RE: MD Personal Report on MoQ Conference

From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 20:03:27 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD Materialism and DQ"
  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "RE: MD generalised propositional truths"
  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD Materialism and DQ"
  • Next message: Erin: "RE: MD Personal Report on MoQ Conference"

    If you find value in attacking and disrpescting other people that is your choice. I don't find your analogy of boxing at all persuasive and choose not to use it. All this just further confirms by belief that the coercive force seen in the attacks on the list are the same type that you see in the attacks in religion. I do choose to stay because I find a lot of the posts very interesting. Chuck already gave me leave talking to philosophy to the men speech and I am not interested in that kind of advice so just save it. Despite all your boxing-tough-guy speech this is the wimpiest post I have seen in awhile.

    A lot of heat and no light.

    Erin

     

    dmb says:
    I suppose civility and sarcasm both have their places. I think real the
    danger lurking behind either extreme is censorship. Too much heat will tend
    to shut people up, but so will too much restraint. Take the exchange between
    Mark and Erin, for example. As I see it, Mark knows how to make a case and
    he knows how to criticize those who can't or won't make a case in return.
    "Arrogant" is just what you call a guy that makes you feel stupid and I
    think Erin just wants to stop feeling stupid.

    ERIN: Mark doesn't make feel stupid at all...if anything the exact opposite.

    DMB: She wants the criticism to
    stop so she pretends its Mark's fault that Platt can't make a case, as if
    this were some character flaw on Mark's part.

    ERIN: I don't like disrespectful criticism.

    DMB: That's ridiculous. Erin acts
    as if the MOQ had nothing to say about politics or religion and all views
    are equally valid within it. That view is simply incorrect. And if you think
    otherwise, then make your case. I haven't seen one yet, but that's probably
    because it CAN'T be made.

    ERIN: Just more wrong assumptions. I just know some topics people can't seem to talk about in a civil manner and until they can don't want to participate in the discussions. Of course MoQ has stuff to say about them.

    DMB: One can't avoid criticism in a philosophical forum such as this by simply
    insulting the critic or making emotional appeals about hurt feelings. One
    can make a case or not. You put up or shut up. You can actually address and
    answer the criticism or simply whine about it. Which do you think is gonna
    fly around here? Duh! That's all we can do. I think its that simple. I also
    think its completely unreasonable to expect that heated debate and
    passionate arguments can be avoided here. And what a bore it would be even
    if we could.

    ERIN: I can see you are more interested in heat than light...that doesn't suprise me.

    DMB: Show me a guy who steps into a boxing ring and then complains when the otherguy takes a swing at him and I'll show you a guy who has no idea what he's
    gotten himself into. If you can't take a punch, take up another sport. Don't
    get in the ring. But for god's sake don't ruin the game for the rest of us.

    ERIN: Yeah that is one approach but I don't see it as being of high quality.

    DMB: And no, I'm not suggesting that anyone be asked to leave. I'm just saying
    that it has to be accepted or rejected for what it is. This is an
    intellectual forum and as such anything or anyone that interferes with our
    ability to be open, honest and direct in our exchanges is our enemy.
    Sometimes that is going to mean that people get upset. So what? We're all
    adults here and metaphysics ain't for children. Can we agree on that?
    Personally, I have loads of respect for my enemies. If I'm on your back
    constantly, its a good bet that I take you quite seriously. (Isn't that so,
    Matt?) If I only attacked those who seemed philosophically weak and
    unpersuasive, then I would merely be a cowardly bully and not a boxer in a
    real fight. Right?

    Oddly perhaps, I think the calls for politeness and civility are usually a
    call for self-censorship. I think its a way of asking your opponent to throw
    the fight, take a dive or otherwise corrupt the game. Not always. I'm not
    saying that nobody has ever crossed the line or that there's anything wrong
    with being nice, but usually calls for civility just looks like emotionally
    manipulative bullshit. Usually it comes from those who are far too concerned
    with their own hurt feelings and who wants to put that concern over and
    above the substance of the matter.

    Oooops. Gotta go.

    dmb

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 21:02:17 BST