--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > Yeah, but intellectual dishonesty isn't always so > > clear-cut as just a logical fallacy. And in this > > case, it was used in service of a gratuitous insult. > > So two wrongs make a right?
I'd class that question as a thought-stopper. Nobody's claiming any insult is "right." The issue is the dynamic involved. > In that i consider "intellectual > dishonesty" an insult. And IMO, perhaps its use a bit lazy, since > other less inflamatory forms of the same message could be > constructed and conveyed. Such as, in this particular case? And would have perhaps avoided the long, range war, we > just witnessed. > > > I don't think you're going to get very far by > > advocating turning the other cheek here. > > Well, I hope I make some headway in help people to "not take the > bait". Since doing so is childish and demeans them -- in many cases. Again, I think it will be easier and more effective to get rid of the baiting. No bait to respond to, no response to the bait, by definition. > > But if > > you can stop the gratuitous insults, you'll stop > > the insulting responses automatically. > > Yes. I am trying to stop the "sparks". > > And as a back up, when that doesn't work, i am trying to make people > comfortable with, and less viscerally, lower reptile brain, > reflexively reactive by, "not taking the bait". As Curtis just pointed out, some of the grievances are very real, and of long standing. So you need to take that into account. It's not easy to make someone comfortable with not responding to that kind of grievance. And I also think it's too easy to classify such responses as "lower reptile brain." (In any event, those are the *most* difficult to curtail.) > And I am working on a a bag of sticky purple smelly goop fallng out > the sky on offenders when those two approaches don't work. <grin>
