On Apr 13, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But, they are very different opinions....one claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis.
I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible debate opponents.
Let me give a parallel example. "This problem is unsolveable" vs "I cannot
solve this problem." The first statement is a general statement concerning
the nature of the problem. By saying this, one is claiming than anyone who
states that they have solved this particular problem is making a false
statement. Depending on the nature of the problem, you might be calling
those that claim to have solved it ignorant, crackpots, etc.
I see where you're coming from, but it's not exactly a parallel example, is it? If you're talking about a problem, what I think of is engineering, arithmetic, physics and so on -- not a philosophical conundrum or something subject to opinion.
By saying something is indefensabile one is saying that it is impossible
that such a defence is impossible. Those who claim they have a defence are
not dealing with reality for some reason or another. They may be ignorant,
they may be arguing in bad faith, they may be in denial, they may not use
reason properly. Or, they just might be idiots.
Or it might be a shortcut. Maybe one could track page after page of reasoning and carefully build an argument that renders a given position, ultimately, indefensible.
Or you might just concede that we really do behave as though we're right, most of the time.
I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements "The Iraq war is unjustifiable" and the *debate-style* "Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss."
No, there isn't. But, that particular statement puts a tremendous burdon
of proof on the affirmative. They would have to show that it was
impossible to construct a reasonable case for the war...not just show that
the negative case is far stronger.
What's wrong with that? If I believe that the Iraq war is indefensible, please explain to me why the hell I should say otherwise. Why shouldn't I put the burden of proof on the affirmative? If I'm not convinced -- as I clearly am not -- that Iraq was a good idea, if I am pretty sure -- as I clearly am -- that attacking it was unconscionable, I'd like you to explain to me why you think it's reasonable for me to behave with anything other than the certitude I feel I have.
Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply correct, but Absolute Truth.
Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks
who will not accept that they are sometimes wrong....unless they are
Feynman and the subject is physics.
You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to being in error, yet I don't see you hammering them over it). All I'm saying, and I said it very clearly, is that for the most part most of us behave, most of the time, as though our opinions are actually Absolute Truth.
Saying "I don't see the
justification for something" allows someone to give the justification and
then for me to pleasantly acknowledge it.
I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is.
You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given statement of position, including "in my view..." and "as I see it..." and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the qualifiers; what matters is the seed: "... the Iraq war cannot be justified." (Or whatever.)
So, you are saying that different sets of words do not carry different sets
of information?
No. I am saying precisely what I said. You must have read it, so I'm not sure why it's unclear. Let me restate it.
No matter what kind of qualifiers you want to put on an opinion, ultimately you believe that opinion is true or else you wouldn't hold it.
That's it. That's what I'm saying. That's all I said. I don't know where you got the ancillary baggage. I didn't add it and I did not imply it. You read it in.
At this point I feel intensely frustrated because you seem unwilling to accept very simple statements without trying to read other ideas into them. You seem to be quite adept at that, when you want to be -- very willing to overlook the clear, simple statements I make and instead substitute a contorted reformulation that is not only inaccurate, but that attempts to cast me in an unreasonable light.
This says a lot about whom you think you're talking to, but nothing at all about me.
Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards
to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making
unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to
say that.
Once again you throw around academic credentials as though I'm supposed to know the resume and CV of every person on this list, and you've even been careful this time not to name the person whose standing I'm supposed to have psychically intuited.
We've been through this before. It's not my job to know what the history is of anyone here. Unless I see things like, "So and so, Ph.D. in such and such a discipline", I'd like you to explain to me how I'm supposed to reasonably be expected to know precisely who has what kind of degree.
This is another thing I expect you to stop throwing in my face, by the way. It's just as tiresome as "oh, you posted once that everyone's an idiot." Enough, already. We get it, Dan. Only you maintain a fully rational and cool tone in all situations. The rest of us are just a bunch of emotional children.
I cannot and will not attempt to guess at the credentials of anyone I'm in correspondence with. If that person wants to bring them up, fine. Otherwise I can't reasonably be expected to take that information into account, now can I?
(But I won't accept argument from authority any more than I would expect you to accept the same, so credentials alone won't necessarily mean much to me anyway.)
But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others
as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my
book.
Get bent. How's that for chutzpah? How's that for an unambiguous ad hominem? Even when you're trying to be insulting you pussyfoot your way around it.
And by suggesting that you somehow have a magical formula that permits even-handed, clear communications, you're at least as guilty of intellectual arrogance as those at whom you point fingers.
If you think you or anyone else behaves in a significantly different fashion, I'd suggest you're being more than a little self-deluding. We *must* assume that our opinions are valid.
Valid is different from Absolute Truth.
Yes, it is. But that doesn't change how we *behave* regarding our opinions. We treat them as facts. If we didn't you wouldn't be so committed to hammering home this utterly pointless point, for instance.
I hear you, loud and clear. You don't like how I say things sometimes. I don't think you're hearing me: I don't care.
I do not care whether you like how I say things sometimes. And I will continue to phrase things however I damned well wish to, regardless of how you feel about it.
Is that clear enough?
Let me ask you something, Dan. Are you going to throw that in my face every time we have a discussion and end up disagreeing on a point? Because if you are I'll just start filtering you rather than deal with the callbacks. Okay?
Throw what in your face?
Stop being so deliberately obtuse.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
