J
jmcrae
Guest
Why not just address the argument directly, instead of passing judgement on it (calling it simplistic), or passing judgement on the person (calling them arrogant, etc.)?
- Status
L
Loren_1of6
Guest
What you say: Jo, that is a simplistic view of the situation.
What Jo hears: You, Jo, are a simpleton. You can’t even see the big picture after we’ve gone to all this trouble to explain it to you. I have a much better grasp of the situation and if you don’t see it my way, you don’t deserve my attention any more. I am dismissing you as beneath my notice because I am obviously smarter, better informed, more sophisticated and more thoughtful that you.
What Jo hears: You, Jo, are a simpleton. You can’t even see the big picture after we’ve gone to all this trouble to explain it to you. I have a much better grasp of the situation and if you don’t see it my way, you don’t deserve my attention any more. I am dismissing you as beneath my notice because I am obviously smarter, better informed, more sophisticated and more thoughtful that you.
B
Betterave
Guest
How’s this argument:
If people take offense at what you say, then you are a social simpleton who is not acting as a Christian should; you are failing to follow the example of our Lord.
Do y’all think that’s a good argument?
(And please, this is still a *philosophy *forum, so enough with the silly ad hominems and try to address the actual argument.)
If people take offense at what you say, then you are a social simpleton who is not acting as a Christian should; you are failing to follow the example of our Lord.
Do y’all think that’s a good argument?
(And please, this is still a *philosophy *forum, so enough with the silly ad hominems and try to address the actual argument.)
B
Betterave
Guest
What about this: Jo, can we agree that you’ve presented a simplistic view of the situation?
What Jo hears: …?
D
davidv
Guest
Question begging and uncharitable.
Non sequitur. The argument was addressed. Your position is overly agressive and emotionally charged. It appears to have as its purpose “winning the argument” rather than defending the faith.
B
Betterave
Guest
Any thoughts on this passage from the third chapter of the book of the prophet Ezekiel, especially verse 18?:
16 And at the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 17 Son of man, I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel: and you shall hear the word out of my mouth, and shall tell it them from me. 18 If, when I say to the wicked, You shall surely die: you declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at your hand. 19 But if you give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul. 20 Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die, because you have not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he has done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at your hand. 21 But if you warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he does not sin: living he shall live, because you have warned him, and you have delivered your soul.
B
Betterave
Guest
Correct! (Ironic, don’t you think?)
Non sequitur? Please explain. My request can’t possibly constitute a non sequitur, can it? You seem not to know what a non sequitur is, and I don’t point this out in order to win an argument, but because when you use terms incorrectly this make effective communication (esp. philosophical dialogue) difficult to impossible.
As for how you claim that “it appears…,” can you say where and how it is that this appears?
D
davidv
Guest
D
davidv
Guest
This post is a prime example of the presumptiveness contained in many of your exchanges with other posters. Based on this reply I don’t believe you understood my post.
B
Betterave
Guest
So is God almight speaking with *love *to Ezekiel? Or maybe not? … What’s your point? It appears that you’re still completely ignoring the issue: WHAT IS LOVE?
D
davidv
Guest
God is Love.
R
Rocinante
Guest
it’s clear you feel well-justified in you manner in conversation, but in the moment it is really beside the point whether or not someone should take what you say as an insult.
why not take a step back and ask your self why you are participating in the conversation to begin with? is saying something what you know your conversation partner will find offensive (whether or not you think they should take offense) going to help or hinder those aims? even in a philosophy forum it is important to know your audience if you hope to get your point across.
the bottom line is that you personally have a choice as to how you present yourself and your views in conversation, and though you can predict the response, you don’t have a choice as to how your conversational partner will respond. how you make your choices depends on what you hope to accomplish in conversation.
do you want them to feel inferior and think you are super smart or perform for an audience of lurkers? then you probably know how to act. do you want to convince someone of something you think is important to believe? then you’d probably approach the situation quite differently.
if you don’t mind my saying so, it sure looked to me like you started this thread with a big chip on your shoulder. what does that chip on your shoulder do for you? for anyone else?
B
Betterave
Guest
Are you trying to win an argument here? Are you trying to say something philosophically interesting/relevant?
D
davidv
Guest
What do you think?
B
Betterave
Guest
those are good observations and you’re certainly right to a large extent. I try to be honest with myself, though, and I really don’t think that this thread is based on some chip on my shoulder. I’m trying to address what are some fundamental philosophical issues that seem to be very poorly understood.
You seem like a pretty smart guy. I’m genuinely curious: Doesn’t it strike you as at all ironic that Christians would claim that it is un-Christian to offend people? (I assume you know the basics about the life of the founder of Christianity.)
In any case, while your points are well-taken, aren’t they one-sided? Isn’t it also obviously possible that some people (maybe most people?) are simply offended too easily, that they really are too arrogant and closed-minded, that they do not receive criticism in a reasonable, defensible way?
B
Betterave
Guest
Are you asking because you actually want to know, so that you can engage in a fruitful give-and-take of ideas? Or are you just being fractious? What do you think?
B
Betterave
Guest
LOL! You don’t believe I understood your post and that makes me presumptous? BUT I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF! Therefore I obviously wasn’t presuming that I understood your post - I WAS NOTING THAT I HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING IT!
Rocinante, again, I think you seem to be one of the more reasonable people around: am I crazy here? If I am, can you explain how?
R
Rocinante
Guest
yeah, i was just looking at the one side. i actually wholeheartedly agree that people are often way too quick to take offense these days.
what annoys me the most is the notion that because someone took offense it is often automatically assumed that someone else must have been offensive. there are two sides to that equation, and either one can be in the wrong.
we need to give one another the benefit of the doubt that we aren’t out to offend one another all the time. if we have to walk around on tip toes, we probably won’t get a good exchange of ideas.
D
davidv
Guest
I think that based on the OP that you have a lot to learn about how to interact with people, particularly in an internet forum where one’s tone and body language is not present.
Notice the questions above. What presumptions are behind them? They seem to me to be of the same nature as: “having you stopped beating your wife?”
- Status