|
Noah -> RE: What behaviour do you find offensive in public? (6/27/2006 1:39:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronBear
Noah, you have just proved once again that you are anti everyone else's ideas and behavioural concepts who differ from your own.. You regularly insult and belettle their ideas and lifestyle. I guess this is because you seem to have a narrow vision and closed mind... You are not worthy of my time or words. I'm done with you!
IronBear,
Some ideas differrent from mine are intriguing, and exploration of them has lead me to adopt them in some cases. Some intriguing ideas turn out to be negligible upon exploration. With some ideas I'm comfortable to agree to disagree. Some other ideas contrary to my own just don't interest me at all; just too thin to care about.
I can freely accept in other people ideas that I disagree with in technical terms or as a matter of preference rather than on ethical grounds. I can and have taken part in explorations of ideas like that at arms length, as you might say. Sometimes the view from outside can refresh the view from inside. Often I'm suppose my comments from outside a given view shed no light at all, but it is hard to tell what someone else might appreciate. And what the hell; it's my nickel.
I'm not much of a "joiner", for instance, but I have spoken here of my admiration of the good people and the good accomplishments of BDSM clubs and their members. I recently did this in the context of pointing out that prejudicial generalizations against non-scenesters are unwarranted for both general and specific reasons.
After all most of us are aware of the bad people and the malarky that is associated with both sides of the "joining" fence. I'll testify that I've met a roomful of people from a neighboring city who give the lie to any generalization that scenesters are as a group lame or foul. They were great.
I read your posts with interest, IB. You sometimes have worthwhile observations or advice, in my view. But when anyone posts ideas which in my view descend to the dangerous or ridiculous I might address them as such. Take that knucklehead with the "Sowing Circle" thread. There is a level of discourse beneath which any response but ridicule or hijacking is mere troll-feeding, in my view. Your view may differ.
I don't see you at that level, IB, by the way; not by any means. I think that overall you're a valuable contributor here, as I try to be. But if I post an idea that someone sees as just ridiculous, I'm quite content to be called out on it in whatever terms my critic chooses. Doubt my sincerity if you choose. The fact is that too much that's good in my life has come as the product of having prior misconceptions--some quite idiotic in retrospect--made clear to me, even quite forcefully in cases where I was being particularly blind or pig-headed.
If someone thinks I'm being ridiculous, and makes that clear, one of us may be able to show the other one a new angle from which to view the thing; a slim chance, I'll admit, given human nature, but when the long odds pay off they pay off big, so I'm game either way.
At a more serious level, if I post ridiculousness in an attempt to shout down opposing views then I'd expect my critic to measure his response accordingly and take good aim.
--and yes I'm referring to your AllCaps and Boldface diatribe in favor of the principle that anything legal is fine and dandy and that your expressions of personal liberty trump all other social considerations. I saw it as out of character but egregious behavior on your part so I called you on it. Not only that, I tacked on some ad hominem critique in the effort to draw your fire away from the woman at whom you were hollering; hollering points you had already made quietly. I saw the ad hominem as justified by the disjunct between all the talk about honor that comes from your Gorean community, on the one hand, and the ugly petulance you were displaying, on the other. The factor which tipped me from silent disapproval to action was that it was all in the context of you responding to her concerns that your activities could in her view harm her children--a view I subscribe to.
I *was* taking issue with some ideas of yours with which I disagree, but this was instrumental to taking issue with your behavior, which which I saw as dishonorable. Note that this is a criticism of the act, not the person. We all fail sometimes, me as much as anyone.
And lest anyone think I'm trying to hide behind a Latin phrase I'll save you the Google search by reminding all that an ad hominem argument is one leveled at the man rather than the idea. It might call into question his skill or his knowledge or his qualifications or his character but it is aimed at the the speaker rather than at what the speaker has said.
Maybe a differently measured response on my part would have been more productive. I acted in the moment and I own my actions.
I doubt anyone will hold you to your "through with it" declaration if you choose to re-engage, nor should they. But if I'm just not good for your blood pressure or if you still see me as beneath your consideration, that's cool. I'm having a fine day either way.
As for anyone who cares to post to testify to IB's goodness and strength of character, go ahead but you really needn't. I'll stipulate to both in advance. IB strikes me as a genuinely decent guy. He has a right to those of his opinions which I find wacky just as I have a right to my opinion of them, and to state it here.
Anyone who wants to post in favor of publicly raging against a woman expressing concern for her children, hell, you're welcome too.
Insofar as IB or anyone else was offended by what seemed to be an attack on his person I have this to say: In retrospect your impression was perfectly reasonable, warranted by my rhetorical use of the ad hominem. In light of that I can see that I should have used another approach.
To put a finer point on my mea culpa: my implicit notion that anyone should have been able to read between the lines enough to see that I wasn't simply attacking IB personally was ridiculous on my part. Stupid, in fact. I didn't measure my response well enough and I didn't take good aim. I'm glad this discussion has made me see what any reasonable person should have seen at once. To him and to you I apologize for the extent to which my response was de facto critical of IB personally rather than strictly targetted to the ideas and behaviors I took issue with.
|
|
|
|
