I've asked this question before: Struan, why are you so rude?
I seem to remember that at that time your answer was simply that you
weren't, and it therefore was simply my construal of your comments which
amounted to the observation that you were.In other words, it was my
subjective impression. Can't argue with that.
However, the question still stands, but modified: why do I consistently have
the impression that you are rude, whereas I don't consistently get that
impression when dealing with most others? ( in other words, a subjective
leaning toward an overall 'paranoid position' seems to be excluded.)
An alternative hypothesis might be to the effect that: you don't think
you're being rude, but others find different. in other words, "it's just
your way". That is, in your brave attempt to state the truth in the face of
established dogma, those who are brainwashed by said dogma are unable or
unwilling to accept the truth, and would rather find a scapegoat than face
the awful truth; "kill the messenger", and all that.
Another, and related position is that you're surrounded by idiots, and
simply don't have time to pander to their individual needs for self-respect;
they must have their egos deflated before they can see the truth (which you
alone know, but it's not a subjective position).
It does seem to me that what is most important for you is to win, to be
'most right', to prove you are right by demolishing all others by
intellectual pyrotechnics, sheer brilliance of argument.
So, is it your opinion that 'truth' is arrived at by the winning of an
argument? that is: the adversarial approach is the best way to arrive at the
facts? [is this a sophist position?]. Further, (if affirmative to the
preceding), in the interests of truth, is it therefore permissible to win by
whatever means? Does this amount to a moral stance based on some form of
pragmatism? - It does seem to me that you consistently attack others'
positions, but don't state clearly your own, or, if you have made a
particular statement you tend to accuse others of not having read it
properly [he who makes the rules wins the game]. It's almost as if you want
to be misunderstood so that you can blame this on others. Is 'blame' as a
concept big in your life? Do you consider that if you prove yourself right
enough, you can't possibly be blamed? And that, if you prove yourself more
right than others, you can be above blame yourself, but can really stick it
to others?
Do you really subscribe to the position that winning an argument makes you
wise? In which case, would you think that the statement "just because an
idiot says the sun is rising, doesn't mean it isn't" is complete bollocks?
Do you think that 'knowledge' IS the same as 'wisdom', or is 'intelligence'
the same as 'wisdom'? -and if it is, and you're secure and unassailabe in
your position as 'keeper of the keys', why would you bother with wrong
headed lesser mortals; and why try to make them unhappy?..... I'll repeat
that: - why do you want to make people unhappy? -is that the only way to
truth you envisage? has that been your experience? -and if so, is it really
generalisable to others?
Why ARE you so rude? (Don't tell me, just ask yourself)
Youaretheweakestlinkgoodbye!
Peter Lennox
Hardwick House
tel: (0114) 2661509
e-mail: peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk
or:- ppl100@york.ac.uk
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:58 BST