Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world. Except for a nice MLT, a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that. But that's not what he said. He distinctly said "to blave." And, as we all know, "to blave" means "to bluff." So you're probably playing cards, and he cheated --
posted
*semi-random* When I see "Ethics of Aspiration" in this thread title, I get a mental image of those blue bulbous mucus syringes they use on babies stuffy noses.
posted
I considered, but decided against, deleting various posts in this thread to make the counts go down, just to see what would happen.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. A severe temptation. I think I'm already under about as much temptation load as I can handle. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: CT, from your link, I found this interesting:
quote:A meaningful life is a creative one, and what falls short of this lacks meaning, to whatever extent.
What bothers me here is that his definition of "creative" is so necessarily narrow. He explicitly disqualifies things that may be personally meaningful -- like someone laboring to build the biggest ball of string in the world -- from creative effort, as well as any "productive" effort. By "creation," here Taylor means only the creation of uniquely personal art; it must express its creator, even if no audience is there to appreciate it.
To my mind, that makes his definition of a meaningful life not only solipsistic but narcissistic; a "meaningful" life to Mr. Taylor is one in which a person's work is not only personally meaningful but ultimately expressive of that individual's personality -- which means that "meaningful," by his definition, becomes synonymous with "individual."
The problem here is that creating unique art or even personally-expressive craftwork is, in many societies and in many places, a luxury made impossible for the majority by the requirements of civilized society. While I think you can make a few powerful social arguments based on this conclusion, it also fails to speak to the personal experiences of those who would disagree; it's clearly not a universal truth as much as it is an argument for a social agenda.
What you are arguing against isn't Taylor's position. I don't know if it is a matter of differing terminology or not, but what he says isn't captured by how it has been portrayed. [And, for what it's worth, I don't find his writing style to be very clear or cogent anyway. He would not be at the top of my list of excellent writers in philosophy, that's for sure. So I am not surprised by us finding him difficult to interpret.]
I don't know his writing well enough myself to capture everything in a summary and do it reasonable justice. I can, however, read what he says and note where it is not limited in the way it is portrayed by others. (That is, I can speak to a negative with much more confidence than a positive.)
I don't know if it is useful to pursue this line of discussion. But as someone in academic philosophy, I do feel some call to speak to the discrepancies: he doesn't limit the good to "being" rather than "just doing" (i.e., he does think actually doing is quite important), and he doesn't limit meaningfulness to that which is "ultimately expressive of that individual's personality." Specifically, he demarcates between things that are of [external] worth and those "of no real worth." This appeals directly to criteria outside a narcissistic evaluation, and that is a fundamental (albeit not the focus of the paper) supporting step of the argument.
---
Edited to add: I cited that article because it was the first I saw online that addressed the claim that Taylor did not connect goodness or worth to "doing," rather than "just being." It suffices for that point.
Now, though, we have moved to a different question: one about whether what Taylor posits in this article captures "goodness" or "worth." I take it that the first point was addressed. As for the new discussion, I'd also note that this isn't a summary statement of his argument, but one geared towards addressing the role of creativity in "meaningfulness."
There are going to be parts of his theory that are not covered in this excerpt, but instead are noted as asides (such as the reference to other criteria in "of real worth"). I expect a different article or text would address that part in greater detail.
However, unless we are willing to chase Taylor around from one point to another -- or unless someone is willing to assess the whole schema at once, which I am not -- it's probably not going to be accurate to argue for or against his whole theory (or what he believes overall). I'd have no quibble with the approach that "Of the part I just read, X, Y, and Z don't seem to make sense to me or don't seem to follow." It's the assessment of Taylor being right or wrong as a whole, but based just on these little snippets, that seems both not useful and not fair to him, at least by my lights.
It isn't how I'd want my professional work assessed, at least. This is actually his life's work. And, in some sense, he is a colleague of mine, so I'm putting in a plug for limiting the criticism to what's at hand.
posted
rivka: A warning not to make an assumption is not necessarily an assumption itself, in the same sense that agnosticism is not a religion itself.
In parallel, if God rose up tomorrow and gave everyone a nickel, the agnostic is not "wrong." They simply did not have the evidence at the time.
