Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
A little less than a happy high
I like it when you attempt to engage someone in a discussion to try to feel out where their ideas come from and the whole gets taken as a personal attack.

Hats off. You should know me better by now, my friend.

Current Mood: cynical cynical
Current Music: The stony silence of disbelief

11 comments or Leave a comment
khourytamarisk From: khourytamarisk Date: May 24th, 2002 01:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
*big hug* You can always talk to me. :)
komos From: komos Date: May 24th, 2002 02:09 pm (UTC) (Link)


Thanks, but I think the specifics are better left for the parties involved.

I will file the notion away for future reference, though. ;)

On another matter entirely, I finally got to see the Rev. Devon last night (oh the horrors of staying home), so I finally get the "Testify" reference. Strange confluence of events it was, and oddly funny.
hieeee From: hieeee Date: May 26th, 2002 09:40 am (UTC) (Link)


I've been watching you for a while. Thought I'd add you as a friend - it's so much easier this way. S'ok with you?
komos From: komos Date: May 28th, 2002 07:36 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: :)

I had this funny feeling that unseen eyes were on me. ;)

Seriously, though, by all means, and do feel free to chime in if something strikes you.
From: uruz Date: May 28th, 2002 05:21 am (UTC) (Link)
All things Internet have been annoying me lately, P, so first I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.

Now. Addressing the point at hand, lately I've found that any digital argument I'm involved in winds up with my words being changed around in order to facilitate a better argument for the other person. It's one of my pet peeves, and whether or not you meant to do it, it still cheesed me off. I won't apologize for going off half cocked, but I will apologize if you feel our friendship derailed for a second. That wasn't my intent; I simply had no desire to argue any more, and conceded the field to you. I probably did that in a less-than-graceful manner, but I was cheesed.

At any rate, I hope you had a good long weekend.
komos From: komos Date: May 28th, 2002 07:57 am (UTC) (Link)

If suggesting the implications of a idea and demonstrating how it conflicts with other things that have been said along the way is somehow twisting the argument to my favor, then sure, I'm guilty.

The thing is, if I see things that baffle me, I ask about them. If they baffle me and lead to what appears to be a logical impasse, I'm even more inclined to ask. I wasn't looking for a concession. What I wanted to know was how you manage the precarious balance of ideas that seem entirely incompatable to me, and if there was some way of thinking about the problem that I was somehow missing.
From: uruz Date: May 28th, 2002 08:00 am (UTC) (Link)
You're missing my point. You took my words and rearranged them so that your counterpoint made more sense. They were no longer my words.

"The cat ate the rat" is not the same as "the rat ate the cat." Yes, they are still my words, and I spoke them, but they were rearranged into something that makes your argument stronger and my argument weaker.
komos From: komos Date: May 28th, 2002 08:16 am (UTC) (Link)
What really cheeses me off is when I'm accused of twisting words when I've done no such thing. Everything I expressed in that thread was either something that I pulled from one of your posts, or my ideas of what an idea could mean or lead to. If they are my ideas, I never claim that they are yours.

In the one instance in the thread where I actually did note what you wrote, I can quote you saying, as you put it, "the rat ate the cat." I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that it's likely you wrote something unintentionally, but they were your words. That aside, my counterpoint wasn't dependent on demonstrating the internal inconsistency of your post, anyway.
komos From: komos Date: May 28th, 2002 08:37 am (UTC) (Link)

To whit

You wrote:
Instead, we discover and *nurture* sick impulses that appear from the deepest recesses of our genetic structure.

Perhaps it's just me, but this sounds an awful lot like you're talking about instinct, as that's precisely what "impulses... from the deepest recesses of our genetic structure" are. 'Course, when I equated this idea with instinct, you said:

Actually, no, I never said that the human condition has anything to do with uncontrollable genetic urges.

Rather than accuse me of altering your words, perhaps you'd do me the small favor of explaining how I misunderstood what you wrote?
From: uruz Date: May 28th, 2002 09:09 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: To whit

I suppose I have no choice but to continue this annoyance and defend myself. Way to dredge up information from a thread long-since deleted. I'm guessing it didn't take much as you went into your email trash bin and plucked it out.


Yes, we as humans are sufficiently complex to have impulses and base desires that we cannot explain. They're a part of us as much as how we breathe, what our allergies are, and our culinary preferences.

However, I never said the ::human condition:: -- that is, the sad state that we're in today -- has anything to do with genetics. I doubt that the Palestinian who blew himself up in an ice cream store, killing an Israeli grandmother and her eighteen month old granddaughter, did it because a chromosome told him to. The ::human condition:: encourages us to nurture whatever dark impulses we have. I doubt there's a genetic code somewhere that states "likely to become a suicide bomber" or "likely to enjoy mutilating puppies and kittens for fun," or even better, "making a website that encourages the mutilation of puppies and kittens for fun because some sick bastards out there will actually try what I suggest, ha ha ha." Our base, primitive instincts *become* us in a social situation that does nothing to instruct us how to be *more* than those impulses.

To sum up, it'd be real easy to punch someone in the face upon sufficient irritation. Do the more civilized, sophisticated, ::better:: humans do this? No, we don't. We don't lower ourselves to the level of someone who's antagonstic and irritating. We don't give in to our caveman roots and thump the person over the head. We could, but we'd be no better than those cavemen from thousands of years ago.

Even simpler, if you have the tendency to do stupid things, and are not encouraged to not to those stupid things, you will do them. Sorry about the double negative.

Is it clear now? Education and a strong social model will overcome whatever genetics delivers to us. We lack both. Instead, our social model encourages base behavior and does not punish enough for deviant behavior and does not educate the difference between a human being and a chimp.
komos From: komos Date: May 28th, 2002 09:57 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: To whit

I suppose I have no choice but to continue this annoyance and defend myself. Way to dredge up information from a thread long-since deleted. I'm guessing it didn't take much as you went into your email trash bin and plucked it out.

That's absolutely incorrect.

There was nothing for you to "defend" yourself from, as I didn't take an accusatory stance with you. I got called on the carpet for something I didn't do and so demonstrated otherwise. That I "dredged up" my copy of the thread was a function of your baseless accusation, nothing more. I didn't bring up any of the meat of the discussion because honestly, I'm no longer interested in debating the finer points with you. You've sufficiently demonstrated that you can't or won't have your ideas challenged without giving into rage and frustration.

I had thought that we were having a conversation, and that we could have continued and come to a better understanding of one another. Somewhere along the way you got "cheesed off" and have since engaged in the internet equivalent of punching me in the face. You'll have to forgive me, but I don't appreciate it.
11 comments or Leave a comment