|
CCS: Cheers. I appreciate that based on some of our past discussions it would be quite reasonable for you to have seen my questions as bait and switch. However, I said that they were genuine, and I meant it. Thanks for your answers. I think you make a really good point about communication as a method of conveying an idea or concept as distinct from the argument itself.
My apologies if that little bit in there came across as facetious and/or obnoxious. It's just that I don't recall ever having seen you admit to having been in error. Of course this does not mean that you have not done so, but it occurred to me that it is at least possible that you might have the experience of having never been in error. I did not want to discount this possibility without giving you the opportunity to rebut it. I meant only to comment that it is perhaps unusual and, as I stated, a reasonably impressive achievement if it is the case. Given how it would be unusual, I really was interested in how you might have managed it had it been the case. Once again, I apologise if I caused offence with that statement, it was not my intention.
I must admit that I did think that there was a good chance that when asked to define what constitutes "revising ones arguments to suit one's self" you would respond by saying something along the lines of: "Oh, well that's obviously what lolspeed does!". That would've been a bit of a bummer, because it would've been a sort of circular definition. I really like the fact that you actually came up with a detailed explanation of what you consider it to be. It's perhaps particularly helpful that you also took the time to give clear and concise examples of exactly how your definition applies to Lightspeed's behaviour in this discussion. Thanks again for your answers.
Lightspeed: I think there are two things that come out of what CCS said that you might do well to take on board. First there is the explanation given by CCS of the particular behaviours that you exhibit in this discussion which a number of posters on the forums find objectionable. I do think that it is very reasonable to expect that you should provide some clarifications around exactly what you mean with regards to your standards of caring. If you totally refuse to do that then to me it would be obvious that you are not really that interested in having a rational discussion about the topic. Perhaps my more charitable interpretation of your argument was accurate, and perhaps it was not. If it was accurate and you really do wish to discuss political caring with reference to GT's point of view then there has been a clear path set out for you to achieve this discussion by CCS. Of course even allowing that you do as CCS suggests, that doesn't guarantee that GT will want to have that discussion. Still, I don't see how it can do any harm for you to indulge them with respect to the charitable activities you participate in, and it might have the result of taking this discussion from a pissing contest to something that would actually resemble political debate (Shh, I know some of you will say that political debate is just a pissing contest anyway.) I hope that making precisely what people's objections to your contributions on this forum are crystal clear as has been done here might be helpful for you in avoiding the pile ons that seem to so regularly happen to you. If you're interested in avoiding them that is.
Secondly, another point for you to absorb is that at least CCS, probably cyc, and possibly a variety of other members of the forum, are not interested in actually having any kind of rational debate with you. CCS even went so far as to point out that he doesn't much care if third parties reading the discussion find his posts less convincing because of their ad hominem content. He's not interested in convincing anyone of anything, it's probably also reasonable to conclude that he's not open to being convinced of anything much by you either (CCS: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.) They have concluded that you are in fact a crackpot and their primary motivation is to gain entertainment from making fun of you. I find it hard to understand why you would bother to continue engaging them in arguments or discussion at all in such circumstances. As I understand it the forum has an ignore function, and I'm sure there are other members here who you can have more constructive discussions with.
GT: Fair enough, I understand exactly what you mean. Although I will say that should you decide to actually elaborate, I would very much be looking forward to reading what you write.
|