63
   

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 11:34 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
And it still sees your logical fallacies.


Don't play coy, spill the beans. I'm always in the mood for an improvement in my logic.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 11:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
In that case I don't know what to do than to try my best to just avoid expressing disagreement with you directly

No.
Not at all.
You can disagree with me anytime you want to.
Anyone else here can, too.
And they have done. No problem with that.
It's how you you've (sometimes) done it that's my problem.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 11:42 pm
@msolga,
I understand, and I wish I could disagree with you in a way you find agreeable but I've tried and failed for enough years now to know when to cut my losses. My manner clearly rubs you the wrong way and that is not my intent and diametrically opposed to my priorities and I just think the easiest way to stop the friction is to stop rubbing instead of trying to learn how.
msolga
 
  0  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 12:14 am
@Robert Gentel,
No, I don't think you do understand, Robert.
It is how you have treated me online, sometimes completely misinterpreting what I've been trying to say.

Sometimes you've gotten it quite wrong. (eg I am not "high maintenance" for you. I was not attempting to undermine your position with the Philosophy Forum folk.)

Sometimes you've kinda acknowledged it after a horrible encounter (for me, anyway).

What am I to make of posts with a record numbers of fucks included, because you don't like my concerns about the lowest paid Australian workers losing their jobs forever? And that you're really happy that they're in that situation. Is there no better, less aggressive, way to respond if you disagree?

For heavens sake, I don't speak to you in this sort of way!

Anyway, anyway...

Anyway, I think I've said way too much already. And my concerns are hardly the focus of this thread ...

Quote:
I wish I could disagree with you in a way you find agreeable


The way to do that is really easy.

Just respond to my arguments with counter-arguments, nothing more.








Ionus
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 12:24 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
every 10 thousand posts or so he really is hilarious
Boy, thats put the pressure on...dont know if I can maintain THAT average.... Sad
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 12:42 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

No, I don't think you do understand, Robert.
It is how you have treated me online, sometimes completely misinterpreting what I've been trying to say.


I think I do really (but also may not, who knows?), but just think I'd rather be sure I won't be rude to you than keep bungling it. I really don't meant to offend (at least in your case), but it is my nature to be curt, and blunt, arrogant and hasty and if I'm just not at all confident in my ability to avoid offense any other way.

Quote:
Sometimes you've gotten it quite wrong. (eg I am not "high maintenance" for you. I was not attempting to undermine your position with the Philosophy Forum folk.)


I guess there is high maintenance in intent and high maintenance in effect, I certainly don't think you'd ever intend to be anything of the sort and it's entirely possible that the referenced encounters happened when I was simply in over my head and lashing out and being unreasonable, but no matter what the case I think I now know the only solution because it is high maintenance in effect to me (whether this is my problem or not).

Quote:
Sometimes you've kinda acknowledged it after a horrible encounter (for me, anyway).


I'm sincerely sorry about that, sometimes it takes more than it should for me to realize when I've taken argument and pedantry too far.

Quote:
What am I to make of posts with a record numbers of fucks included, because you don't like my concerns about the lowest paid Australian workers losing their jobs forever?


If I had my druthers it would be that I am a person particularly given to inclusion of the word "****" in a sentence these days and that I don't mean it as aggressively as it must come off, but at the same time I often vote down the use of such foul language myself, interpreting it as inordinately aggressive, and don't really like it even as it rolls off my tongue so I can appreciate the vast difference in intent and effect that it may have, but I really do think it's a lot easier for me to avoid offending you other ways than to stop using the language I would like to so I will seek to accomodate you in other ways.

I really do feel bad about upsetting you a lot of times, you are a very nice and polite person and I wish I had your emotional IQ but am afraid that despite my best efforts I won't.

Quote:
And that you're really happy that they're in that situation. Is there no better, less aggressive, way to respond if you disagree?


I am not happy that anyone is in a bad situation at all. I really don't think I said anything at all reasonably interpretable to that effect but if I did it was probably the hasty and inarticulate retard in me. I am happy if poorer 3rd world folks improve their lot in life even if it is at the expense of much, much richer, if still unfortunate, Australian first world folk and I am completely unwilling to apologize for my lacking nationalistic tribalism in this matter and really do think that the first-world protectionism against the third world is self-indulgent selfishness that disregards much greater need for tribal proximity. This is my opinion and I have seen no reasonable argument from you to change it but it is just not worth continuing to express it to you if it causes offense to you. At the same time mere offense isn't going to change my opinion, just my willingness to express it and cause said offense. I seem to have a piss-poor record at not offending you so I'll just do the best I can do in that regard and avoid arguing with you.


Quote:
The way to do that is really easy.

