that do not like it either. I secretly suspect this is because they always fry the fish, so the whole fish ends up tasting bad, including the eye. And by secretly suspect, I mean I'm secretly suspecting it up to the point of publicly announcing it on a public forum Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think that, in many cases, it does both; it leads you into error and prevents you from making your points in productive ways.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The abortion one we are having elsewhere right now is one of the few where my personal boubts have been greatly minimized because of how often I've had the debate and seen my opponents fall flat against it.
What makes you wrong is the way you, by your own words, ignore the arguments of others, when those arguments address substantial flaws in your reasoning.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I fear the fisheye.
It's the best part of the fish if you ask any Chinese person, you must never pick it up for yourself, it must be offered to you.
I fear I'm actually being off topic by not jumping into the argument, which is a curious thought. Anyways, as your next post points out, "not all Chinese people are identical", and I am proud to be one that definitely does not like eating the eye.
I also know a fair number of Northerns that do not like it either. I secretly suspect this is because they always fry the fish, so the whole fish ends up tasting bad, including the eye. And by secretly suspect, I mean I'm secretly suspecting it up to the point of publicly announcing it on a public forum
Duly noted! I've had lasik done on my eyes, I wonder if that temporarily altered what they would have tasted like. Better or worse?
Would a steak taste better or worse if some sort of lasers array were used to cook it rather then a grill? Who can know these things?!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The abortion one we are having elsewhere right now is one of the few where my personal boubts have been greatly minimized because of how often I've had the debate and seen my opponents fall flat against it.
What makes you wrong is the way you, by your own words, ignore the arguments of others, when those arguments address substantial flaws in your reasoning.
I try not to ignore arguments with merit. If I ignored an argument, it is either because I missed it or didn't think it was worth wasting my time. Honestly, few are a waste of time, so whichever ones were never addressed, I probably just missed them. However, sometimes you have accused me of ignoring certain arguments that I did not. You just didn't like my answer. In those cases, you should just tell me where I went wrong rather than just tell me I'm being dense, because unless I see what's wrong with it myself, I'm not going to retype everything again.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
The snarky part of me says I should reply with "try harder."
Seriously, though, I believe you. I think, though, that you aren't actually very good at detecting arguments with merit, and are too quick to dismiss and belittle those of a scope you don't understand. This understandably angers people, and then the whole thing goes, as they say, balls-up.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think that, in many cases, it does both; it leads you into error and prevents you from making your points in productive ways.
Seriously, I agree with the sentiment. I don't think I have a huge ego. I think the way I write makes me seem like I do. This is true, but I have been called a liar before for saying it: I really do try my best to understand myself, and what my opponents say. I don't dismiss anyone's opinions. I am very introspective and I look for and recognize as many flaws in my thinking as possible. This is not easy and I'll never be 100 percent on everything; not even close. But I stand behind my arguments fiercely, because to do otherwise would not make others challenge them fiercely. And finally, you need to understand that I see others displaying the very same insulting, egotistic and arrogant attitudes at the very moment they are accusing me of doing the same. And since I know that many times I am being completely misinterpreted, or I simply don't see the truth in what they are saying, I recognize that the others are just the same.
Do you think of yourself as being especially elitist and condescending? I doubt it. But you seem that way to me. I try to ignore it, seeing as how I find focusing on it counterproductive and distracting. I don't expect others to do the same, so I generally just let it slide. Truly insulting and abusive attacks, like those of Kwea and KoM in the past, I do take exception to. But The next time I see either of them, I start with a clean slate.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Do you think of yourself as being especially elitist and condescending? I doubt it. But you seem that way to me.
Most of Hatrack including myself would strongly disagree.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Duly noted! I've had lasik done on my eyes, I wonder if that temporarily altered what they would have tasted like. Better or worse?
Would a steak taste better or worse if some sort of lasers array were used to cook it rather then a grill? Who can know these things?!
