demallien
Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007
|
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:40) | Demallien,
Like I said, the post I wrote is an argument, not a series of potential quote mines. I am not advocating or defending abuse (in the case of Lenny I was saying his annoyance was justified, not his abuse. Seriously, reading for comprehension, look it up. At the same time look up the difference between justified emotional/psychological state and justified actions based on said state).
As for the previous comment you quote, and here's some "abuse" for you, are you so determined to paint me the villain that you deliberately take my comments out of context? Some might consider that less than fully 100% honest, although I would never have the temerity to even attempt to suggest it. Read the whole argument Demallien, deal with the whole argument.
Explain to me how pointing out to a person who has lied that they have lied, even using the word "liar", constitutes abuse. Perhaps the cartoon metaphor threw you. The "Acme frying pan to the face" comment was an amusing image I had in my head at the time of posting, does it need saying that I am not advocating real frying pans to real faces? Do you really think that after you have explained delicately and patiently 2+2=4 to a confirmed 2+2=TripleQ advocate 2, 3 or more times that it is somehow ABUSIVE to ask the question "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?". Wow you're ability to be even faintly self critical is terribly low isn't it of you think THAT constitutes abuse. I'll grant you it might not be very tolerant, but it sure as #### is perfectly justified based on the actions of said 2+2=TripleQ advocate. Since when did tolerance of hypocrisy, deliberate ignorance and outright lies become polite? I must have missed that little update.
All the following are from the OED:
Abuse
1. The process of using up or wearing out. Obs.
2. a. Wrong or improper use, misuse, misapplication, perversion. spec. The non-therapeutic or excessive use of a drug; the misuse of any substance, esp. for its stimulant effects. Cf. drug-abuse s.v. DRUG n.1 1b; solvent abuse s.v. SOLVENT n. 5.
b. Rhet. Improper use of words, catachresis.
3. A bad or improper usage (i.e. a use which has become chronic), a corrupt practice.
4. Imposture, deceit; delusion. Obs.
5. Injury, wrong, ill-usage. Obs.
6. Violation, defilement (now only in self-abuse). 1993 update [6.] For def. read: Violation, defilement. In mod. use esp. sexual or other maltreatment, and freq. with qualifying word, as CHILD abuse, SELF-ABUSE n., SEXUAL abuse, etc.
7. Injurious speech, reviling, execration; abusive language.
Injurious:
Fraught with injury; tending to injure: said of actions, and persons committing them.
1. Wrongful; hurtful or prejudicial to the rights of another; wilfully inflicting injury or wrong.
2. Wilfully hurtful or offensive in language; contumelious, insulting; calumnious. (Now only of words or speech, and passing into sense 3.)
3. Tending to hurt or damage; hurtful, harmful, detrimental, deleterious.
4. injurious affection (Law): a term used of a situation in which part of a person's land is acquired compulsorily under statutory powers and the remaining part is reduced in value, either because it is a smaller piece or because of what has been done on the land compulsorily acquired; also, of other situations in which an owner seeks compensation for the deleterious effect on his property of the exercise of statutory powers; injurious falsehood (Law): an actionable falsehood, a false statement claimed to have caused damage to the plaintiff in respect of his office, profession, trade or business, etc.
(and since it is a favourite of mine) Execration:
1. The action of execrating. a. The action of solemnly laying under a curse; an instance of this. Obs. or arch.
b. The utterance of curses (as an expression of hatred).
c. Utter detestation; intense abhorrence.
2. An uttered curse; an anathema, an imprecation.
3. That which is execrated; an object of cursing.
So, unless it is intended to cause injury, unless it is as a curse, or unless it is wrong, (for example) calling a proven liar a liar does not constitute abuse. The only possible hope for it being abusive is in its limited sense of being injurious in the sense of it being hurtful. I agree a proven liar may well be hurt by having this trait pointed out, but I think I could argue (and in part actually have done so above) that by far the greater abuse is that of the liar. Merely pointing this out is by far and away the lesser of the two "abuses". And this is only the case if we grant that it is abusive at all, for it can only be so in a very limited sense.
That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?
Also I think you need to read what people have actually written, not what you think they have written. Your claim that I am defending Lenny's abuse, when I am defending his irritation is a good case in point. Whether or not I would defend Lenny's phraseology is a different (and as yet unexplored) matter. You'll also find that, as you would note if you had read the above for anything approaching comprehension, I am far from dogmatic on the issue and consider it an entirely situational one. Please try to grasp the difference between an empathetic understanding, even sympathy for a person's mental state and a defense or advocacy of the actions they perform in that mental state. Incidentally this is also why I am "hard" on creationists (I'm really a total kitten), not because I don't understand their mental state, I do (like many others do too), I just don't agree with how they ACT on it. When proven wrong about X beyond reasonable doubt I expect people to have the intellectual honesty to say so, I know I do.
Like I said before, but I'll make it a bit more explicit this time, there is a difference between hurling abuse at a creationist the very second they open their mouths and announce their presence, and telling them in no uncertain terms that they have lied (for the sake of example). Do I really need to spell out YET AGAIN I do not defend, advocate or even DO the former, and have no problem with the latter. Just like your pub strawman analogy, no Demallien I do not advocate, defend or do abuse in that sense. What I DO do, advocate and defend is the justifiable pricking of pompous creationists by not letting them get away with their dishonesty. Lenny's tactics might differ from mine, but as I said, we haven't yet got to the issue of whether or not I support Lenny's actions.
