Yes, if you label every reason to keep the world and his dog out of your business “dysfunctional” then the whole thing reduces to tautology.
Of course, that implies that a non-”dysfunctional” world would be some variant of utopia—presumably one where everyone more-or-less accepts Adams’ basic viewpoints.
As I say, Adams is not a deep thinker, he just plays one on the net.
Adams is not a deep thinker, he just plays one on the net
Well, first it’s much better to play a deep thinker on the ‘net than do the usual thing and play an idiot on the ’net...
Second, it doesn’t look like he necessarily commits to everything he throws out in his blog. He plays with ideas, tries them on for size, puts them on a stick and waves them at people, etc. I think that’s fine and useful as long as you don’t take everything he writes very very seriously.
Yes, if you label every reason to keep the world and his dog out of your business “dysfunctional” then the whole thing reduces to tautology.
Well, yes. I read his argument as less of an argument in favour of openness and more a sort of a whinge about how people make too much of a big deal about certain things (like homosexuality) which then leads to people keeping those certain things secret.
I’m not sure if that’s what he intended with his argument, but that’s what I got from it.
Yes, if you label every reason to keep the world and his dog out of your business “dysfunctional” then the whole thing reduces to tautology.
As I say, Adams is not a deep thinker, he just plays one on the net.
Well, first it’s much better to play a deep thinker on the ‘net than do the usual thing and play an idiot on the ’net...
Second, it doesn’t look like he necessarily commits to everything he throws out in his blog. He plays with ideas, tries them on for size, puts them on a stick and waves them at people, etc. I think that’s fine and useful as long as you don’t take everything he writes very very seriously.
I’m not sure about that given what happens when someone who’s not a deep thinker tries to play one.
So, what happens?
Well, yes. I read his argument as less of an argument in favour of openness and more a sort of a whinge about how people make too much of a big deal about certain things (like homosexuality) which then leads to people keeping those certain things secret.
I’m not sure if that’s what he intended with his argument, but that’s what I got from it.