Laser surgery? No clue. Not being too familiar with laser surgery, but I would guess that it would slightly cauterize the tissue, perhaps make it slightly crispier? But it would be a far cry from frying the fish, and I guess I should elaborate. When I say they fry the fish, I mean deep fry, not stir-fry.
However, I guess no one will really know until they try it. So in the case of your eyes, time to donate your body to science and find out (or rather, let others find out) Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disagree with what? That I think Tom seems elitist and condescending? Why would I care if most of Hatrack disagrees with how something appears to me? Hatrack isn't me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I AM perfectly capable of being elitist and condescending; those are not traits which are alien to me by any means. *grin* And I will certainly agree that I've been condescending to Resh here and there.
quote:But I stand behind my arguments fiercely, because to do otherwise would not make others challenge them fiercely.
I'm not sure why you would prefer to be challenged fiercely instead of, say, effectively. It's far more impressive -- and far more useful to someone looking to refine his philosophy -- to defend against a methodical challenge than to defend against a fierce one. It's my opinion that by trolling for ferocity, you're essentially trying to reap a whirlwind; when people react with hostility to comments designed to provoke them, it seems frankly unsporting to then comment on their hostility as if it were unexpected or unwelcome.
quote:The next time I see either of them, I start with a clean slate.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Nor do I think that, even if it were, it would necessarily be productive. Unlike most forums, Hatrack is not just a conglomeration of disparate and unconnected threads; the relationships here, although generally (but not exclusively) nourished in discussion threads, sprawl wildly and persist between conversations. If I insult someone in one thread, it's silly for me to expect that they will react to me as if I'm a stranger in an unrelated thread; the thread is, after all, just a label. It's no real barrier.
I don't dislike you, Resh. Far from it. I think you genuinely don't understand why so many people here are deeply annoyed by your approach so far, and I think you would genuinely like to understand. But I'm afraid I'd have to go point by point through your posts, indicating the offensive bits, to help you with that -- and I suspect you'd find that as tiresome as I would.
Here are two suggestions that I think would go a long way:
1) When voicing your opinion, do not suggest that it is the only possible correct opinion, or that it is inconceivable to you that someone might have a more compelling argument than your own. On a message board, this is the equivalent of calling somebody out; it's like striding into a dusty saloon, bellying up to the bar, and placing the sidearm and badge of the local sheriff -- gone missing three days, now -- on the top of the piano.
2) When you tell people that you have taken up a rhetorical position on one side of an argument because it seems that the people on that side are less "X," where "X" is an insult, you have in fact insulted the people on the other side of the argument; if they're paying attention, they'll notice. This is especially irritating if those people actually care about the issue, and aren't simply choosing their position based on the perceived "X" values of its advocates.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
((( Kwea, posting as his wife because she didn't log out)))
Resh...no vendetta here, I promise.
Above you stated that you didn't ever assume you know what someone knew, or all of what they meant.
I find that interesting because teh main reason I was so argumentitive with you was because I had the exact opposite view of you...I can point out at least two places in just that thread where you exclaimed exactly that....that you know that people were using things as justifications when they really knew it was wrong, and that you knew what the really meant.
And that isn't the first time that has come up in a debate with you, either.
You have done it to me almost every time we have interacted here at Hatrack, and I was so sick of it I responded harshly.
Do you honestly not see where you did just that, despite your claims to the difference?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here are two suggestions that I think would go a long way:
You are asking Resh to change the way he posts. Will you change the way you post as well? And by that I mean changing this:
quote:You know, I AM perfectly capable of being elitist and condescending; those are not traits which are alien to me by any means. *grin* And I will certainly agree that I've been condescending to Resh here and there.
posted
Honestly? Probably not. I'm capable of elitism and condescension, sure, along with a lot of other negative traits -- but I'm aware of those traits and already work to suppress them in myself. It's an asymptotic effort, though, I'm afraid.
