On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:06:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Well, maybe I am stupid for assuming that people can have a rational
> conversation even if the subject happens to contain the term "race".

No, but you assume that what you're writing and what people are reading 
are the same thing, and when people try to get you to clarify what you're 
saying because it isn't making sense, you assume that the READER is 
either stupid or trying to twist your words, and then you launch an 
attack on them.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Plain and simple.  You 
simply refuse to acknowledge that you play a role in this failure to 
communicate, and that everyone ELSE must be stupid.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:42:19 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:54:20 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> > I guess Warp's problem is that not only the police is 'punished' but
>> > the society as a whole even more.
> 
>> That provides the police with incentive to follow the rules.
> 
>   But at what cost? They know that the person is a criminal who has
>   harmed
> or will harm other people (or both), yet they let him go because of a
> technicality. It's the policeman who should be punished for breaking the
> law, not innocent bystanders who may be harmed by the criminal who was
> let go on purpose...

The cost is the greater good ultimately.  If police are required to 
follow the rules or else someone guilty gets let off, then they're 
incented to play by the rules.

But you'd probably rather see innocent people locked up because of a 
police procedure error, wouldn't you?  At least then the cops will have 
locked *someone* up for the crime.  If there even was one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:08:39 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   As I said, the police checks random drivers here, and I don't see
>> >   it as a
>> > bad thing. Hence it's not *always* a bad thing.
> 
>> And over here that's not the way law enforcement generally works.  You
>> seem to trust your government; over here, we tend not to.
> 
>   I honestly fail to see how random sobriety testing is a trust issue.

What Darren said.  Again we have a failure to communicate.  You want to 
admit to your part in it, or continue to assert that everyone who doesn't 
agree with you is stupid?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You're the one who's making assertions, Warp - if you don't want to back 
> them up, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people challenge your 
> assumptions.  I think Andrel has you pegged right, that you do a very 
> poor job of translating what you're thinking into words on the screen, 
> and then you get pissed at everyone because we're *trying* to understand 
> something YOU think is obvious - and then you start lashing out at people 
> saying that they're intentionally misundersanding you just to piss you 
> off.

  Incorrect. I get pissed off when people keep telling the lies even after
I have explained what I mean many, many times. Even after I have told ten
times "I didn't say that", people still keep at it again and again.

> 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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:06:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   Well, maybe I am stupid for assuming that people can have a rational
> > conversation even if the subject happens to contain the term "race".

> No, but you assume that what you're writing and what people are reading 
> are the same thing, and when people try to get you to clarify what you're 
> saying because it isn't making sense, you assume that the READER is 
> either stupid or trying to twist your words, and then you launch an 
> attack on them.

  I have said several times what I mean, but you keep going on and on with
the same "you defend putting people in jail because of being brown" bullshit.
It's like you read only what you want to read. Then you accuse me of
"launching an attack" or whatever.

> What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Plain and simple.  You 
> simply refuse to acknowledge that you play a role in this failure to 
> communicate, and that everyone ELSE must be stupid.

  See, here we go again. You are putting words in my mouth. Words I have
never said. This is your idea of "communication"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:08:39 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> >   As I said, the police checks random drivers here, and I don't see
> >> >   it as a
> >> > bad thing. Hence it's not *always* a bad thing.
> > 
> >> And over here that's not the way law enforcement generally works.  You
> >> seem to trust your government; over here, we tend not to.
> > 
> >   I honestly fail to see how random sobriety testing is a trust issue.

> What Darren said.  Again we have a failure to communicate.  You want to 
> admit to your part in it, or continue to assert that everyone who doesn't 
> agree with you is stupid?

  Where did that come from? Where did you conjure this "stupidity" thing all
of a sudden? Exactly what in my sentence above implies anything like that?

  Is this your idea of "communication"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> It's like you read only what you want to read. Then you accuse me of
> "launching an attack" or whatever.

I don't know about anyone else, but part of the problem I have in these 
conversations is when people say something[1], I make an important 
correction or other form of disagreement[2], and my response does not 
indicate that the reader has read and/or understood the point being made.[3]

In this conversation, for example, Warp says "If 90% of illegal immigrants 
look Mexican, wouldn't it be more efficient to focus on people who look 
Mexican?"[1]   I answer "No, the math doesn't work that way, because... for 
example..."[2]  And then Warp, instead of saying "Oh, I see, that's a good 
point I hadn't considered" before continuing the conversation, instead says 
"Stop nit-picking the math."  Or instead doesn't respond at all, giving the 
impression they haven't even read the answer.[3]  It would be far better to 
respond "Yes, I see what you're saying. However, I disagree because..." Then 
it wouldn't turn into a dead-horse-beating-fest.