Similarly, I was not "wrong" because I did not want to make an assumption. I simply lacked the evidence.
PS: I would still not assume that they made a "deliberate choice." I'm wearing a blue shirt. I had to make *a* choice to wear a blue shirt. That does not mean I made a deliberate choice rather than a random whimsical choice.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This appeals directly to criteria outside a narcissistic evaluation...
But what IS that criteria? Saying "meaningful people produce individual and unique things of worth" only begs the question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This appeals directly to criteria outside a narcissistic evaluation...
But what IS that criteria? Saying "meaningful people produce individual and unique things of worth" only begs the question.
I'll refer you to my (slowly typed, unfortunately) edit above.
That article, Tom, isn't intended to lay out his entire theory. It is an article addressed to one point. I haven't any problem with arguing that in this article, he doesn't address everything we might want him to address. But that isn't the same criticism as is being leveled at him.
In his theory as a whole, he does place importance on "doing," not "just being" (as we can see in the above text). He does not merely rely on a narcissistic self-evaluation for determining worth (as we can see in the above text).
Now, granted, we may think he should have included more, in particular what those objective criteria are. But that doesn't mean he doesn't acknowledge them -- just that he doesn't explain them, and so we may wish he had written a somewhat different article that did explain them in greater detail.
But that doesn't mean he said they weren't there at all. You see?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, this may appear to be a totally nit-picking and irrelevant point to anyone and everyone but me (including, perhaps, Taylor himself). I would not rule that out, based on my past OCDish behavior regarding both medical issues and academic philosophy and recent generalized crankiness.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's irrelevant at all, especially if -- and I'm largely unfamiliar with Taylor's other work -- he's gone into some detail about the meaning of "worth" that would put these comments in better perspective. To be honest, I'm probably biased by my own experiences with Irami's definition of "worth;" the logic, as strained as it goes, is something like "if Irami thinks worth is 'X,' and he cites Taylor on the topic, and Taylor has an article in which he seems to say worth is 'X,' then I should respond as it Taylor believes worth is 'X.'" But if you tell me that this isn't the case, I'll believe you and go to more primary sources. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
The banner at the bottom of this thread currently says
"Top-secret Los Alamos Physicis have opened a Gateway to Hell!!" (I'm not clicking on the link because I'm at work...)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, if people are uncomfortable about having their names associated with something, what about allowing people to delete the first post, but leave the rest of the thread intact and change the thread starter field to say "anonymous" or something.
I'm all for solutions that let the original poster extricate himself or herself from the whole situation. I just don't think allowing them to delete the whole thread is justified.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Okay, if people are uncomfortable about having their names associated with something, what about allowing people to delete the first post, but leave the rest of the thread intact and change the thread starter field to say "anonymous" or something.
This is possible with some forum software (such as phpBB), but not with UBB.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if tradition matters in things like this, but it's a longstanding Hatrack tradition, of which I'm sure Puffy Treat was not aware, that threads are allowed to mutate freely and range wildly onto any topic they happen to go. It was noted way back during the big mouth lion era that when people ragged on someone for off topic posts and caused another topic to be started to contain said posts, that invariably both threads instantly died. However, if the more freestyle form remained in force, that oftentimes extremely interesting conversations would result.
It's also true on every forum I know that's overmoderated, where threads must stay on topic or else comments are deleted, posters are castigated, and so on, those forums tend to bog down and lag, from lack of interest. They tend to have rather rigid conversations that lack something of the fun or elan or spiritedness that hatrack threads often display.
Quite a few of us jatraqueros are somewhat ADD or distractible, oooh, shiny! And we can't keep our minds on one topic very easily.
As Richard Chiu once said, "the whole purpose of having a group is to go off track. It's like having four wheel drive."
So we decided way back a long time ago that hatrack threads aren't required to stay on any particular track. They're living breathing creatures with their own lives, and we can give them birth but we can't force them to take the path we envision for them.
Pentultimately, I want to say that I personally find philosophy much more interesting than tv. Not that tv threads are bad, but aren't misbegotten-offspring-tv-philosophy threads just that much more fun?
