--- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
Yes, it's my OPINION that your OPINION is intellectually dishonest. > That involves so many assumptions on your part that > there could be no reasonable discussion with you on > the issue. Which assumptions you'll regretfully decline to state. > Do you not see how insulting you sound? I did my due > diligence Yes, you've already made that assertion at least twice now. and you refuse to believe that I have > legitimate grounds for my opinion. I'm saying I believe you do NOT have legitimate grounds for your opinion and that your due diligence was not diligent enough. > We are not talking fact here. We are talking opinions > and impressions. Yes, as I said, it's my impression that your opinion is intellectually dishonest. > You seem to be reading more into what I am saying > than what I said. Such as? I note that you've cleverly avoided addressing the basis for my objection. > I have similar impressions and opinions from watching > people speak in tongues at a church service. I'd be surprised if you didn't. I'd be surprised if you didn't have similar impressions and opinions about any reported experience whose implications didn't jibe with your worldview. > > > 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. Let me try again: You and I could disagree without either of us being painted as intellectually dishonest if neither of us felt the other's opinion was intellectually dishonest. I could disagree with you without minimizing (whatever that means) your opinion which happens to be different than my opinion if I didn't think it merited being minimized. In other words, as I said, it depends on the disagreement whether I'm willing to agree to disagree. > > > 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. Oh, I see. We seem to have a definitional problem, then. I don't suppose you'd care to define what you mean by "hysteria." > > --- 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. So you have to respect somebody before you are able to empathize with their pain? Do you believe that's a universal human trait? > 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. Oh, he cares very much indeed. He'd be devastated if he knew he had no negative effect on me. > You poke and prod others also without a care of how > you come off to others and effect others. Have I hurt your feelings, Ruth?
