--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> > At one point in one of Michael's diatribes at me for > having questioned something he said, he declared that > it was really Nature who was dumping on me; he was > just passing on Nature's displeasure. That might be correct, but doesn't really work as an argument. > Well, I don't know, actually. But I would hope that > at least some who read my posts--whether I'm taking > down Barry or some other person trying to get away > with gross dishonesty--learn something about how to > spot it, so they're less likely to be taken in by > it in the future, whether on an Internet forum or > in a newspaper opinion column or a State of the Union > address. Sort of learning on differentiated thinking? I think you are really good at it, and I always wanted to learn from you. Just for me it stops, when it gets too much into personal stuff. I hate it, everybody is human, everybody can get hurt. I admit, that I am sometimes too much 'pointed' myself, probably to add some spice. But it should basically be connected to a specific argument. > So there's more to it than pointing out the > shortcomings of any one particular individual. Too > many people simply accept what they read and hear > without applying critical thinking. Sure, but many people are just lazy. Really, could you change anybodies mind? Most people have rather strong views. It's unlikely they will change their mind completely. The only thing you could achieve is for someone to have a slightly more differentiated view. <snip> > I think you may be unusual in this regard. Let's face it: It is difficult to let go. I don't know, if this is a taboo to talk about, but isn't this also a kind of an addiction? (one form of internet addiction) For some people this may be totally under control, some just post more or less cryptic one-liners to not be drawn in too much.I feel it is a strength to just be able to stop at any point. I don't actually want to educate you, I am just explaining how it is for me. I think that it is also a false reliance on the intellect, in a way that Jim likes to point out. Not that one shouldn't rely on the intellect in a discussion, of course one should, but there is a limit somewhere, how far you would actually go out of your way, just to make a small point. These are the two extremes I would see: One is simply stating an opinion, without any intellectual back-up, and the other one an intellectual argument, pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions ad naseum.(I also like to point out inconsistencies) But I am in no way on a mission here with you, Judy. I also think that the pure exercise has its value, and that you don't degrade yourself by the topics you engage yourself in. I think everybody has to jump in the mud, and make a fool of himself at sometime ;-) Thats how life is. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