More importantly, civility shouldn't be a tit-for-tat exchange. I'm not going to attempt to purchase Resh's good behavior with promises of better behavior on my part; the entire concept strikes me as childish in the extreme. And even if it were -- in some alternate universe -- a sensible idea, it ignores the fact that Resh and I likely place very different values on our respective behaviors; establishing a rate of exchange for civility would be in itself rather awkward.
I can imagine the negotiations: "Okay, you can call one person an idiot a week, but never the same person twice in a row. And in return I agree to avoid all use of smilies and excessive capitalization...."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zap, are you going to stop attempting to redefine peopled definitions during debates? I doubt it....
Resh wonders why people don't get him, and are picking on him. Tom offered a way to change the way thing have been going...but I doubt he really cares one way or another if Resh takes his advice or not.
Suggestions are almost always welcome, as long as that is what they are....suggestions, not orders.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly? Probably not. I'm capable of elitism and condescension, sure, along with a lot of other negative traits -- but I'm aware of those traits and already work to suppress them in myself. It's an asymptotic effort, though, I'm afraid.
I figured that would be the honest answer. So my next question is: Should I be mad at you for your inability to completely control these negative traits? Or should I let it go, on the assumption that you are doing your best to be nice?
You can answer that question for yourself, but my opinion is that it does no good to get angry over it. I think it is highly likely that the same advice you are giving to Resh has already been given to him multiple times, if not in real life then at least on other threads, in one form or another. My guess is that he is already aware of his faults here, given that he has pretty much admitted to having a big ego, to causing trouble, etc. But my bet is that he cannot change at the snap of a finger any more than you or I could. My bet is that he will continue to simultaneously admit his faults yet also defend himself, just as you or I would. So, my opinion is that it would be best to extend to him (and to everyone with faults) the credit of believing that they are trying to contain their faults. Suggestions are probably helpful to some degree, but neverending threads filled with angry complaints are not.
This is as true in real life as it is online, I'd add. I can recall countless roommate pairs in college who could each not stand the faults of the other. Those who ended up arguing constantly and hating eachother as a result were the ones least happy. Those who came to accept the faults of the other and to accept that the other was at least trying were considerably more content.
I saw no evidence that calling out another person on a fault will make that person change faster. I have seen very little evidence of this on Hatrack either. I am guilty of that too. I tend to always be optomistic that if I can say the correct thing, people will realize when they are doing something wrong, and will change. But that never seems to happen. Instead they get mad. Eventually some people change some - but as often as not it isn't in response to some big complaint or fight they get into.
quote:Zap, are you going to stop attempting to redefine peopled definitions during debates?
I will when I think it is no longer worth it. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: it ignores the fact that Resh and I likely place very different values on our respective behaviors; establishing a rate of exchange for civility would be in itself rather awkward.
It reminds me of the idea that if both members try do precisely 50% of the work required to maintain their marriage, it won't all get done.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then you are the pot calling the kettle black, aren't you.
Well, not exactly - I don't consider a willingness to define/redefine things to be a fault. It is necessary to seriously resolve certain disagreements. But I do have plenty of other attributes that are faults, so I am like "the pot" in that sense. Although I'm not calling the kettle black so much as suggesting that we shouldn't get so worked up over the kettle's blackness.
quote:BTW, last I saw it wasn't effective, and didn't convince anyone of anything.
It is rare for anything to convince anyone around here, but I have found that discussing definitions in some cases is effective at getting to the heart of a disagreement. Often what many people consider to be part of a definition is actually a hidden unjustified assumption.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Honestly? Probably not. I'm capable of elitism and condescension, sure, along with a lot of other negative traits -- but I'm aware of those traits and already work to suppress them in myself. It's an asymptotic effort, though, I'm afraid.
More importantly, civility shouldn't be a tit-for-tat exchange. I'm not going to attempt to purchase Resh's good behavior with promises of better behavior on my part; the entire concept strikes me as childish in the extreme. And even if it were -- in some alternate universe -- a sensible idea, it ignores the fact that Resh and I likely place very different values on our respective behaviors; establishing a rate of exchange for civility would be in itself rather awkward.