Lastly, I reserve the right to delete any thread I start. So be warned! Better hurry and make offline copies of the bird flu thread and the asteroid impact thread and the HPMF thread cause I could disappear them any moment! </idle threats>
posted
Tom: *grin Fair enough, my friend. Someday you, me, and a good chug of lemonade will have at Richard Taylor. Next time I visit.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: It's also true on every forum I know that's overmoderated, where threads must stay on topic or else comments are deleted, posters are castigated, and so on, those forums tend to bog down and lag, from lack of interest. They tend to have rather rigid conversations that lack something of the fun or elan or spiritedness that hatrack threads often display.
Yes, I'd agree.
quote:Lastly, I reserve the right to delete any thread I start. So be warned! Better hurry and make offline copies of the bird flu thread and the asteroid impact thread and the HPMF thread cause I could disappear them any moment! </idle threats>
*laughing
We are fearsome creatures, born of billion-year-old stardust, with the power of the words at our fingertips.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've found myself wondering a few times just how long Tom takes to compose his zippy one-liners.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being good is meaningless -- both personally and socially -- without acting good.
More importantly, acting good, if the action is spawned from coercion or bribe, even if the bribe is the promise of heaven, or if the act is a matter of obeying a lawgiver, is also morally suspect. In the first scenario, you are just a mercenary for hire, even if you are God's mercenary, and in the second situation, you are no better than a Nazi "just obeying orders." In both situations, the agents aren't authentically good; they are posers, mimicking the outward affectations of the virtuous person.
pooka:
quote:I am keenly interested in the Ethics of Aspiration, particularly in how often "ambitious" is used as a synonym for "evil."
I agree that ambition has been too narrowly considered. I think that getting married or having children takes astonishing ambition-- either that or supreme carelessness. For me, it takes all of my courage to commit to write the best novel I can. Immoderate ambition seems to me to only be unattractive if it's aimed at an unworthy travail.
guinevererobin
quote:I don't think I've ever known anyone who was a genuinely good person, who was proud of themselves for being a good person... generally it seems the more one aspires to be kind, thoughtful, just and decent, the more one realizes one's weaknesses.
That's true. I also think it's true that you become more keenly aware of your strengths, even if your only strength is that you have the right aspiration.
Y'know, while this sounds very special and all, it's equally true of your average slug.
Slugs are right amazing, my friend. As are trees, sand, and the Empire State Building.
But they have not the power of the words at their fingertips, and -- for most of us -- are not quite fearsome.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QB] ]More importantly, acting good, if the action is spawned from coercion or bribe, even if the bribe is the promise of heaven, or if the act is a matter of obeying a lawgiver, is also morally suspect. In the first scenario, you are just a mercenary for hire, even if you are God's mercenary, and in the second situation, you are no better than a Nazi "just obeying orders." In both situations, the agents aren't authentically good; they are posers, mimicking the outward affectations of the virtuous person. [QB]
Now strike me down if I've missed somthing but that's only if there's such a thing as real altruism, which I don't buy. The religious doing good with the added reason of believing it's what a higher power says is right isn't lesser than people doing good because it makes them happy or gives them a positive feeling. I don't think it's right to say that Christians are morally 'suspect' because they have a god they tust telling them what's decent and what isn't - especially since I don't think that is a complete replacement of naturally wanting to do good which I think is being implied. Or somethin'!
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
You said that the promotion of Virtue Ethics is Taylor's life work. That's a powerful sentiment, considering the disrepute most virtue ethicists face. I was reading an essay from this guy at the University of Virgina and he baldly said that studying the humanities at a high level is deeply courageous because most often, that same amount of effort of discipline could earn much, much more worldly admiration if applied to a more materialistic endeavor.
quote:Now strike me down if I've missed something but that's only if there's such a thing as real altruism, which I don't buy.
But you don't seem to have a problem with God-assisted altruism. I actually believe in altruism. I've seen it. I get the keen sense that CT lives it, and she is not the only one.
