Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (23498)	8/20/2001 8:49:59 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<the beliefs that brees attributed to her.>> He attributed to her repeated mentions of distaste (not cynicism, or a feeling of hopelessness, or contempt for certain self-styled representatives of these values, but DISTASTE) for truth. For justice. For human values. For principle. There has been not a single post showing X as having a distaste for those noble nouns, only posts showing a certain bleakness of attitude, or a cynicism about claims made by humans about some of them; and there has, much more to the point, been not a single post, not one, in which what brees said X 'mentioned' about herself was shown. Because X never mentioned anyplace a distaste for truth itself, did she? Or justice itself, did she? Or of living by principle itself, or even principle itself, or of the concept of human values itself. Did she ever mention a distaste on her part for those qualities or values? The question is not whether you or brees can extrapolate from her posts a colorable argument that she is a person who must, you conclude, have a distaste for all things noble. The question is, did she describe herself in that way... did she say about herself what she was purported by brees to have said. I mean mentioned. She didn't. How strange it would have been if she had!

To: The Philosopher who wrote (23498)	8/20/2001 8:52:41 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You do see that if brees had admitted up front that he either made it up or misspoke, simply said "Oh, excuse me, I meant to give my impressions of her positions, not to imply she had characterized herself in that way!", the discussion would then have gone on to whether colorable arguments could be made in support of bree's personal opinion and conclusions about X. But that never happened. Everyone decided instead to pretend that brees hadn't lied in claiming that X said something she didn't. They did it by arguing that 'mentioning' isn't saying. Or quoting. They did it by obfuscating with fluffy paragraphs the very real difference between attribution and extrapolation. They did it by pretending the subject was evil X instead of lying (or stupid, i'm still not sure; but his friends are doing him no favor in not teaching him anything about the importance of not making stuff up and attributing it to people, a tic of his) bree. Characterize X any way you want, dudes. But don't say your characterization is her self-description. That is disreputable, and easily exposed, too.