On 01/21/2013 03:31 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
I do not spend enough time following this subject to memorize all the acronyms.
Could posters to this list please make your emails comprehensible to
someone like myself by spelling out the words comprising the acronym
when it is first used in each and every email to the list?
I try to explain my acronym use when I use them. The latest I remember
where I didn't, was where I said "PM", which was short for Prime Minister.
If I forget to explain my acronyms at some point, just let me know.
Also, in response to those using their kill filters to avoid hearing
points of view not compatible with their own and who are making
general non-specific personal attacks against other members of this
list without constructively providing the specific details of their
complaints -- your actions reveal to people on this list more about
yourself -- what you are projecting onto others that are, in truth,
your own characteristics -- than they do about the people you
criticize. I have lived long enough to observe that when people
lacking in intellectual integrity (lacking willingness to admit
mistakes and openmindedly reconsider their own positions) lack a
credible argument to support their positions, they often make personal
attacks against those who factually rebut their positions. Why not
agree that we all make intellectual mistakes by adopting incorrect or
logically flawed positions at times (ideally temporarily) and be
open-minded and intellectually honest enough to continually question
our own point of view? If we all try our best to act in a way we can
be proud of afterwards, no matter what anyone else does or says, there
is no reason to make vague, unsubstantiated personal attacks in order
to justify our own behavior or position. I try to follow the maxim:
"To be terrific, be specific" when I make a criticism, so that it is
constructive.
Ideally, the way a person presents his argument shouldn't matter as to
whether it is considered true or not. I know that assuming that a
conclusion is wrong just because there's a logical fallacy in it
somewhere is in itself a fallacy; and that considering an argument wrong
because the person proposing it is logically rude is also an example of
logical rudeness.
However, in the practical world, presentation *does* matter. In the
ideal world, personal attacks would be replied to by something like
"okay, you think that I am an Obama supporter even though I am not, but
whether I am or not is irrelevant to the discussion, so can we continue
with what we're discussing?". But in the real, practical world, it
doesn't work like that. At least to me, if the discussion is constantly
tripped up by personal attacks by the other party, or by crude
comparisons or fallacies or logically rude statements (unfalsifiable
explanations for my behavior, say), then it becomes a chore to have to
push the discussion back on track again and again. Furthermore, if what
I'm saying is being misinterpreted, it's also a lot of work trying to
show what I really meant, again and again. At some point it's no longer
worth it.
Logically speaking, whether or not one puts another person on a killfile
has nothing to say about the correctness of that person's arguments. It
is instead, I think, something one resorts to when the other person
breaks common protocol. It's a way of saying "that's it, we're not going
to get anything more out of discussing and you're just going to annoy me
further"; and when done publically, also a way of saying "I think, and I
will let other know, that you're out of line".
Perhaps another person could represent the objections in a better
manner. For instance, whether voters actually need FBC to be deterred
from making strategy that destroys a voting method could be an
interesting question. I don't think the evidence suggests this. Someone
else might disagree. But when the person disagreeing specially-pleads
away the evidence that might support my point, and then starts with
unfalsifiable explanations for why supporters of methods that fail FBC
support such methods, then it's no longer worth it. Surely the person
could, for instance, reply that I'm just engaging in a particularly
sophisticated and verbose version of denial, but that's just another
unfalsifiable and thus it's not worth it to reply to that, either.
Any use of language involves translation from meaning to words on the
one end and from words to intent on the other. If the message degrades
too much in the process of being translated back into meaning, then it's
like talking to a wall. At some point, one finds out life's too short!
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
