On Wed, 05 May 2010 06:57:21 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   So if I have responded several times already that "I did not claim
>   that",
> and even *after* that you still keep saying "you claimed X", then what
> else is it than lying?

What I see is you saying that you didn't claim X, and then asserting X in 
a later post, and then when you're called out on it, you say "I never 
said that".  Again, I could probably find specific examples for you to 
clarify, but this thread has gotten quite long and I simply don't have 
the time to search it for those instances.  Maybe next time.

>   If you misunderstood something I wrote, that's ok. 

Clearly that is a likely option here.  So instead of saying "you're a 
liar" in response, make what you're writing clearer, and when you're 
asked for clarification (such as "earlier you said X, now you seem to be 
changing your stance", instead of screaming "NO!  I've been saying that 
all along", see that as an opportunity to *clarify* what you mean and 
reconcile the two seemingly contradictory statements.  When you start 
going into "liar liar pants on fire" mode, that's when you start coming 
across as the persecuted soul who everyone's lying about, being 
condescending to, and patronising.  For my part, I generally never 
*intend* to do that, I want a genuine conversation.  If I don't want a 
genuine conversation, I'll go do something else.

> When I later say
>   that
> what you interpreted was not what I was trying to say, the correct thing
> to do is to stop saying "you claimed X" over and over.

What I'm trying to do is reconcile two seemingly contradictory 
statements.  So when I say "you claimed X" (which I don't think I've said 
directly, but if I have, <shrug>) in response to something that to me 
appears to contradict claim X, then what I'm looking for is some sort of 
reconciliation - or even a "you know, I didn't think of it that way 
before, and that's not what I really meant".  But you get so defensive 
that you seem to never back down and say "hey, I made a mistake".

>   If you don't like being called a liar, neither do I. If you don't
> acknowledge me when I say "I did not claim that", then you are,
> effectively, calling me a liar, as you keep insisting that I made the
> claim.

Fair enough, but again, understand that I'm trying to reconcile something 
you've said earlier with something you've said now - so help us reconcile 
those two statements by either clarifying or by saying "I was wrong".  
It's not so hard, and nobody is right 100% of the time.

>> >> Maybe it's time for me to filter your posts again, because you take
>> >> such an irrational approach to discussion.  But of course, you'll
>> >> see that as some sort of insult, no doubt.
>> > 
>> >   If that makes you feel better, who am I to stop you?
> 
>> It doesn't make me feel better.  I like *reasoned* debate.  But when I
>> come up against someone who takes an absolutist position and then turns
>> around and accuses me of twisting what they said and then accusing me
>> of lying, when I'm actually TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, yeah, I get pissed
>> off to the point of saying "there's no point in continuing the
>> discussion."
> 
>   I simply can't understand your rationale with the post filtering
>   thing.

Because when I start getting wound up, scoring posts as "ignore" from 
someone who pisses me off (whether intentionally or not) reminds me not 
to engage.  I still see the posts, but it's a visual reminder to me that 
I should just walk away rather than try to understand or engage in 
constructive conversation, because the conversation has turned to a point 
of not being constructive any more, but a screaming match about who said 
what and who's lying about what.

That's simply not fun for me, so it's better to remind myself that I 
don't want to get drawn into that kind of discussion.  Sadly, that 
happens with you here more than just about anyone else (well, I can think 
of one other individual, but he's been absent for a while now and things 
have generally been a lot calmer as a result), and you *seem* to not care 
how you are perceived (that's probably not the case, but it's how you 
come across).

One of the reasons debating with you is so frustrating to me is that you 
don't seem to put yourself in anyone else's shoes in order to understand 
a different perspective.  In this instance, you've said over and over 
that you don't see why race shouldn't be used to identify illegals (at 
least that's what you seem to be saying).  I and others have tried to 
explain, both in a cultural context and in the context of how US 
jurisprudence is supposed to work, and you've pretty flatly rejected 
those explanations instead of saying something like "that's not how it 
works here, but I can understand why people in the US might feel this way 
given the history".

When you do that, you come across as having an air of superiority - not 
you personally, but culturally certainly - and it is interpreted as 
"we're better than you".

You need to understand and acknowledge that there is more than one way to 
do things in the world, and the way it's done in Finland isn't the way 
it's done in the US or other countries, and that perhaps there's 
something you can learn from us.

Jim

Post a reply to this message