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

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> - You fail to indicate what exactly is condescending in your opinion so 
> that leaves me guessing.

  Talking with someone else about me and apparently my typical negative
behavior as if I were some kind of child who must be understood. It sounds
patronizing.

  When you write "IME a thread with Warp dies when there is nothing left
for him than to apologize" it gives the strong impression that you are
saying "he always writes controversially, he is usually wrong, but always
too stubborn to admit it even though we show him how wrong he is, so he
is either forced to apologize, or the thread dies because nobody else
wants to continue". It sounds like you are implying some negative personality
traits. The worst thing is that you aren't telling me about it, but someone
else, making it sound like "you just have to understand him", which sounds
extremely patronizing and condescending. (Maybe it was not how you intended
it, but it *does* sound like that.)

  "We have made progress", in this context, also gives an impression of
being patronizing. And since you are not telling that to me but to someone
else, it makes it sound like you were ganged up with others (or at least
want to be, like with a mentality of "we are right, he's wrong").

  That's the impression your post gave me, which is why I replied in the
way I did.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.

  You mean "you don't see race" was meant as "you don't consider race to
be any more significant than any other feature"? Then I honestly don't
understand what he meant with:

"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."

  I honestly don't see how contrasting the two things are counterintuitive.
Maybe he means something with "profiling based on race isn't a problem" that
I didn't understand.

  After all, if race isn't any more or less important than other features,
then the above expression is quite equivalent to, for example, "profiling
based on age".

  Even if he meant that *all* profiling is wrong, regardless of what is being
used to do the profiling, I still can't understand what the "you don't see
race" meant in that context.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-5-2010 13:15, Warp wrote:
> 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.

Part of the problem is that the police is never trying to solve a crime 
by stopping every person. In that sense your comparison is between two 
things that never happen. What has happened is that at various places 
police have stopped almost anyone that matches certain external criteria 
(race, colour, nose, religion, culture, country of origin). That has 
almost invariably led to disasters.
In any decent country that is also forbidden. The Arizona law tries to 
not only make it legal but even mandatory.
You seemed to support that law or at least didn't condemn it. Thereby 
attracting all criticism of that law. That may be a bit unfair, but it 
is understandable. What we wanted to know is to what extend you will 
follow the reasoning behind that law. The first assumption was that you 
didn't really meant what we though you said, because it is so bloody 
obviously wrong (to us). So that resulted in a number of replies 
explaining why you could (or should) not have meant it. Even if the tone 
was sort of accusing, it was still meant to figure out what you really 
meant.

[other points for later, I am spending to much of this day at home on 
this discussion anyway]

Post a reply to this message

On 5-5-2010 14:37, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   You mean "you don't see race" was meant as "you don't consider race to
> be any more significant than any other feature"? Then I honestly don't
> understand what he meant with:
> 
> "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."
> 
>   I honestly don't see how contrasting the two things are counterintuitive.
> Maybe he means something with "profiling based on race isn't a problem" that
> I didn't understand.

Because the first implies that you think that race may be important in 
same cases and the latter that you don't believe so.
But I can also see your confusion, because it might be about different 
people and different cases.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> You seemed to support that law or at least didn't condemn it.

  I think that's the core issue in this whole thread.

  It was not my intention to support that law. What I was really objecting
to was (what I perceive to be) the hypersensitivity many people have with
anything which deals with "race". In other words, my question was whether
people are objecting to the law purely because they have an automatic
aversion to anything that makes a distinction between races, or whether
there are *logical* reasons to oppose the law. (No need to answer that
for the umpteenth time. I am explaining here, not asking.)

  There are people (but not anybody here, as far as I can tell) who are
*so* hypersensitive about "racism" and racial issues that they are
promoting outright banning the entire concept of "race", and are saying
that *anything at all* which makes any kind of distinction between "races"
is extremely bad and should be banned. Naturally even any kind of honest
police work which does anything at all that distinguishes between racial
features, is also automatically bad, even if there is absolutely nothing
in that police work that could be considered discriminatory or racist.

  My personal opinion is that *if* in some contexts crime could be more
efficiently stopped by making the distinction, then it would make sense
to do so. Race shouldn't be something to be so hypersensitive about. It's
just another human trait as anything else.

  That doesn't mean I'm claiming that race *is* a trait that can be used
to more efficiently catch illegal immigrants in the southern US. What I am
saying that *if* it would be, then it would make sense to use it. (And I
do acknowledge that even if that was the case, it would still be problematic
because of other reasons, mainly people getting angry about it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message