Re: META: Dishonest debate (was "cluster bombs")

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 10:28:36 MDT

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: [IRAQ]: cognitive dissonance"

    In a message dated 6/16/2003 4:10:41 AM Central Standard Time,
    lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: "Oh yes there is! Your so-called "mincing words" is extremely
    effective flame retardant. Who're you calling a "foaming tribalist fanatic"? We
    absolutely must lower the level of the rhetoric here.
           And then continued, "Pure emotion? Isn't this the second time today
    I've caught
    you in gross exaggeration? What is happening to you, Eliezer? Can't you try
    for a little detachment here? You're making it so black and white."
           Lee sort of outlined why I think the group needs to be more fair and
    balanced. My only quibble with what Lee wrote, and it is a quibble, is over
    addressing the comments to Eliezer. In my mind Eliezer is far more typical than
    exceptional. For those reasons I don't like to pick on any individual. It
    is sufficient to attack their evidence in debate. In fact if some of you
    "Archive Rangers" want to read through a ton of archives I'm willing to bet that
    75% of the personal attacks on this list were initiated by the same group
    screaming over "personal" attacks. They get their debating positions demolished and
    take it personal.
           If I may return to Lee and my quibble. I realize that Eliezer is the
    one that Lee was addressing at that moment. Therefore it was a quibble to
    assume he meant only Eliezer -- we will have to wait until such time as Lee feels
    the need to address that issue.
           So, how about it all you who feel personally attacked. Do you think
    you could return to issues and quit dragging in these snide remarks or personal
    attacks?
    Ron h.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 10:38:59 MDT