Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

On 20 Apr 2006 07:30:26 -0700, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> 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.
>
>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>> Civility and intelligence in discourse are independent; you have
>> drawn a false dichotomy.
>
>To me, civility and level of discourse are also independent.
>
>In my opinion the occasional rudeness is the least of the problems in
>this group.

     Well-spoken.

     Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 19:23:07 CEST