From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 04:00:56 BST
On a lighter note (!)
Did anyone spot this picture in the conference set I posted.
Made it to the "were not afraid" web site.
http://www.werenotafraid.com/images/119/index.php
(Ian G Australia)
Tee hee.
Ian
On 7/20/05, Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Jul 20 2005 - 06:09:54 BST