[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 12 Jul 2010 at 15:31, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

[Platt]
You call Bo's thinking a "dismal display" and that you will correct 
his thinking  with a "sound rhetorical and argumentatively valid platform."

In other words, "I, Arlo, will now instruct you, Bo, on the right way 
to think."

No big deal. We've come to expect such pomposity from Arlo and his 
fellow academics.

[Arlo]
I appreciate your need to launch yet another insubstantive 
diversionary "argument" (like all those "free speech" Wurlitzers), 
but it only evidences what I've been saying all along... the SOLists 
are forever trapped in a need for interpretive legitimacy, despite 
their calls for intellectual relativism, and this continues to prove just that.

There is no "right" way to think, but there are "better" ways to 
frame one's argument. Bo's "argument" continues to rest on strawmen 
and dishonest rhetoric, and I am merely pointing out that the valid 
ground he could be standing on is right there beside him. Of course, 
he (and you, it seems) seems trapped by the "THE", and that's the 
source of all this hullaballoo.

I will point out that if you are seeking to call people out for 
claiming "there is one way to think", Bo's recent posts provide 
clear, simple and unquestionable examples of such egomania. And yet 
you remain silent about that. Hmmm... one can only wonder why. 
Indeed, you say to me "No big deal. We've come to expect such 
pomposity from Arlo and his fellow academics", and yet the one most 
evidencing "pomposity" (Bo) remains uncalled out.

[Platt]
It's one thing to argue a point of view with vigor. It's quite another to 
decree there is one a right way to think, regardless. That you can't tell the 
difference speaks volumes.

But, like I said, no big deal.