Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> > > >This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> > > >But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?
>
> > > They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.
>
> >They can be so used, but they should not be so used.
>
> I disagree. If something is clearly too stupid to be discussed then we
> can point that and to move to more useful things.

Then you do not disagree. I have no objection to labelling some THING as intellectually defective and not worth discussing. I don't think inflammatory rhetoric is required to do so, but I have no objection whatsoever to refutations of ideas, no matter how forceful.

> >Indeed. That is why, when I am discussing issues such
> >as civility with people who are ignorant on the topic, or
> >who have some innate difficulty with it, I try to be
> >patient and polite, in the same way that I try to be
> >patient and polite with those who are ignorant or who
> >have difficulty with technical subjects.
>
> I try to do the same until I realize that I am discussing with a
> perseverant ignoramus who has not any intention to attend to reasons.
>
> Ignoramuses might be intelligent, reasonible and they might learn.
> Perseverant ignoramuses are stupid and only deserve to be quickly
> debunked.

I have no objection to debunking. I support debunking!

> >Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
> >absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.
>
> But politeness should not be confused with sissiness. To call a spade a
> spade is reasonible.

If the spade is an idea, then yes. If the spade is a person, then it is rude to call it anything.

> In my opinion the occasional rudeness is the least of the problems in
> this group.

Hmmm. Well, we might not be as far apart on that issue as it appears.

Marshall Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 18:15:51 CEST