Just respond to my arguments with counter-arguments, nothing more.


We'll have to agree to disagree (in my case vehemently so) about whether doing so would not cause you offense and I'll leave that as the final word, on my part, on this matter, I've got your point loud and clear now even if I draw very different conclusions on the matter. I'm sorry if I have offended you and am myself uncomfortable enough in these exchanges that I will not address you again and thereby guarantee no further offense than extracting me from discussions with you as politely as I am now able to.
msolga
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 01:04 am
@Robert Gentel,
OK
That's your response.
I'll leave things here, I think.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:04 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
He knows but wanted to draw attention to a post he made that was popular. So let's all check it out (wasn't half-bad actually).


I'm sorry mate but I didn't know. I still don't understand the thumbing business. I don't know what its for or how it works.

For some unaccountable reason I happened to notice my green thumb and wondered aloud what it meant.

I make no apologies for hoping attention is given to my posts. I can't see the point of writing them otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:25 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:


There IS a god!


Some of us have been saying that for a long time.

Smile
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:26 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
dlowan wrote:
There IS a god!

Some of us have been saying that for a long time.


Yeah, but with no credibility.
dlowan
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:26 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

dlowan wrote:


There IS a god!


Some of us have been saying that for a long time.

Smile


I was just kidding.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:32 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
dlowan wrote:
There IS a god!

Some of us have been saying that for a long time.


Yeah, but with no credibility.


Much like this thread.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:32 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

dlowan wrote:


There IS a god!


Some of us have been saying that for a long time.

Smile


I was just kidding.


I know bunny humour when I see it. Wink
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:36 am
@Intrepid,
This thread is a train wreck.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

This thread is a train wreck.


What??? We actually agree on something? Have a coffee on me at Timmy's. Just tell them Intrepid sent you. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:38 am
Damn, now i have to hike all over t.o. There's a Coffee Time just down the street from me . . . two, in fact . . . will you keep that in mind in the future?
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:41 am
Blimey--a cup of coffee is a big deal now.
High Seas
 
  -2  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:52 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
I wish I could disagree with you in a way you find agreeable

The way to do that is really easy.
Just respond to my arguments with counter-arguments, nothing more.

Arguments must be based on reality, as in demonstrable facts. You mistake opinion for argument, then feel personally attacked when someone points that out in the most polite way possible. You might avoid this problem by refraining from posting on subjects you very clearly do not know - example here:
http://able2know.org/topic/160562-16#post-4397271
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 05:28 am
@spendius,
George Steiner wrote-

Quote:
I have tried to make two points. The ontologically linguistic, discursive substance of interpretations and value-judgements in aesthetics makes verification and falsification logically as well as pragmatically impossible. No proposition in poetics and aesthetics can, in any rigorous sense, be refuted. The absence of constraint resides in the heart of speech and in the cardinal relations of 'being human' in speech.
Secondly, I have argued that the attempt to attenuate or to evade altogether this abyss of freedom by invoking consensus, institutional and social, across the ages, by pointing to the majority votes cast for certain works and texts over the long centuries, carries neither formal nor evidential finality. Truth, if any such be postulated in respect of the aesthetic, cannot be either proved or disproved statistically. I have suggested, further, that neither historical nor sociological fact truly supports the model of interpretation and critical judgement via evolutionary accord. The canon is forged and perpetuated by the few. Thus Kant's postulate of a validation of just understanding and taste by means of the consensual mechanism of "subjective universality", of an orderly progress from the intuitive findings of an individual to the calm waters of the public and the canonic, is either wishful thinking or an empirical observation of the politics of taste in a more or less enlightened, meliorist community.


Which means roughly that anyone calling people things like "troll" and "trash" and suchlike is educationally below the threshhold generally considered adequate for them to have any influence on a national educational system or to have anything worthwhile to say about it other than the exercise of a vote every few years.

It might also be read to mean that this pointedly Ignoring and thumbing up and down is basically anti-social and even inhuman and leads, with a little evolution, to dress codes and other forms of exclusions over and above those provided by legal considerations. One might even justifiably say that such things are unconstitutional.
High Seas
 
  -2  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 05:43 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Truth, if any such be postulated in respect of the aesthetic, cannot be either proved or disproved statistically.

The author you quote uses lots of words to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and even if you get agreement about it at some point in time the consensus view is likely to change if you wait a while. That's a platitude - though he does express it elegantly, and drags Kant into it as well; it may even apply to trolldom. But trying to extend the platitude to demonstrate that thumbs up / down as used on this forum is "unconstitutional" doesn't work - not by any stretch of the imagination. Are you using words to express your meaning or to conceal it? The latter applies to most of your posts Smile
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 03/07/2025 at 01:41:39