I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
But my problem isn’t just that you haven’t conceded that your opponent might make plausible points.
I still don’t understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
I still don’t understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
I have no idea if you have done done that. In the same way, If I had just read the “Amanda Knox is guilty” website I would have no idea if they had responded to the best arguments of the “Amanda Knox is innocent” crowd. But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I’m afraid I’m at a loss. Sorry.
But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I’m afraid I’m at a loss. Sorry.
His discussion strategy consists almost entirely of logical rudeness. I had assumed he was an attorney based on my prior experiences with the style long before he presented his qualification as evidence. My prejudices inform me that while they can often be quite competent at seeking out truth, speaking to lawyers is a terrible strategy for finding truth yourself.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
Right. That’s what I meant when I said “that was that.” He was finito. Kaput. If people do not respond to reasonable questions I ask, I am not interested in engaging with them.
But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so.
Well, if there is some important piece of evidence I am ignoring, somebody should post it. Then you can see how I respond and evaluate my tone.
Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
Sure, if they do so in a reasonable fashion.
[banning for dissenting in a reasonable fashion, etc]
Maybe so . . . . but so what? It’s not like I’m saying he’s a bad person.
One ‘so what?’ is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of ‘bad person’ involves philosophy I’ve never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.
I have no idea what your point is. I asked that person a reasonable question; he did not answer; so I do not feel like engaging with him any further. It’s as simple as that.
is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast.
We have been there already. In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim “I am willing to talk to dissenters” EXCLUSIVE-OR “me blocking dissenters is not relevant”. I don’t really care which you do but you’re doing both. That’s an AND not an XOR.
My more specific point is that this behavior is highly undesirable to me and I want to discourage it.
I could; you could; anyone could. Again, so what?
I don’t believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me. Sincerity is a hard skill to master, at least at the higher levels of contradiction.
In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim “I am willing to talk to dissenters” EXCLUSIVE-OR “me blocking dissenters is not relevant”. I
That’s not my claim. I am willing to talk to dissenters, but only certain kinds. For example if the dissenter wastes my time by insisting on mischaracterizing my position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
If the dissenter refuses to answer reasonable questions about his position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
And so on.
I don’t believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me
Everyone makes mistakes now and then.
Anyway, I think I understand at least part of your point now: You are accusing me of being a liar (or of lying to myself habitually). Is that it?
I am willing to talk to dissenters, but only certain kinds.
So am I. You are free with the block command and so I wouldn’t be particularly reluctant to use it on you. I honestly prefer overt trolls to your ‘kind’. That’s just my quirk. I prefer things out in the open.
Anyway, I think I understand at least part of your point now: You are accusing me of being a liar (or of lying to myself habitually). Is that it?
No you’re just trying to make me sound bad and claim the moral high ground. Of course, what I actually said is probably a greater slight coming from me. I claim that I am a liar when I say six contradictory things but you could say them sincerely and the concept of ‘lie’ is way off in the background, a discarded child’s toy.
Also, are you claiming that I admitted to refusing to engage with people simply because they disagree with me?
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
Simple yes or no question.
I replied to this comment only to give myself practice at avoiding this trap. Questions stop being simple ‘yes or no’ propositions when you know that they will be glued together in a way that does not follow. Respond to the frame, not the image.
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
As usual, I don’t understand what your point is, except it seems you have evaded my question.
One ‘so what?’ is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of ‘bad person’ involves philosophy I’ve never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.
I don’t understand your point here either, except it seems you are trying to insult me in a roundabout way by accusing me of some kind of dishonesty.
Indeed, it seems your comments towards me are more informed by personal animus than any desire to actually discuss or debate anything. It seems to me you are still annoyed that I pointed out a contradiction in your argument a few threads back.
In any event, I generally don’t engage with people who are consistently incoherent or with people who consistently insult me. It’s just a waste of my time. If anyone else wants to explain what Wedifred’s point is in a polite manner, I’m happy to listen. But as for Wedifred, I’m not engaging with him anymore.
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
I still don’t understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
Sure, if they do so in a reasonable fashion.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
I have no idea if you have done done that. In the same way, If I had just read the “Amanda Knox is guilty” website I would have no idea if they had responded to the best arguments of the “Amanda Knox is innocent” crowd. But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I’m afraid I’m at a loss. Sorry.
His discussion strategy consists almost entirely of logical rudeness. I had assumed he was an attorney based on my prior experiences with the style long before he presented his qualification as evidence. My prejudices inform me that while they can often be quite competent at seeking out truth, speaking to lawyers is a terrible strategy for finding truth yourself.
Right. That’s what I meant when I said “that was that.” He was finito. Kaput. If people do not respond to reasonable questions I ask, I am not interested in engaging with them.
Well, if there is some important piece of evidence I am ignoring, somebody should post it. Then you can see how I respond and evaluate my tone.
Maybe he had better things to do than hang out on your web site on your timetable?
Maybe so . . . . but so what? It’s not like I’m saying he’s a bad person.
[banning for dissenting in a reasonable fashion, etc]
One ‘so what?’ is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of ‘bad person’ involves philosophy I’ve never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.
I have no idea what your point is. I asked that person a reasonable question; he did not answer; so I do not feel like engaging with him any further. It’s as simple as that.
I could; you could; anyone could. Again, so what?
We have been there already. In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim “I am willing to talk to dissenters” EXCLUSIVE-OR “me blocking dissenters is not relevant”. I don’t really care which you do but you’re doing both. That’s an AND not an XOR.
My more specific point is that this behavior is highly undesirable to me and I want to discourage it.
I don’t believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me. Sincerity is a hard skill to master, at least at the higher levels of contradiction.
That’s not my claim. I am willing to talk to dissenters, but only certain kinds. For example if the dissenter wastes my time by insisting on mischaracterizing my position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
If the dissenter refuses to answer reasonable questions about his position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
And so on.
Everyone makes mistakes now and then.
Anyway, I think I understand at least part of your point now: You are accusing me of being a liar (or of lying to myself habitually). Is that it?
This thread is degenerating rapidly. Downvoting from after this comment down.
So am I. You are free with the block command and so I wouldn’t be particularly reluctant to use it on you. I honestly prefer overt trolls to your ‘kind’. That’s just my quirk. I prefer things out in the open.
No you’re just trying to make me sound bad and claim the moral high ground. Of course, what I actually said is probably a greater slight coming from me. I claim that I am a liar when I say six contradictory things but you could say them sincerely and the concept of ‘lie’ is way off in the background, a discarded child’s toy.
Please stop with the personal comments.
Also, are you claiming that I admitted to refusing to engage with people simply because they disagree with me? Simple yes or no question.
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
I replied to this comment only to give myself practice at avoiding this trap. Questions stop being simple ‘yes or no’ propositions when you know that they will be glued together in a way that does not follow. Respond to the frame, not the image.
As usual, I don’t understand what your point is, except it seems you have evaded my question.
I don’t understand your point here either, except it seems you are trying to insult me in a roundabout way by accusing me of some kind of dishonesty.
Indeed, it seems your comments towards me are more informed by personal animus than any desire to actually discuss or debate anything. It seems to me you are still annoyed that I pointed out a contradiction in your argument a few threads back.
In any event, I generally don’t engage with people who are consistently incoherent or with people who consistently insult me. It’s just a waste of my time. If anyone else wants to explain what Wedifred’s point is in a polite manner, I’m happy to listen. But as for Wedifred, I’m not engaging with him anymore.
Bye.
Not too complicated for a reader to understand.
I should clarify that obfuscation qualifies as ‘ignoring’.
Well, if you think there is some important piece of evidence I am obfuscating, please feel free to describe it.