[MD] The stuff that straw men are made of

[david buchanan]

Gents:
It's ironic that you two would accuse me of reading with a bias toward supporting my own positions because that's exactly what it takes to construct a straw man. The first thing to do is subject your opponent's assertions to the least charitable interpretation possible. Then you take that distorted view and drive it to the most absurd conclusion possible. Finally, you attribute this distorted absurdity to your opponent and that's what straw men are made of.
When you respond to your opponent with an attack on something you constructed and attributed, then you are not really responding to your opponent at all. You're just battling fictions of your own design. But to genuinely face your opponent, you have to read with a very high level of comprehension and that means, among other things, reading fairly and honestly.
I sincerely wonder if either of you are capable of doing that. Do you want to show me that you are or maybe just give me a reason to believe that you are? As I see it, you're constantly dealing in straw men. The other day when I was going way out on a limb in support of religious freedom, Dave Thomas's response included a comparison between me and Mao. These contortions are literally laughable. Surprise me, eh? Be serious for a change.


 
> On 8/26/10 9:20 AM, "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:
> 
> > [Krimel]
> > That really is the heart of it, you know. dmb is not interested in
> > pragmatism or philosophy of mind at all really. He is interested in
> > supporting his interpretation of Pirsig. He begins with his conception of it
> > and is only interested in finding support for it. As a result he only looks
> > in a narrow range of places and only finds what he is looking for.

> [Dave Thomas replied]
> This is called the "Phaedrus Method." Even though Pirsig's work can be read
> as a cautionary tale about the danger to your life and work of using it,
> given the fame and fortune this approach achieved at least once, the
> temptation is understandable.
>