('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:10:11 -0800
> "Joe Dees" <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com Re: Ad hominem? I think not.Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 03:52:17 -0800
>> Samantha Atkins <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org Re: Ad hominem? I think not.Reply-To: email@example.com
>>Jacques Du Pasquier wrote:
>>> As far as I'm concerned, I understand it, and I do not fly into rage.
>>> But I note that, in the circa 200 messages you posted these last 2
>>> months (which coincides with my presence here), you stated your point
>>> of view on this topic a very large number of times almost unchanged,
>>> and I can't understand why.
>>I keep trying because it is important to me. I think that maybe
>>if I say it just a bit differently or with perhaps a bit more
>>patience or with a bit more care to not be understood then maybe
>>the ills of the situation can be lessened at least a little
>>bit. Or maybe a few who do not see some of the downsides as I
>>do will see things just a bit differently.
>>> I think all list members got it, whether they agree or not.
>>Apparently this is not so judging from the comments I still see
>>> I understand the importance you attach to it, but as important as it
>>> is, I don't think you will convince people who do not agree with you
>>> by massive repetition ; it will only raise their irritation.
>>The above is why I try to say it again. How can I be silent
>>when I see what looks to me like very hardened and dangerous
>>attitudes being expressed that greatly worry me. Would I not be
>>remiss if I did not speak out?
>>> It is not "the last who talks wins the argument", and one should not,
>>> based on such principle, repeat the same thing until the opponent gets
>>> silent... How is the resulting "repetition flood" respectful to the
>>> list members ?
>>I said nothing I said out of disrespect. Quite the contrary.
>You obviously do not understand Samantha's position; it is a messianic pacifism-at-any-cost-including-freedom-and-security position that is inflamed with the fervour of religious certainty. She therefore sees anyone and everyone who would disagree with it as dim and uncomprehending brutes; if the UNDERSTOOD her, they couldn't OF COURSE help but to AGREE with her, for it is WITHOUT QUESTION in her mind that her position is RIGHT.
>Of course, she is wrong, but she is also memetically incapable of grokking same, just like a fundie fanatic for any other absolutist position is.
I forgot to add that the reason that her own position does not change is because it is absolutistically religious in nature; thus she learns nothing from others, nor does her position change except on small and tertiary factual matters where it can be conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is indubitably wrong (such as her US bioweapons program statement), precisely because she views her interlocuters as apostates to be converted to her transcendent truth, rather than folks who might possibly have some knowledge or wisdom to contribute that is beyond her present understanding.
In this, she is no different from dogmatic progun and antiabortion extremists. It is useless to converse with her, for she is emotionally invested in her position, and cannot change it, regardless of the facts of the matter; she can only continue to passionately proselytize to others, whom she must view as being intentionally stubborn and hard-hearted if they do not embrace her gospel.
>Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
>http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT