On Apr 12, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false.
<true> The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable
George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken <end true>
<false> Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action <end false
OK, but they're both sets of opinions, right?
But, they are very different opinions....one claims that the people one is
differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill
will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis.
I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible debate opponents.
I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements "The Iraq war is unjustifiable" and the *debate-style* "Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss."
My entire point is that it's unnecessary to preface opinions with flags that say "opinion".
But, the origional point, was that it would be very useful to use a nuanced
expression of your opinion. Unless of course, you actually feel that only
those folks that agree with you on all counts are reasonable and the rest
of us are all idiots.
Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply correct, but Absolute Truth.
You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given statement of position, including "in my view..." and "as I see it..." and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the qualifiers; what matters is the seed: "... the Iraq war cannot be justified." (Or whatever.)
If you think you or anyone else behaves in a significantly different fashion, I'd suggest you're being more than a little self-deluding. We *must* assume that our opinions are valid. If we don't, we're paralyzed by self-doubt, incapable of action, and ultimately hold no concrete views of any kind whatsoever on any subject.
More accurately, we *convince ourselves* that we hold no concrete views. In fact our actions state otherwise, loudly and clearly, all the time.
Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain.
True. Not sure how that's part of my objection to feeling a need to label every opinion as such, though.
Because you write as though my statement that you just agreed with were not
true. I've seen posts that make over the top claims that indicate that
those that differ with you are all idiots.
Let me ask you something, Dan. Are you going to throw that in my face every time we have a discussion and end up disagreeing on a point? Because if you are I'll just start filtering you rather than deal with the callbacks. Okay?
I'm suggesting that you find a different pile of grist for your disagreement mill if you want to continue having discussions with me on any subject. I'm getting a little tired of your sticking to something *you* don't like and behaving as though that's a consistent position from me. You are reacting to the homunculus you've created of me in your head, and I'm asking you to stop it.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
