Quote:

Quote:

David, I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would object to this statement!


Sorry, I thought I had been clear by highlighting particular words. I'm commenting on the language you use here.

When you write "I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.", the implication is that people who don't support the article don't have good sense.




Well.. my intent was not what you are inferring. That comment was mostly a reiteration of the original article, which I will summarize briefly like this: if people don't speak up and participate in the events that affect them, then THEY are the architects of their own dilemma... they can't blame anybody else. I think it is reasonably correct to summarize the article in that way.

I assume you are offended because you took it personally. I submit, however, that trying to understand complex discussions by assuming that it is about you will almost always lead to conclusions that have nothing to do with the real topic... (as this thread testifies.)

Quote:

So it's not a statement on the article, but rather a comment that you appear to be making a value judgement against anyone who disagrees with the article.



David, I'm not trying to attack you. I like you and I respect your opinion on many things. You are a value adding contributor to the forum and you are clearly an intelligent guy. But IMO, to be offended because someone makes a value judgment is the functional equivalent of being offended because one of the kids didn't get an A on the test. In both cases somebody is getting validated without having to face a challenge successfully. From where I stand, until an idea can be defended rationally, it deserves to be valued less than an idea that is defensible. Would you actually disagree with that??

All things are not equal, and therefore value judments are necessary. The fact that you opposed the article is proof that you yourself made a value judgment. You heard his point of view, and valued it less than you value yours, so you spoke up. That's normal and its a good thing! Analyzing pros and cons makes us think.

Discussion is good. I find it very disturbing that so many people gang up on anyone who wants to discuss and dissect ideas. That is the first step in groupthink. Yet the evidence in this thread indicates that people would rather silence those with a different opinion than to communicate their differences. I believe the reason is because they can't defend their position, but they don't want to look too closely at the Baby Ruth they're eating for fear it might be something else.

Quote:

It thought it was ironic that you'd start by explaining that people should be polite in discussing the article, yet immediately include those tactics yourself.



There is a big difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea. Not once did I attack you or anybody else. All I did was point out what I consider to be inconsistencies or fallacious reasoning. Separating key points from peripheral points is a part of rational thinking

But, I accept your observation and I apologize if I've offended you. I see you as a good person, and I have no attitude toward you at all.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0