<<<You begin by saying you take my word for the content of posts I identified and end by saying my depiction of my politeness falls short of perfect accuracy. Sounds like a contradiction to me. >>>
I think I've probably indicated well enough in my prior post why I thought what i did. I guess I should have put a qualifier on the degree to which I assumed the perfection of your account, but that's not a big sin. Give me a pass on it.
I didn't think it was a revolting question, Michael. I tend not to think any seriously intended question about principle is revolting. (Although I suppose a person could use questions as a weapon, etc., which you weren't doing.) But in case you hadn't noticed, I am not averse to argument on pretty much any subject, lol!
My father was a lawyer, and he was a very funny man, and he loved to argue, and, growing up, my sister and I used to argue with him for fun, laughing the whole time. My husband and I argue various absurd propositions (or serious ones) for the fun of it on car trips. I think argument is fun, when civilized. (Arguing about language is LOTS of fun, Michael!)
It would be impossible, btw, for me, personally, to do much recreational (or serious) arguing with anyone to whom the principle of creating hypotheticals was, for some reason, anathema. I've never before run across the mind-set that rejected the very concept of a hypothetical, or "box," situation as being an intellectually useful, and worthy, one, before. (Steven! This is a dig at you! And I put more at the end. I don't feel like looking for your post on the subject, so i'm piggy-backing it on this one to MM....)
BTW, Michael, I forgot to say that I haven't the foggiest notion, either, what "hot monkey sex" connotes! I heard a comic use the phrase on TV, and laughed, and it came into my head again as I was writing that post, and made me laugh out loud again, so I used it. It's evocative, yet opaque....
P.S. A further thought about hypotheticals, meant mainly for Steven. The complaint was, in Steven's case, as I understood it, that hypotheticals, are usually designed to create the desired result. And that is, in his view, which to me is most peculiar, considered a reason to decline to engage with the hypothetical. To me, THAT is the very reason to engage with the hypothetical. If it requires you to give an answer you don't feel comfortable with, you figure out WHY you must give that answer yet feel reluctant to, and what the implications are for your original position, and if there are none, then why do you feel uncomfortable, and -- this is the most important -- you see in what way slight changes in the "box" change your answer... etc... The "box" is like a logic-microscope, sort of. You can focus it on different sections of the specimen/argument. You commit to nothing outside the box, so there should be no reluctance to react to what's inside it. (I understand that if you were arguing with those too malicious or dumb to see that your "box" response doesn't extend to what's on the table the box is sitting on, of course there's a comprehensible tactical, though not intellectual, reason for refusing to engage. And there's only so much energy, one doesn't want to waste it arguing with impossible people....) |