There is section of Aristotle I haven't broached, and it doesn't get touched on enough. You see it again in King's letters from a Birmingham jail, but it redounds to the essential plurality of the human condition. Maybe it's because we live in such a wide land that we forget that part of what it is to be human is that we live with other humans, and the highest parts of humanity avail themselves of this human condition of plurality. I think that King called it an inescapable mutuality that we deny at our own peril. If more people accepted, even embraced, the plurality of the human condition, this essential mutuality, I think our political sphere would be more brilliant.
quote:You greatly underestimate the work that goes into flinging zippy one-liners into complicated discussions.
Not really. Zippy one-liners are what usually occur to me before I hit reply. I often discard them in order to post something substantive.
I actually find Tom's zippy one liners often get to the heart of the matter much more accurately (and, perhaps, ruthlessly) then other more substantive posts do.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
But, I'm glad to see your reason for posting is purely to impress me, and be in line with my opinions. Just like it should be - it's all about me me me.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: But you don't seem to have a problem with God-assisted altruism.
I do, I wouldn't call what I was trying to describe as God-assisted altruism, just guidelines from good authority (the supreme authority! dig). What I can't accept is trying to say someone's actions of good are selfless, being "good" serves a dude plenty. The whole comparative morality deal strikes me too much as gigantic back pats. One guy doing something awesome for the Lord is as decent as another who just gets a warm fuzzy from it.
quote:I actually believe in altruism. I've seen it. I get the keen sense that CT lives it, and she is not the only one.
I've witnessed what you could say is altruism, but you're always getting something out of what you think is good service even though it seems to others like you've risked or gave up a lot. I just think it's a romantic term that I'd avoid trying to define anybody with in serious terms.
quote:There is section of Aristotle I haven't broached, and it doesn't get touched on enough. You see it again in King's letters from a Birmingham jail, but it redounds to the essential plurality of the human condition. Maybe it's because we live in such a wide land that we forget that part of what it is to be human is that we live with other humans, and the highest parts of humanity avail themselves of this human condition of plurality. I think that King called it an inescapable mutuality that we deny at our own peril. If more people accepted, even embraced, the plurality of the human condition, this essential mutuality, I think our political sphere would be more brilliant.
Funny you brought this up, I just rewatched Casshern last night with some friends and it pretty much said exactly that (plus explosions and one really epic fight scene, besides the point though). Anyway, sorry if it's obvious, but I'm not sure how you're trying to relate it to altruism, if y'are.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get the keen sense that CT lives it, and she is not the only one.
I love Sara dearly. But while she's a good person (by whichever definition you're using, Richard Taylor's or anyone else's), I'm not sure I'd call her "altruistic" in the sense that you mean it.
The idea that "doing good" is only good if in fact the motivation is unencumbered by personal reward is one that I think you'll find rings hollow almost as soon as you put it to a practical test.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, thank you, Tom and Irami. I am delighted to be in the good graces of such gentlemen.
I'd deny in myself any more altruism than the small moments I think we all have. I do think there are small moments, sometimes, when any of us may make a choice because it is right, or for the greater good, and then never give it another thought -- not to dwell on it in our own thoughts or to mention to others. But I don't think the big gestures are so amenable to not getting the ego wrapped up in them. They are harder to ignore or forget.
Like Tom, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I think there is probably more ill done by seeking to deny the self for the sake of denial alone, than there is by calmly and clearly going about doing the work that needs to be done under the acknowledgement that ego and pride and all sorts of things naturally come along for the ride. So it goes.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that beneficence is the strongest impulse, but I do think that, if all else were equal, we'd rather live with people than against them.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot believe that this forum still lets people delete their threads.
It's incredibly dumb. Both that people are going to do it and pretend that it's not a totally dick move, or that anyone here hasn't figured out yet that it's a singularly terrible power to vest in a forum's general populace.
Before, I was thinking "Who deletes a thread?" Now I know what kind of situation is liable to create thread deletion. Since then, I have only wondered "Why is this even a controversy?" and "Why can you STILL delete threads?"
