"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a3059d3$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:14:53 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> Unless you are willing to be convinced...then I'm willing to do more
> >> than just express my opinion.

> > Why is convincing me so critical for you?

> It isn't, but it's a basis for a conversation on the topic.  Justifying a
> certain point of view becomes tiresome if there's a 0 probability of
> someone who holds an alternate point of view saying "you know, I hadn't
> thought of that" but instead just continually attacking that point of
> view.

What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that" should
it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

Besides, debates are almost never about convincing the other side.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that" should
> it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an 
internet discussion, yes?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:50:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
> should it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

What Darren said....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a306637$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
should
> > it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?

> Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an
> internet discussion, yes?

Not quite the same thing (new angles or data on a problem don't necessarily
imply different resolutions). In any case, does my claim that I will never
change my mind proof that I will never change my mind? Would it have been
more likely that my mind could be changed, should I have not made that
claim?

I wish I had that kind of perfect mental control...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:

> In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof that I
> will never change my mind?

No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold a 
discussion with, so I choose not to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
> 
>>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
>>> torrent and download it.
> 
>> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view.
> 
> I'm not sure. Maybe if you believe in cosmic justice or somesort. Why does a
> failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?
> 
> What about:
> 
> C2. Power company f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
> torrent and download it.
> 
> or
> 
> C3. Some punks make the building's fire alarm go off during a favorite
> television program - go find a torrent and download it.
> 
> or
> 
> C4. A spill on the freeway blocks traffic for hours, making you miss your
> favorite television program - go find a torrent and download it.
> 
> or
> 
> C5. Recession causes you to be laid off and you cannot afford cable
> anymore - go find a torrent and download it.
> 
> ... etc.

C6. I just plain forgot to record it - go find a torrent and download it.

Same thing as far as I'm concerned. And even though I have paid for 
cable, the recording I download from the net will be without 
advertisements. So, I'm "screwing" the advertisers and "screwing" the 
guy who MAY SOMEDAY put the recording on DVD.

So, this act is "wrong" in the sense that it is amoral in the 
black-and-white religious sense of morality -- someone, somewhere was 
hurt by the act. However, if one looks at morality as a set of 
guidelines which have emerged as the best way for people to have a 
trusting, pleasant society, then the act is perfectly acceptable. Better 
than just acceptable even -- positive. My downloading the missed episode 
leaves me more inclined to watch future episodes, to continue to pay for 
cable, to continue to watch the network's advertisements.

The world is a better place when a person can pick a loquat from a tree 
in someone's front yard, listen to a an obscure "album" released on 
cassette only in 1980, occasionally shout loud enough for a neighbor to 
hear, drink from a hose-bib in an alleyway, or get a second chance to 
correct a tiny mistake. These things aren't wrong.

> The bottomline is, one can for the majority of time find somebody or
> something else to blame for everything, if so inclined.

Another bottom line: one can for the majority of time find somebody or 
something who was victimized by any act, if so inclined.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a306637$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
> should
>>> it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?
> 
>> Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an
>> internet discussion, yes?
> 
> Not quite the same thing (new angles or data on a problem don't necessarily
> imply different resolutions).

True. And that's why Jim offered his.

> In any case, does my claim that I will never
> change my mind proof that I will never change my mind? 

It's definitely evidence. It's even *greater* evidence that even were you to 
change your mind you wouldn't admit it.

> Would it have been
> more likely that my mind could be changed, should I have not made that
> claim?

Yes.

> I wish I had that kind of perfect mental control...

Again, there's "you can't disprove it" and "we proved it". It's a question 
of how much work goes into doing something for what expected reward. Is 
there any proof there's no giant chest of gold under my back yard? No. Is it 
worth me getting out the shovel to look for it?  No.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a309135@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof that I
> > will never change my mind?

> No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold a
> discussion with, so I choose not to.

Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present evidence
of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further discussion, I
propose that we do not place too much stock in stated inflexibilities. Then
again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original discussion....

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a309135@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof
>> > that I will never change my mind?
> 
>> No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold
>> a discussion with, so I choose not to.
> 
> Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further
> discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in stated
> inflexibilities.

So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there is 
a flaw in your reasoning?

> Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the
> original discussion....

My intent was simply to state an opinion.  You've made it abundantly 
clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so 
further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty 
pointless.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message

> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further
> > discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in stated
> > inflexibilities.

> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there is
> a flaw in your reasoning?

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is of
perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.

> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the
> > original discussion....

> My intent was simply to state an opinion.  You've made it abundantly
> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
> pointless.

Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the validity
of any arguments I make.

Post a reply to this message