me: >>> Note that my phrase is "_one_ of the worst" (emphasis added). Why >>> should I be careful with my prose if people jump to misinterpret it? >>> "One of the worst" is NOT the same as "the worst."
David B. Shemano, Esq. responded: > Timmy: Mommy, Tommy called me the worst skateboarder ever! > Mommy: Tommy, did you call Timmy that? > Tommy: Absolutely not! > Timmy: He did too! > Tommy: He is lying! I said he is ONE of the worst skateboarders ever. That > is totally different. > Mommy: Timmy, I think you should apologize to Tommy. There is a big > difference between being the worst at something and being one of the worst. > Timmy: WAAAAHHHHH!!!! Daddy, what does "puerile" mean? The "Waaaahhhhh!!! in the drama above suggests an explanation from your assertion that > It is a comedy watching Jimmy Carter, or Mearsheimer, cry like little babies > every time they are criticized. < As far as I can tell, you interpret people as being crybabies if they either 1) disagree with your opinions (or, alternatively, with only your opinions on Israel), or 2) follow deviation from from the official Party Line on Israel by actually daring to defend themselves against the shit-storm of criticism that such deviance evokes -- rather than surrendering to the Alan Dershowitzes of the world. This would also explain why you respond to my logical analysis with fictional nonsense. (BTW, didn't Carter surrender to the shit-storm, to some degree? As usual, my memory is hazy.) > >> But, as is "commonly" said, turnabout is fair play. What if I assert > >> that it "common" for libertarian lawyers to believe that it was > >> absolutely wrong for the FDA to put strict restrictions on the use of > >> Thalidomide, since market forces would have solved the problem (as if > >> an Invisible Hand were at work). Would that perspective automatically > >> apply to David Shemano? I think not. > > Would it automatically apply? No. Would it be reasonable for you to assume? > Yes. How do you know what's reasonable for me to assume? You may share the so-called "libertarian" opinions on Thalidomide sketched above, but it is wrong for me to assume that you do. I know that "An element of a set is not the same as the set it belongs to" (to quote myself). It is wrong to confuse the territory with the map. So it's wrong for me to assume that libertarians are some sort of army of clones, marching on lock-step to some Milton Friedmaniac beat. There are always exceptions. As with any group of people, some libertarians are more reasonable than others. The confusion of an element with its set is a source of stereotypical thinking. It also goes against the grain of what I think of as an important element of "American individualism" that I endorse whole-heartedly: "we should respect each individual as an individual. The differences among individuals should be acknowledged and respected, so that no effort should be made to forced everyone to be alike (unless one person is actively hurting another)." -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
