dmb said to John:
I don't think you can you cite any examples of this debate squelching or blind
worship.
John replied:
... I've attempted to elicit debate with you over and over and you've almost
always squelched it with "no thanks" or "this isn't fun" or various other
evasions of my particular passion - the interaction and cross-influences of
Royce and James.
dmb says:
Yep, that's about what I expected. You have not produced a single example of
anything.
You've only made reference to the fact that I don't want to waste time talking
about a dead philosophy with a guy who doesn't understand his own central
terms. What sane person would want to do that? You've treated me like shit a
thousand times and then cry foul when I don't want to be your pen pal? That's
pretty damn autistic. Little advice for you, pal. Don't go into politics. And
don't expect to have any friends either. I think you're confusing intellectual
inflexibility with the simple fact that no reasonable person is going to be
swayed by weak reasoning or bad arguments. Big difference. I can see why you
wouldn't like this kind of rejection. Who would? But that is not a form of
debate squelching. It's just the exercise of judgment with respect to
intellectual quality.
You're just nursing a sore ego because I'm not interested in talking to you
about your favorite topic. Intellectual freedom is not about what pleases John.
The debate squelching charge makes no sense at all. simply because I have no
power to stop you from debating anything. But I think I have the right to
choose my own conversation partners and I'm allowed to disagree with you or
even ignore you. My choices have nothing to do with your intellectual freedom.
I'm only exercising my intellectual freedom. If that's not fair enough for you,
too bad.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