I can imagine the negotiations: "Okay, you can call one person an idiot a week, but never the same person twice in a row. And in return I agree to avoid all use of smilies and excessive capitalization...."
I assume you believe (correctly) that Israel is wasting its time trying to make peace with its neighbors.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then you are the pot calling the kettle black, aren't you.
Well, not exactly - I don't consider a willingness to define/redefine things to be a fault. It is necessary to seriously resolve certain disagreements. But I do have plenty of other attributes that are faults, so I am like "the pot" in that sense. Although I'm not calling the kettle black so much as suggesting that we shouldn't get so worked up over the kettle's blackness.
quote:BTW, last I saw it wasn't effective, and didn't convince anyone of anything.
It is rare for anything to convince anyone around here, but I have found that discussing definitions in some cases is effective at getting to the heart of a disagreement. Often what many people consider to be part of a definition is actually a hidden unjustified assumption.
If all parties are in agreement that the definition needs to be redefined, then that is right.
If, on the other hand, someone uses a definition that no one else agrees with, then insists that by HIS rules they have all just admitted he was right.....or insist that a third party had REALLY meant, according to the "new" definition something completely the opposite of what he "claims" his intent was....
I don't think that is conducive to discussion of anything at all. It is more of an argumentative, verbal masturbatory exercise then a debate.
One person doesn't get to define what the words mean in a constructive discussion, particularly when all other parties in the conversation disagree with him.
I see a lot of people change their minds around here, and I have changed my own opinions on several important (to me, anyway) issues because of debates here at Hatrack. I think it happens a lot ore than you think it does.....
Just not in thread where you engage in that type of behavior.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is important to uncover hidden assumptions. But Tres, you have acquired a reputation here for dishonestly manipulating definitions as a rhetorical trick. It's past time to find a new gambit.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, it is important to uncover hidden assumptions. But Tres, you have acquired a reputation here for dishonestly manipulating definitions as a rhetorical trick.
Yes, although that isn't really a fair reputation. My use of definitions certainly isn't dishonest, and many people here (Tom, Dagonee, etc.) define things at least as often as I do, if not more so.
quote:Too bad, because before he used to do that I liked reading some of his posts. Even when we disagreed it was interesting.
Now I rarely bother reading them at all...at least in serious topics.
Chalk one up for it not being effective, I guess.
In all fairness, is that because I am likely to be defining things in all those threads you don't read, or because you are mad at me for defining things in one particular thread where you disagreed with me? I think it was about abortion - and at least on that topic, I don't think even the most effective technique of getting a point across will change too many people's minds too quickly.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Duly noted! I've had lasik done on my eyes, I wonder if that temporarily altered what they would have tasted like. Better or worse?
Would a steak taste better or worse if some sort of lasers array were used to cook it rather then a grill? Who can know these things?!
Laser surgery? No clue. Not being too familiar with laser surgery, but I would guess that it would slightly cauterize the tissue, perhaps make it slightly crispier? But it would be a far cry from frying the fish, and I guess I should elaborate. When I say they fry the fish, I mean deep fry, not stir-fry.
However, I guess no one will really know until they try it. So in the case of your eyes, time to donate your body to science and find out (or rather, let others find out)
People have certainly given up their lives in less worthy causes, so why not!?
Porter:
quote:It reminds me of the idea that if both members try do precisely 50% of the work required to maintain their marriage, it won't all get done.
I've never heard that, would you care to elaborate? I sorta see how it works but I am not sure thats the idea you are suggesting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I think it was about abortion - and at least on that topic, I don't think even the most effective technique of getting a point across will change too many people's minds too quickly.
That's for damn sure.
Q: Is a fetus a person? Yes, no, or maybe?
A: None of the above.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