The problem in this particular conversation here is that it appears to me 
Warp was dismissing as a nit-pick something that's the fundamental basic 
reason why his idea won't work regardless of which *correct* math one uses. 
There is no way to correct the math to make his idea work better than what 
we already have, but he never seems to acknowledge that he has understood 
the assertion (even if he disagrees), and instead reasserts he was saying 
something different than we seem to be arguing against. Yet he has not shown 
he understands our position.

That said, I'm probably guilty of some of the same behavior in my own way. 
But I can only speak from my point of view.

This is a recurring theme in many of these conversations, where one person 
says something important, and the other dismisses it in a way that makes it 
sound like it's unimportant and trivial. So the first person repeats the 
assertion, and the second gets POed that the first person keeps repeating 
himself.

That's why when someone convinces me, I follow up with something like 
"that's a fair point" rather than just letting the conversation stop. It 
let's the sender know the reader has heard.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:54:49 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You're the one who's making assertions, Warp - if you don't want to
>> back them up, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people challenge
>> your assumptions.  I think Andrel has you pegged right, that you do a
>> very poor job of translating what you're thinking into words on the
>> screen, and then you get pissed at everyone because we're *trying* to
>> understand something YOU think is obvious - and then you start lashing
>> out at people saying that they're intentionally misundersanding you
>> just to piss you off.
> 
>   Incorrect. I get pissed off when people keep telling the lies even
>   after
> I have explained what I mean many, many times. Even after I have told
> ten times "I didn't say that", people still keep at it again and again.

That's just it:  You accuse others of *lying* when in fact the 
restatement of what you've said isn't accurate.  It isn't that we're 
LYING, it's that you're not being clear enough for us to understand, and 
we're trying to clarify your position.  Then you start employing the 
"liar liar pants on fire" defense and getting pissed off.

And you wonder why people don't like debating with you.  Maybe it's 
because you (a) deal in absolute positions, and (b) instead of clarifying 
when someone says "you're not making sense", you launch into personal 
attacks.

>> 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."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:58:00 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:06:58 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   Well, maybe I am stupid for assuming that people can have a
>> >   rational
>> > conversation even if the subject happens to contain the term "race".
> 
>> No, but you assume that what you're writing and what people are reading
>> are the same thing, and when people try to get you to clarify what
>> you're saying because it isn't making sense, you assume that the READER
>> is either stupid or trying to twist your words, and then you launch an
>> attack on them.
> 
>   I have said several times what I mean, but you keep going on and on
>   with
> the same "you defend putting people in jail because of being brown"
> bullshit. It's like you read only what you want to read. Then you accuse
> me of "launching an attack" or whatever.

That's because you keep saying "profiling based on race isn't a problem" 
and then claim - quite counterintuitively, that you don't see race.  You 
sound like Stephen Colbert, except that he's engaging in *satire* and I 
don't think you are.

>> What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Plain and simple.  You
>> simply refuse to acknowledge that you play a role in this failure to
>> communicate, and that everyone ELSE must be stupid.
> 
>   See, here we go again. You are putting words in my mouth. Words I have
> never said. This is your idea of "communication"?

Oh FFS, I AM NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 15:00:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Where did you conjure this "stupidity" thing
>   all
> of a sudden?

You imply it when you say "I've explained it over and over again and I'm 
not going to continue to repeat myself".  The undertone there is "if 
you're too stupid to understand it, I'm not going to try any more".

My idea of communication is that instead of continuing to REPEAT 
something that is clearly not being understood, you instead start 
attacking and implying (perhaps unintentionally) that either the reader 
is too stupid to understand you OR you accuse them of twisting what 
you're saying into something that isn't what you're saying.

When I engage in these conversations with you, Warp, it's never ever ever 
ever EVER with the intention of "twisting your words".  It's with the 
intention of trying to understand what you're saying.  But you utilize 
the English language well enough that I often forget that you're not a 
native speaker, and then you engage in such forceful tactics that you 
come across as arrogant and telling the people you're talking with that 
they're just too dumb to understand what you're trying to say.

Instead of trying to explain, you then get all defensive and blame 
everyone else.  Nothing's *ever* your fault, apparently, when you say 
something and nobody understands you.  It's always someone else's fault.

And when we try to explain to you our point of view, you then start 
saying "well, what's wrong with my point of view" in a way that comes 
across (perhaps unintentionally) as "if you're too stupid to see what I'm 
saying, I'm afraid I can't help you".

Jim

Post a reply to this message