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

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

  I have not implied any such thing. Any such "undertone" you are seeing
is purely your own invention. I have never written anything with that kind
of mindset.

  When I wrote that I wouldn't bother explaining the same things again,
I was simply implying that I'm tired of doing so again and again, as the
conversation is going in circles. "Stupidity" had absolutely nothing to
do with any of this.

  (Well, I didn't actually keep my promise. I succumbed into trying to
explain it, once again, to Darren in a previous post I made today. Let's
see if it helps this time. If not, then I suppose this is hopeless.)

> 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.

  I understand it if someone misinterprets something I say. What I don't
understand is why they keep misinterpreting it even *after* I say that
they misinterpreted it.

> Instead of trying to explain, you then get all defensive and blame 
> everyone else.

  But I have tried to explain. However, the conversation nevertheless
goes in circles.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Ok, why don't we start over?
Just write down in simple statements what we ourself think without any 
attacks on others to start with?
Then, with proper quoting and such, we could have a reasonable discussion.

Post a reply to this message

On 5-5-2010 13:21, Warp wrote:
> 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.

yes, I wrote this in this way for a two reasons:
- I am not addressing you, though I am aware that you probably read it too.
- It is what my experience is. I am not going to hide that from anybody 
because you don't like it. Besides if you read it it might be useful 
information for you to know how people think about you.
- yesterday we remembered the start of WWII in the netherlands, today we 
celebrate it's end here (and tomorrow we remember a political 
assassination). That leaves me in a frame of mind that brings more to 
the forefront some of the open wounds in our previous discussions.

couple of side notes:
- You fail to indicate what exactly is condescending in your opinion so 
that leaves me guessing. Especially because it wasn't intended that way. 
Now I have to try to figure out what part of what I wrote could be 
misinterpreted. Being more specific will really help .
e.g. you could read the 'we have made progress' paragraph as 
condescending. There is another interpretation however viz. as genuinely 
satisfied that at least one invalid argument does not derail discussions 
anymore. FYI it was meant as just that, because I feel that way. But if 
you expect a condescending attitude you can always interpreted it that way.
- even after I wrote this you tried to play the 'political correctness' 
card again.
- at no point is your reaction aimed at the content of the post, just 
your usual whining about how I write things. This is at the heart of 
what my problem with your style of debating is. In a sense it is 
admitting that Darren is right, not by acknowledging but by example.

>   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.

I don't want to teach you anything directly with the above. Remember I 
am not even addressing you. Indirectly it shows that I think your skills 
as a debater are rather limited. That might be informative, but I think 
you already knew that.

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

That is what I said too. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 5-5-2010 13:32, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> 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.

That is what Jim's 'you don't see race' also means. It is a way of 
expressing oneself. There is also a literal interpretation possible, but 
that is so preposterous that you can easily rule out that Jim meant that.


>>>> 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?

Informing you that is how you come across?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Ok, why don't we start over?
> Just write down in simple statements what we ourself think without any 
> attacks on others to start with?
> Then, with proper quoting and such, we could have a reasonable discussion.

  I wrote an explanation as a reply to a recent post by Darren, where I try
to explain as well and seriously as I can what I meant in my original
posting. I'm hoping it will clear up any misunderstandings.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message