On 8/3/14, 11:55 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 17:36:46 UTC, David Bregman wrote:
OK, I'm done. It's clear now that you're just being intellectually
dishonest in order to "win" what amounts to a trivial argument. So
much for professionalism.
Haha, this time it's not as bad as it was in catch syntax discussion.
I even thought then they are blackmailed or something like that.
It's really only this kind of stuff that has Walter and myself worried.
We understand spirits can get heated during a debate but the problem
with such comebacks that really hold no punches is they instantly
degrade the level of conversation, invite answers in kind, and are very
difficult to respond to in meaningful ways.
From what I can tell after many years of having at this, there's a sort
of a heat death of debate in which questions are asked in a definitive,
magisterial manner (bearing an odd implied binding social contract), and
any response except the desired one is instantly dismissed as simply
stupid, intellectually dishonest, or, as it were, coming under duress.
I can totally relate to people who hold a conviction strong enough to
have difficulty acknowledging a contrary belief as even remotely
reasonable, as I've fallen for that many times and I certainly will in
the future. Improving awareness of it only improves the standing of
debate for everyone involved.
For my money, consider Walter's response:
What I see is Microsoft attempting to bring D's assert semantics into
C++. :)
As I've mentioned before, there is inexorable pressure for this to
happen, and it will happen.
I find it to the point, clear, and funny. Expanded it would go like "I
see more similarities than differences, and a definite convergence
dictated by market pressure." I find it highly inappropriate to qualify
that response as intellectually dishonest even after discounting for a
variety of factors, and an apology would be in order.
Andrei
