--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't > > > had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make > > > patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually > > > honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that > > > conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're > > > more comfortable with. > > > > I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. > > It is hardly intellectually dishonest to come to that > > opinion. I have read about suggestibility. I have > > read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible > > people. I have met people who unequivocally made > > cognitive errors about experiences. I draw my > > opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It > > has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I > > acknowledge that these are opinions, not fact, and > > thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be > > convinced that my opinions are not correct. This > > hardly intellectually dishonest. > > We'll have to, um, agree to disagree about whether it's > intellectually honest. It's simply too easy to relegate > reports of experiences that don't fit into your worldview > to "cognitive error" or "suggestion." (If you can *prove* > that they are, that's a different story. But that you > can prove that *some* instances are cognitive error or > suggestion is not a good basis for the assumption that > other such experiences are as well. You need to take > them on a case-by-case basis and not generalize.)
Give me a break. I come to a different OPINION and you find intellectual dishonesty. That involves so many assumptions on your part that there could be no reasonable discussion with you on the issue. Do you not see how insulting you sound? I did my due diligence and you refuse to believe that I have legitimate grounds for my opinion. We are not talking fact here. We are talking opinions and impressions. You seem to be reading more into what I am saying than what I said. I have similar impressions and opinions from watching people speak in tongues at a church service. > > You and I can disagree without either of us being > > painted as dishonest. You can disagree with me without > > minimizing my opinion which happens to be different than > > your opinion. You are one of the few people I have ever > > "met" who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. > > Actually I do agree to disagree from time to time. But > it depends on the specific disagreement. Not responsive. > > > Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of > > course, sexual response is mostly in the head. So to > > speak. > > Yes. My point was that making strange noises in response > to strong physical sensations can be involuntary, rather > than "hysterical." I never said voluntary. Certainly the noises can be involuntary. That is the nature of hysteria. Duh. <snip> > ----- > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I'm very glad to hear that. > > Really? > ----- > > Yes, really. I wouldn't wish what I was afraid you were > feeling on anybody, because I've been through that level > of despair (albeit in a different context) myself. > I removed the post as it was too pointless. However, the more I listen to you the less I believe your sincerity. You express no respect for me whatsoever so any professed empathy is suspect. The more I read you the more I have the impression that you and Turq are alike. He pokes and prods you, not indicating that he cares at all about you and the negative effect he has on you. You poke and prod others also without a care of how you come off to others and effect others. Well, I am sure you are having fun engaging me. Because I don't like you and would rather not be a game for you, I'll sign off for now and go back to ignoring you. Ta.