Also Tom's 'zippy one liners' are worth more than most of the dense slogs of nitpicking pedantry that infest this forum. Anyone who asserts anything remotely resembling the idea that these lines can't be 'substantive' because they've been milled down to a quick comment deserves to be force-fed Heidegger until their eyes bleed.
quote:Also Tom's 'zippy one liners' are worth more than most of the dense slogs of nitpicking pedantry that infest this forum. Anyone who asserts anything remotely resembling the idea that these lines can't be 'substantive' because they've been milled down to a quick comment deserves to be force-fed Heidegger until their eyes bleed.
Just wait until he takes your nuanced position, removes the distinctions you actually care about, and uses that as a justification to call you evil. Maybe you won't like it so much then. It's not just the brevity - it's his refusal to actually engage on the issues and his insistence that wanting to do so is a great plot to avoid seeing the real truth.
It's also amazing to me the willingness of some people to quickly drop to name calling and accusations of nit-picking when someone attempts to demonstrate that the world is actually a little complicated.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I engage on the issues fairly constantly. I just don't always agree with you about what the issues actually are. You have, if you haven't noticed, a very narrow view of what constitutes a "substantive" issue. This is more a fundamental difference in our worldview than an indicator of laziness, you realize.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I engage on the issues fairly constantly. I just don't always agree with you about what the issues actually are. You have, if you haven't noticed, a very narrow view of what constitutes a "substantive" issue.
Let me be more clear. You criticize my stance on issues without actually engaging that stance. The criticism is essentially that I'm not talking about what you want to talk about.
It's especially annoying because I'm almost never the one who brings up the issue I'm responding to. However, it seems that issue is only "unimportant" when the original contention that addressed that issue has been refuted.
The original contention is never deemed unimportant until contradict it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You criticize my stance on issues without actually engaging that stance.
I would disagree with this as well. But, again, I think it boils down to a difference in worldview; the "trusted list" thread makes that point very clear to me, at least. I believe you are totally sincere in that thread; you do not understand why so many people believe it to be insidiously harmful, and are offended that people are reading things into your motivations that you've explicitly said aren't there. I have no doubt that you really don't get why it's a problem, and that your carefully-worded answers are not intended to avoid having to personally confront reality as much as they are simply intended to keep you technically accurate.
You are a very precise person, to the point that you (as far as I can tell) equate truth with technical accuracy. I appreciate this, and am occasionally glad that there are people like that out there, but I strongly believe that something can be fundamentally true even if it's technically inaccurate -- and fundamentally false even if it's technically correct.
Many of my earlier arguments with you soured rapidly because I did not understand that your precision stems from a very deep-seated appreciation of precision itself, and not a desire to parse around what I saw as the fundamental truths of an issue. With that in mind, I'm able to look at your posts with a different level of appreciation. That said, I'm still of the opinion that sometimes this careful parsing of an issue actually winds up placing someone farther away from the truth, not least because it so often depends not just on semantics but on things like legal precedent; many of the tools that must be used to parse many of the issues on which we disagree are built, IMO, with fundamentally flawed components, so that their use -- even when logically unassailable -- can move someone even farther from plumb.
Consider your defense of Gonzalez's comment about disagreements regarding "the program," which as you pointed out could easily have referred to the final product of multiple disagreements about earlier drafts of the program. I think it's clear that this interpretation is a technically accurate way to word the situation; I think it's equally clear that, in the spirit of the question he was being asked and in the general context of the conversation he was having with Congress, it was a lie. It was fundamentally untruthful; Clinton's "definition of 'is'" argument during his deposition is of a similar nature.
I think there's a value in technical accuracy, obviously. But I'm also deeply suspicious of technical accuracy when applied (consciously or not) in defense of fundamental untruth.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Consider your defense of Gonzalez's comment about disagreements regarding "the program," which as you pointed out could easily have referred to the final product of multiple disagreements about earlier drafts of the program. I think it's clear that this interpretation is a technically accurate way to word the situation; I think it's equally clear that, in the spirit of the question he was being asked and in the general context of the conversation he was having with Congress, it was a lie. It was fundamentally untruthful; Clinton's "definition of 'is'" argument during his deposition is of a similar nature.
quote:I would need to see the question that prompted this answer. If the preceding questions deal with defining the program and deciding its limits prior to implementation, then I think it was at best misleading, at most an outright lie. I'd need specifics to clarify.
