[Dragaera] Off-Topic Discussion: Occupy Wall Street

[Frank Mayhar]

On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:58 -0500, Joshua Kronengold wrote:
> 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).

Okay, _one_ more thing:  You're _really_ good at reading stuff I didn't
write.  Really _remarkably_ good.  Bravo.
-- 
Frank Mayhar
frank at exit.com