[Dragaera] Off-Topic Discussion: Occupy Wall Street

[Joshua Kronengold]

On 12/15/2011 02:17 PM, Philip Hart wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Joshua Kronengold wrote:
>> On 12/15/2011 01:52 PM, Philip Hart wrote:
>>> I find this claim (that the private email was sent out of fear),
>>> implication (that the quoted text was "filth") and general stance ("I
>>> get to decide everyone's privacy policy") disappointing.
>> Your problem.
> It's not a problem - I'm disappointed in you, and I find your position
> unfortunate. "Simple things are never problems."

My position was "I feel like using hyperbole."  I'm not an Isola; I 
don't act appropriately at all times, though I hope I usually try.

My actual positions are:

1. Frank's private email to Mathew contained unveiled personal and 
general insults.  It also contained a request that Matthew bow out of 
the conversation, not (apparently) because of a general appeal against 
politics on the list (something I'll likely do if this continues too 
long, although on a list that previously had no traffic, anything to 
raise things above 0 has -some- value), but because Frank was convinced 
that one couldn't hold Matt's position without being and acting like a 
fool, something both fallacious and explicitly insulting.

2. My position regarding when it's appropriate to send private email 
public, and what the consequences are, upon which I think I've 
sufficiently elaborated in the text I've kept below.

>> The custom to keep private email private is a matter of trust, not
>> privacy or copyright. It is almost always appropriate to publish
>> letters sent to you, but it's usually rude.
>
> Wait, and saying someone looks like an idiot isn't? Or is and should be
> called out, unless it's done in the calling-out process? But being rude
> by publishing private correspondence shouldn't be?

Sure it is.  Rude is sometimes warranted when justified by earlier 
events.  Just ask Lady Teldra.  (er, you appear, in your responses, to 
have lost track of the the thread of the response.  Frank claimed that 
Matt responding to a privately send email public was verboten.  I 
responded that it wasn't verboten, merely rude -- and in this case, a 
rudeness that I believe to be warranted).

>>>> Frank, you look like an idiot, not Matt).
>>> Sorry you had to resort to insult.
>> Sorry, "fool". Was trying to repeat Frank's insult, not add a new one.
> So that was a mock tu quoque?

I don't think so, no.  (not quite sure what you mean by a -mock- tu 
quoque, and had to look up tu quoque).  Tu quoque is the argument that 
the attacker is engaged in the behavior he or she disputes, therefore 
his or her argument is false -- this fallacious, of course, because the 
fact of someone being engaged in a specific behavior disliking it does 
not, in fact, imply that their argument against it is wrong.

This isn't the case here.  Instead, Frank made an unsupported claim that 
Matt, by engaging in political discussion from his pov here, was coming 
off as the fool.

Now, to a certain degree, this argument is supported by its own 
existence.  Matt stated his opinion, escalating from a request for 
civility (and a reminder that people with contrary views were present) 
to an attempt to engage the issue, and was met with, in addition to some 
honest debate, insults and namecalling.  Clearly, he -would- be a fool 
to remain in the conversation in the face of such behavior.

However, I have seen no evidence of his [Matt's] acting the fool in this 
discussion (quoting private email publically, which while I feel is 
justified, is certainly a point of vulnerability).  I have seen evidence 
of Frank acting the fool -- including obvious errors like claiming that 
all Tea Partiers (or whatever label they're giving themselves) are 
greedy fools (or something like that; I refuse to look in the archives 
for this).  So if he's going to use the term, I'd have to say the shoe 
fits (a mock, yes, but not a logical argument at all; nor is one 
necessary given the lack of logical arguments from that quarter).