If the preceding questions all deal with the specific limits as implemented, then I'd think it's at worst misleading (which would not be OK) and at best perfectly accurate. I'd need specifics to clarify.
It's very clear here that I am not saying Gonzales' answer was OK. I'm clarifying a range of possibilities.
After we had the testimony, my analysis was this:
quote:I think that nothing Gonzales said was a lie based solely on Comey's testimony. He qualified again and again that he was talking about the "confirmed"* program, and Schumer seems to acknowledge this: "But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?"
So there's no case to be made that Schumer was misled.
However, Gonzales didn't answer the question asked, and I don't find that OK at all. Schumer shouldn't have let him get away with it, but the ultimate fault for not answering "It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?" lies with Gonzoles.
I'm not sure what Schumer could have done to insist on an answer, but I wish he had pressed on it and gotten a definite "I'm not going to answer that" on the record. Again, though, ultimate fault is Gonzales for not answering.
*Assuming "confirmed" means "the one that got certified by Ashcroft or Comey 2 days after the trip to the hospital."
And then:
quote:Tom, disclosing internal decision-making processes is almost always a bad idea. This is generally accepted in institutional settings, and this general acceptance means that people assume that questions are not being asked about internal decision-making processes unless they are explicit. Often, people don't care.
My "No" would only be given if I thought they had some business knowing.
As it stands, I think the original question was explicitly asking for information about the decision-making process, I think Gonzales should have answered it, but I think his refusal was not a lie. I think Congress does have business knowing about the existence of dissent, although not necessarily all the details. Gonzales cut it off far from the line, though.
He should have answered.
The fundamental problem I have with what you seem to be demanding is that you seem to want me to make inaccurate statements in service of the truth when it's not necessary to do so. It's very clear from what I posted exactly what it is I think Gonzales did wrong. It's clear form the hypotheticals the factors I consider important in evaluating that.
There is no damage done to the truth by what I said. Nor is damage done by not calling Gonzales a liar for this exchange. An accurate description of what he did wrong is far more valuable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You greatly underestimate the work that goes into flinging zippy one-liners into complicated discussions.
Not really. Zippy one-liners are what usually occur to me before I hit reply. I often discard them in order to post something substantive.
I read this yesterday and wanted to come back and address it.
I miss your one-liners Dagonee. I wish you wouldn't always discard them. I've noticed their lack of late and I miss them. I guess I think you can have your cake and eat it too. Why can't you post *both* the zippy one liners and substantitive posts? There's no inherent inconsistency IMO.
quote:It's not just the brevity - it's his refusal to actually engage on the issues and his insistence that wanting to do so is a great plot to avoid seeing the real truth.
I'd be inclined to think that this is actually what Tom does too if you hadn't recently similarly misread me in a pedantic, clinical style in another thread!
Oh god, Tom's been engaged in a plot to avoid seeing the real truth! I'm sure that's a fair appraisal of his actions, really.
Dag you are like a conundrum. Relentlessly engaging in some subjects, relentlessly obstinate in others.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT is altruistic. I don't think she would want me to go into details, and that's part of the beauty of it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness to Dag, Samp, he's saying that I've said that "engaging on the issues" in the specific manner Dag sometimes does is often a rhetorical tactic used to avoid discussing the real truth. And I have said that, although I'm pretty sure I've never used the phrase "great plot." His complaints about me are accurate within the scope of his understanding; I'm okay with them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TOm, the fact that, when I post a post like my previous post you almost never respond is what deepens my suspicions and frustrations concerning what appears to me to be your refusal to engage. You made a specific allegation about my use of precision that does not seem to hold up to close examination. Even if you disagree with that examination, acknowledging it and demonstrating where it goes wrong would be a significant indicator to me that you are not using your one liners to dismiss.
quote:I miss your one-liners Dagonee. I wish you wouldn't always discard them. I've noticed their lack of late and I miss them. I guess I think you can have your cake and eat it too. Why can't you post *both* the zippy one liners and substantitive posts? There's no inherent inconsistency IMO.
Thanks, AJ. You've given me something to think about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
