[MD] Changes in 2011

[david buchanan]

John said to dmb:
... Where do you draw the line between degenerates and messiahs, perfessor? ... if you've got any insight into how to make this crucial distinction, I'd sure love to hear it.

dmb says:
The line I'm drawing is much simpler and much less dramatic. There are those who think that ignoring contrary evidence and evading questions is a very serious problem, who think that's obviously a violation of decency and fair-play. Then there are those who don't even see what you mean by that. To some, willful ignorance and evasive answers are just a sign of plain, old-fashioned incompetence. Others look at this same behavior and think that they just have a "different" point of view.


John replied:
Well here, I can't take it personally anymore, because I'm always willing to face up to answering questions and "the relevant evidence".  Furthermore, I always say what I mean.


dmb says:

I think that's not true. I've seen what you do when presented with Pirsig's comments on theism and Absolutism. I think you've been intellectually dishonest and otherwise unreasonable. So I just gave up on the possibility of having any kind of real conversation with you. Plus you're always too interested in your popularity or status. Sometimes I wonder if you're just some high school kid posing as a grow-up husband and father. 


John:
Dave, for years I've cried out, begged and pleaded for some decent conversation with you and it's always ad hominen attacks and derogatory evasions that I get in response.  So I'll take your complaint here as a Mea Culpa and a resolution to go forth and improve.  Let's resolve in the New Year to creating some decent conversation and philosophical inquiry into politics of Value.


dmb says:

John, all you done here is given me MORE reasons to think that "some decent conversation with you" is pretty much impossible. If I charge you with ignoring the evidence, that is not a ad hominem attack. It's a criticism of your conduct AS a conversationalist, AS a thinker. That charge is aimed directly at the lack of validity in your arguments. And this reversal you've preformed (above) in just another in a long line of responses in which you say to me, "you're just projecting". That sir, amounts to a school-yard taunt. I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you". If I say this response is childish bullshit, that is not an ad hominem attack. That charge goes directly at the lack of validity in your response. And more broadly, are you really going to dispute the obvious assertion that intellectual quality demands, among other things, honestly facing the evidence and taking responsibility for the claims and assertions we make? Can any reasonable person dispute the need for such BASIC standards of conduct? And if you sincerely don't see how this evasiveness violates the whole spirit of debate and inquiry, that's even worse than dishonesty. In that case, there's not much of a chance of ever improving or learning anything. Ever.