Re^22: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 12, 2010 at 05:19 UTC||Need Help??|
And so we get this thread, which it seems has really just been an attempt at proving you are write and whoever called you aggressive is wrong.
No. It is not about me being right. Or even who is right. It is about what is right; and who decides!.
I'm not trying to say that your or Tye's judgement is wrong, because you misread me. I'm saying it is wrong because you take it upon yourselves to judge me. Because every individual occurrence is subject to interpretation; many different interpretations. And for you to presume that yours is the "right" interpretation is .... I'll let you fill in the adjectives.
I'm not rejecting your or Tye's judgement of any individual incident. I'm rejecting the idea that either of you have any right to make any such judgements.
Of course, as individuals, we make judgements all the time. I don't like the color my neighbour painted his fences and garden shed--a kind of bright 'fake tan orangey-yellow'--but I don't go telling him that he can't do it. Despite that I have to look at it every day.
So earlier you basically accuse me of supporting (in-effect) IBGS. Me, the person who started the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread!! If you give a troll attention, you are feeding the troll. And there is no better way to support a troll than to feed it. So who was it that was supporting IBGS? Last time I checked I was ignoring him as per SOP. You on the other hand were not only feeding the troll but practically doing the tango with him!!
Go to SuperSearch and check. I've never interacted with IBGS before. I *do* ignore trolls. Except on this occasion I had a point to prove. And prove it you most emphatically did. You censure me, but not him.
As for applying standards, I have different sets of standards to apply, as the occasion fits.
Exactly! Your standards. Applied capriciously, arbitrarily & unfairly. As per your whim.
Rules I'll abide by, but I will not be subjected to your whim; nor anyone's. Just as I would not expect you to be subject to mine.
So, why didn't tye and ikegami get dinged? Because it's you getting all passionate about threads again,
No. Its because you, and others, whimsically & capriciously chose not to apply your arbitrary standards to them. Even Tye himself admits that he sometimes oversteps some mark. The problem is where is that mark.
And more to the point: who decides where that mark is? You? tirwhan? Other?
But by convention writing in all caps is considered yelling on the Internet,
Fact:the written word cannot carry volume. Any such anthropomorphisation of the written word, is applied by the reader, not the writer.
I didn't shout. You and Tye, and no doubt others, chose to read me as shouting. But that is your choice.
Should I choose to respect every nonsensical rule anyone in the world might have?
Some or other Hollywood celebrity turned up on a topical news show stating that he would "only eat animals that have respect for themselves". There is a subset of human beings that won't drive cars. Others who think that the earth is circa 11,000 years old. Others that believe that eating tiger penis is good for their virility. Others that dismember albino children to use their body parts as powerful ju-ju in ritualistic ceremonies.
Should I respect all these other nonsensical "conventions"?
I am actually devoting a considerable amount of my time an energy trying to get you to see that you can make changes that will work toward your betterment.
My betterment? According to your standards? Your unwritten, changeable, applied-when-and-if-you-see-fit standards? You really think I aspire, or should aspire to compliance to such?
Once again, I am telling you--point blank; in your face; no equivocations; no room for manoeuvre or persuasion or coercion--I will not be bound by, or respect, any form of censorship, decided and applied by individuals, to an arbitrary subset of perlmonks.
If this community wants to apply some set of rules of censorship, and wants me to respect them, then it must a) codify them; b) apply them universally.
If I even perceived that your 'standards' were a) something like a consensus; b) were widely applied and respected; I would on this--as I have on other things--fall into line with them. But that is not the case here.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.