Subject:
|
Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:49:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8159 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--snip--
I think this entire argument can be put down to a disagreement over what
evidence is applicable to the use in the argument. I think you’re as unlikely
to convince me that your choices are valid as I am to convince you that mine
are. We are both picking and choosing what we will and won’t include.
|
Here’s the thing--my justification for ‘choosing evidence’, if you wish to call
it that, is like anytrhing else
So here’s a hypothetical situation--
Bob had a pretty ‘transgressive’ start to life. He had gotten into some
unlawful mischief in his youth, but, through ‘doing time’, community service,
and such, the law now states that he has absolved all transgressions.
Now Bob is a productive worker in society, and a fine contributor to his local
community. However, when he’s at the local PTA meeting, someone steps up and
says, “Why that Bob!! He was a bad seed before!! He should be punished!!!”
I ‘pick and choose’ my evidence by what’s relevant for this issue. What isn’t
relevant is people bringing up (almost constantly) the ‘badness’--the
transgressions--of someone’s past when the ‘official’ stance is that these past
transgressions are absolved.
So again, I’m not cherry picking. And when I talk about how *I*‘ve had (mostly)
fun with my entire history on LUGNET, it doens’t mean I’m bringing *all* of the
history of LUGNET into this issue *but you can’t*--it means that your issue of
‘Eric limits people’s fun here on LUGNET’ as you specified is crap--first it’s a
separate issue from the original issue, therefore I addressed it as such, and
secondly, once again saying that Eric limits people’s fun here has been
addressed by the admins, both past and present, and now, it appears anyway, Eric
*is* contributing to the ‘good times’ of LUGNET.
So I addressed the various issues that you prsented, and there’s no logical
fallacy therein. If you want to jump around with ‘why Eric’s bad’ and I point
out that, well, your premise is wrong, and you don’t like the truths--again, you
are more than entitled to your own opinions, but you certainly are not entitled
to what the truth is--nor am I for that matter. What is, is. Eric has shown
himself to be a better person here. He looks like he has learned to at least
try to let things go easier. So he got a little ‘officiously litigious’ on this
one--again, the important bit is why he did that in the first place.
If he went on a rant for ‘no real reason’, then I’d call him on it. But
(almost) everyone in this thread has pointedly said that *something* happened
that was a malicious attack on Eric. We can debate the measure of response as a
separate issue (like the above ‘Eric limits fun’), but the fact--the *truth*
is--that the *malicious attack* did happen. That’s the issue. We can dress it
up and debate all around it, but the truth is right there.
So where do you stand, Tim? Should Eric get an apology? Not from you and I,
for as you stated, you had nothing to do with the ‘original sin’ but jumped in
when I posted something I think you misinterpreted. We can discuss ‘does Eric
*deserve* an apology?’ and go into all that is Eric and his impact on others...
Lets put it this way--had I ‘tampered with’ some links and images on a sidebar
that pertained to your stuff--even if I did it as a joke, but you didn’t take it
as such, should I offer you an apology? If not, then there’s nothing more to
say. Again, it doesn’t matter if you wouldn’t get upset if this happened to
you--I don’t think I would have been upset--I’m an ‘eh, whatever’ kind of guy
*for me*. The fact is--Eric was upset, and he had a *right* to be
upset--therefore he should get an apology. We can go on about all the other
stuff regarding his past and what happens elsewhere (not on LUGNET), but that’s
obfuscation, and irrelevant to the original issue.
| |
| |
| |
--snip--
| |
If someone points out that his response to this latest issue was
over-the-top ‘officiously litigious’, then they are focusing on the wrong
part--the fact that it happened is the actual issue. How Eric responded
to is is parenthetical.
|
--snip--
I’m sorry Dave but I disagree with you about this. Eric’s actions in
threatening Ross (and Rene) with legal action is an issue. It is not
playing nice to do this. What Ross did was probably wrong. What Eric did
was probably wrong.
|
How we deal with issues is important. I called Eric on it by letting him
know that he can be better. I didn’t let him off the hook for it, and I
didn’t ignore it. I also didn’t go ‘flying off the handle’ because of it,
either, and Rene didn’t either. So are you speaking for Rene now?
|
I’m not sure how you can read that I am speaking for Rene. I state that
Eric’s action threatening Ross (should be Al, my mistake) and Rene is an
issue. Nor did I go flying off the handle over it, or at least no more so
than you did (if you are implying that I did).
|
I used language that I regret and, on reading it, made unintentional allusions.
My ‘didn’t fly off the handle’ was meant to point out that my way of
‘admonishing Eric’ to not aggravate the situation was as low key--by saying
‘you’re better than this’, I think, was a very nice way and about as far from
‘flying off the handle’ as one can get. I also think that this entire thread
has demonstrated that everyone involved has been doing same--tempers haven’t
‘flared’ and no one has ‘flown off the handle’.
| |
| |
The body of evidence *here* shows that he’s pretty good *here* *now*. I’m
sorry if you can’t see that. And I’m sorry that people like to provoke him
*here* that leads to these issues. I’m also sorry that I do tend to go on
about it :)
|
As I said above, you are picking your body of evidence according to what
suits your argument (or possible vice versa) as am I (or possibly vice
versa). It is similar to the situation in mathematics where there are various
ways for measuring time-moving averages and intuition must be used (usually)
to choose which one is more applicable to the situation. Our intuitions
disagree.
|
I’m using the relevant data for this issue. If you want to talk about other
issues, I’m all for that and we can pull in whatever data you wish to pull in.
Keeping the data relevant to the issue isn’t ‘cherry picking’. It’s keeping the
data relevant to the issue.
| |
| |
Where did I ‘bolster’ my point from past evidence? I made a somewhat
parenthetical observation that my fun here at LUGNET is in no way diminished
by people I don’t like.
|
Parenthical or obsfucating? ;)
|
I’m good at both. I dealt with this above, but it bears repeating. Your point
that ‘Eric limits fun’ is a separate issue, and I dealt with that point by
showing that a) LUGNET’s big enough for everyone, and b) I’ve had fun through
many many bumps along LUGNET’s history. My having fun has never been dependant
on anyone else.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Can we apply the ‘you are better than this’ expression to everyone
involved? I’d like to think so.
|
Now I can certainly agree to that and had you said that in your first post
I would never have posted in this thread in the first place.
Tim
|
So there we are.
|
Except I just realised that I somewhat contradict my own arguments by stating
that I agree with it and you somewhat contradict your statement by the
arguments you make in this post with it... which goes to show that the
optimal solution may actually be the least logical.
Tim
|
Actually, as far as I’m concerned, everyone in this thread has been performing
better than expected. No yippage of ‘bans’ or ‘i’m quitting!!’. It’s been a
pretty good conversation all around. I think everyone has demonstrated the
‘better than that’ attitude. However, there have been some (minor, at least to
me) pot shots directed at Eric.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
| (...) Dave, Your analogy is incorrect. It would be correct if Bob had done something in another town and then someone in the town hall had abused Bob for his actions in the other town, Bob had defended himself, James had said Bob was reformed and (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: illogical behavior ;)
|
| --snip-- I think this entire argument can be put down to a disagreement over what evidence is applicable to the use in the argument. I think you're as unlikely to convince me that your choices are valid as I am to convince you that mine are. We are (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
