Re: [silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
On 11-Dec-07, at 7:13 PM, shiv sastry wrote: Too late. You're hopping mad now :D and I am not playing your game. Once again, thanks but no thanks. You may have heard of this new game. It's called "bait the skeptic". Here's how it works: Person A, our hero, makes an exaggerated claim. Person B, the skeptic, demands to know the basis of this claim. Person A narrates the details of the farting game and claims he's been baited. Person B reiterates that he merely wants the basis of the claim. Person A insists he will not fall for the bait, laments on the poor quality of research in general, and effectively comes out having painted person B as the villain. You win, Shiv.
Re: [silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
At 2007-12-11 19:21:51 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Cut the boring rhetoric boss. OK. -- ams
Re: [silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
On Tuesday 11 Dec 2007 3:25 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > It's not ad hominem. If he'd said "you're a right-wing Hindu murderer, > so the results of your study are wrong", it would have been ad hominem. > But he's saying you have no data to substantiate your argument. That he > says you're cheap may be a nasty dig, but it's not ad hominem. Everyone is entitled to his view. You have yours. I have mine. > That "makes you" a murderer of Christians only insofar as it allows you > to exaggerate what you perceive as a bias against anyone who identifies > themselves as Hindu. Or do you think Thaths really can't or doesn't see > any distinction between you and the people who burned Graham Staines? Cut the boring rhetoric boss. I have no idea what Thaths thinks. But I can see that Thaths is a decent guy. shiv
Re: [silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
On Tuesday 11 Dec 2007 3:13 pm, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote: > On 11-Dec-07, at 2:40 PM, shiv sastry wrote: > > Jace has just played the "you farted" game on me. Thanks, but no > > thanks. > > Thanks for the nice backdrop, Shiv. As I see it, I'm commenting on > the emperor's new clothes. > > Where's your research data? Too late. You're hopping mad now :D and I am not playing your game. Once again, thanks but no thanks. shiv
Re: [silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
At 2007-12-11 14:40:20 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > So you're saying that you're too cheap to get a real survey done, > > but expect to be taken seriously on "facts" you admit to making up > > yourself. > > If that is not an ad homimen I don't know what is. It's not ad hominem. If he'd said "you're a right-wing Hindu murderer, so the results of your study are wrong", it would have been ad hominem. But he's saying you have no data to substantiate your argument. That he says you're cheap may be a nasty dig, but it's not ad hominem. Really, "ad hominem" is a very specialised description. Every instance of someone being nasty certainly doesn't qualify. > Jace has just played the "you farted" game on me. Thanks, but no > thanks. Two can play at that game: > I have not been so lucky and have often been branded a right wing RSS > supporter, which makes me a murderer of Christians. That "makes you" a murderer of Christians only insofar as it allows you to exaggerate what you perceive as a bias against anyone who identifies themselves as Hindu. Or do you think Thaths really can't or doesn't see any distinction between you and the people who burned Graham Staines? -- ams
Re: [silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
On 11-Dec-07, at 2:40 PM, shiv sastry wrote: Jace has just played the "you farted" game on me. Thanks, but no thanks. Thanks for the nice backdrop, Shiv. As I see it, I'm commenting on the emperor's new clothes. Where's your research data?
[silk] You farted - was Wikipedia
On Tuesday 11 Dec 2007 10:19 am, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
> So you're saying that you're too cheap to get a real survey done, but
> expect to be taken seriously on "facts" you admit to making up yourself.
If that is not an ad homimen I don't know what is. However I will let it pass.
The reason I shall let is pass is related to another story I once made up as
a parable.
Let me relate that
It's called the "You farted" story
There is a particularly irritating psychological trick that you may have had
played on you, and perhaps you are guilty of playing it yourself. People do
it all the time - but it is educative to find influential groups and nations
playing that trick.
The "game" or trick is to get a person on the defensive with an unprovoked
accusation. The agenda and tone is set by the accuser and the passive
personality goes on the defensive right from the start.
Let me explain. For clarity I will call it the "You farted" game
A group of people are sitting together - say 6 or 7 friends in a hostel room.
Suddenly the foul smell of a fart wafts up.
An accuser personality (call him 'A') picks out a passive personality ('P')
and says "Hey P, you farted"
P protests "No I did not"
A: "Yes you did"
P: "Shut up and stop accusing me"
A:"He Ha. It's OK. No need to cover your guilt by getting angry. I know you
farted. We don't mind - just warn us next time.
What happens in this exchange is that the Accuser 'A' has the initiative all
the time. He sets the pace, and he sets the Agenda. He may actually have
farted himself, but he gets away giving the impression that "P" is guilty.
Jace has just played the "you farted" game on me. Thanks, but no thanks.
> FWIW, there are sociologists in India. Some are on this list.
I have actually met some of the sociologists on this list.
shiv
