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

On 4-5-2010 23:47, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

Oh, I definitely am. Sometimes the tone of a discussion makes it hard to 
respond calmly and well thought through. Luckily, there is often time 
later to correct it a bit. Except when the thread dies suddenly of course.

> 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.

IME a thread with Warp dies when there is nothing left for him than to 
apologize or at least admit that things might be more subtle than he 
originally though. Although from his perspective it could also be the 
point where we thick heads have made clear that we are never going to 
understand his position.
We have made progress, however. It has been a long time since I have 
seen "grow up, this is the internet" when someone explained why a 
particular remark hurt his (or a groups) feeling.
Next goal: eradicate the use of "that is just political correctness" as 
an 'argument' to dismiss another's point of view.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   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.

  You make it sound like you (and others) had written sentence in the form:
"Do you mean X? I disagree with that." Or: "I understood what you wrote as
if you were defending position X. I think defending that is wrong."

  Nope. Instead what has been being written was: "You claimed that X. That's
completely wrong." And not only once. Many times, even after me explaining
several times that "no, I did not claim that".

  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?

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

  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.

> >> 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.

  I have been writing to this group almost daily, and I have hard time
believing that you find my thousands of posts irritating.

  In this one thread I happened to take a non-politically-correct stance,
and dared to defend it even under strong disagreement. Maybe I *am* stubborn
and irritating in this particular thread, and I can perfectly understand if
you don't want to continue a discussion which is going nowhere (something
I agree with).

  What does post filtering help here? It won't stop you seeing other people
quoting me. If the conversation continues with others, you will still see
my posts, or parts of them. Something which you didn't want to continue
doing in this thread. So wouldn't the sensible thing be to simply stop
reading the thread?

  Could you explain your rationale?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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 is that you are misinterpreting my response, even *after*
I explained it more clearly.

  Originally I was comparing "concentrate the resources on people who fit
the profile better" vs. "distribute the resources evenly among all people".
That last part is important.

  I might not have explicitly said that in the original post, but I tried
to explain in followups, for example by comparing the situation to solving
a rape crime, where it makes sense to restrict investigation on males instead
of spreading the investigation equally on males and females. In other words,
when you narrow your input by some factor, the same resources will be more
efficiently used compared to if you distributed the resource evenly to the
entire input.

  Your argument was that "using ethnicity as a basis of narrowing down the
possible suspects is not the *best* factor". In other words, you were not
disagreeing with what I was saying (in other words, that narrowing the
input by using some known factor helps utilize resources better), you were
simply disagreeing with the notion that ethnicity would be the best factor
to do that.

  That's also fine, and I said that many times. I didn't claim that
ethnicity is the *best* factor. I simply said that narrowing factors can
be used to distribute resources better and increase the likelihood of
success, and that *if* ethnicity were such a factor (which is different
from saying that it *is* such a factor), it would make sense to use it.
I even gave a simple example where this indeed gave a positive result.
The example was not intended to depict a real situation, but as a simple
demonstration of the basic principle of narrowing down the samples.

  The problem is that you kept sticking onto the "ethnicity" part and
wouldn't understand what I was *really* saying. It feels like it was some
kind of red flag which made you blind to anything else. You kept attacking
that "ethnicity" argument over and over, and completely ignoring me when
I said that it's not what I was saying and to stop nitpicking about the
specific example. But you wouldn't stop, no matter what I tried.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> IME a thread with Warp dies when there is nothing left for him than to 
> apologize or at least admit that things might be more subtle than he 
> originally though. Although from his perspective it could also be the 
> point where we thick heads have made clear that we are never going to 
> understand his position.
> We have made progress, however. It has been a long time since I have 
> seen "grow up, this is the internet" when someone explained why a 
> particular remark hurt his (or a groups) feeling.
> Next goal: eradicate the use of "that is just political correctness" as 
> an 'argument' to dismiss another's point of view.

  I suppose you understand that that kind of condescending attitude is
quite irritating, and nevertheless you choose to write like that anyways.

  If your *honest* intention is to try to teach me something, you are quite
frankly doing a pretty poor job by writing things like the above text. It
makes me think that you are simply patronizing and mocking me.

  (And please skip responding with a "but you are doing that too" answer.
"You too" answers are childish. You should preach by example.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's because you keep saying "profiling based on race isn't a problem" 

  The problem is that when you say "profiling based on race", you are
implying some kind of prejudiced discrimination and abuse based on race.
When I say "profiling based on race" I mean "making statistics based on
race, and *if* those statistics could be used to do something more
efficiently, then do it". That doesn't imply discrimination nor racist
prejudice.

  You can argue that race can *not* be used as a profiling factor to
distribute police resources more efficiently. Well, my answer to that is:
If that's so, then don't use race as a profiling factor, it's that simple.
My *point* is, however, that *if* race *could* be used to catch criminals
more efficiently, then it would make sense to do so. (But I do understand
that many people could get offended by that, so there are also practical
reasons why it cannot be done.)

  Personally I don't see race as such a holy element that must be protected
from such things. It's no different from gender, age or any other personal
feature.

> and then claim - quite counterintuitively, that you don't see race.

  I have made no such claim. (Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?)

  What I have claimed is that to me race is exactly as important and
unimportant as any other personal factor, such as gender, age, shoe size
or hair color. I don't care about race any more or any less than about
any of those other things. It's all the same.

> >> 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.

  You wrote quite directly above, that in my opinion "everyone else must
be stupid". I have not said nor implied any such thing. If that's not
putting words in my mouth, then what is?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message