You might enjoy creationists feeding you horse shit as honey cakes, but I sure as eggs is eggs do not. Guess what, occasionally I'm going to ever so delicately let them know that, if that's ok with you of course. And even rarer than those tiny few occasions, sweetheart, I might prefix it with the word "fuck". On those few occasions Demallien I fervently hope you will have the wit to comprehend that there has been a) some history prior to the utterance of "fuck", b) that when all is said and done of all the crimes commited the use of the word "fuck" is a very very minor one. Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying? I'd argue lying, I'd also argue that it is vastly more damaging to civil, pleasant, productive, rational, informative discourse than any number of "fucks".
Oh and one last thing Demallien:
| Quote | | I had no issue with anything you had said on this thread, until you leapt to the defense of Lenny after I called him on his unceasing stream of vitriol. |
and
| Quote | | Louis, personally I find you to be a highly aggressive and judgemental person. This may not be true, but it is certainly the impression that you give. If, back at Cedric's hypothetical party, I had to make a choice between talking to you, and talking to Avocationist, you would not be the winner. Have a think about that before embracing the agrressive, insulting behaviour that has frequently been displayed on this discussion. |
Wow you got ALL that from ONE post defending Lenny's irritation? Hardly seems consistent with having "no issue with anything I'd said on this thread" now does it? You're not an old friend like Avo are you Demallien?
Louis |
OK, Louis, let's look at the "argument" then. In gross terms, I called Lenny on abusive behaviour, and you butted in, and attacked me (well, originally just my critique of Lenny, but it's got steadily more personal the longer things have gone on) instead. That, overall, Louis, is the "argument". Everthing else is to be read in that context.
You're right about the quote I gave defending Lenny's annoyance. You can infact interpret it very narrowly, as you propose. Indeed, at first, that's how I interpreted it too. But later on, with your own admission that you are downright abusive, and that you aren't going to apologise with that, plus the famous frying pan comment have caused me to re-evaluate the first quote more widely, with 'annoyance' becoming an euphimism for 'abuse'.
I'm not some dumb hick creationist Louis. I read EVERYTHING that you write, very carefully. I'm capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting 4. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that repeatedly you have defended abusive behaviour in this thread. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly. Furthermore, as I've already said, this is all in the context of you butting in when I called Lenny for abuse.
I do not quote-mine you. Show me where the quotes I use have been used out of context. You can't. You know every bit as well as I do, that the quotes have been used in context. Ergo, NOT quote-mining.
You complain that I attack strawmen of my own creation. Where Louis? Last time you made that accusation, demanding I show where you defend abuse, I responded, giving you two. I could have given others as well. Your response? You whinge yet again that I am quote-mining you. I don't think quote-mining means what you think it means Louis (to paraphrase The PB - love that film!). Giving direct quotes in back-up of my assertion when you have challenged the assertion is not quote-mining Louis.
Snide remarks about my reading comprehension are out of place. If I am getting stuff out of your writing that you did not intend, may I humbly suggest that it is the carity of your writing at fault. Again, on any challenge of misapprehension on my part, I'll happily explain how I arrived at the conclusions that I have arrived at. But remember Louis, I won't be limited to quibbling over what the meaning of the word 'is' is. I'll be looking at the whole history of your posts on this thread, and let me warn you - they are not painting a pretty picture of you as a human being.
Let's go back to that frying pan comment. You start of with the image of someone literally whacking someone else with a frying pan. OK, evidently, it's not to be taking literally, but it is, nevertheless, abuse. Physical abuse in this case, but as a metaphor, we arrive at just abuse.
You then follow up with talking about calling someone a liar, that doesn't advance our cause any, as this being a hypothetical, we can't know if the person was in fact lying or not. I'll let it pass. You then finish off with "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?". You try to pass this off as just normal polite banter, completely reasonable. THIS is the whole crux of my point Louis. That quote is straight out abuse. The use of the word "fuck" sets a very aggressive tone, and then you follow it up with the suggestion that the person is deranged. Now, you could probably say this to a friend, and it'll pass - the friend knows that you don't seriously think they are deranged. Say this to a person that you don't know, that you are in obvious disagreement with, and that person is going to, rightly, feel like they are being abused.
So, metaphor of abuse, followed up by actual abuse. Yup, I think we're getting the picture. you're defending abuse. Which is of course what I claimed in the first place, and which now you are trying to worm out of.
You obviously don't get that abuse is wrong. You have already said that, to quote you again "And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts. "
OK. outright abusive statements, without remorse. Got it. But don't complain when people reading your comments interpret them as having come frome someone that thinks abuse is OK Louis, because it's what you have said yourself!
You finish off your last charming post with an insinuation that I'm lying about who I am, wondering if I'm "an old friend like Avo"? Now, Louis, I, as most readers would, will take this as an insinuation that I am infact a creationist using another pseudo to hide who I am. I'll admit, it can be interpreted in other ways. As I've already mentioned, your writing lacks clarity, but the best interpretation that I can come up with is the one I've just given.
Go back, and read my posts to Avocationist Louis. It should be pretty evident that I'm a through and through evolutionist. Go and read my other posts on PT, and it will even be clear that not only am I an evolutionist, but an "evangelical atheist". So take your snide insuation and jam it where the sun don't shine. I don't appreciate it. The fact that you resort to such crude ad-hominems is a sure sign that you are losing this little debate - can't win the argument, so attack the man.
Can't say that this is a surprising response from a bully...
|
