And while we're talking about "tolerance", what's with people --ing my comments that they happen to disagree with? I ++ed tilly's original post in this thread, even though I didn't agree with it much, and was all but attacked in it, because it was well thought out and well-written. To my mind, ++/-- is all about quality, not battles of personalities.
in reply to Re: Re: Re: I think Casey West is right
in thread I think Casey West is right
I didn't -- anyone's post in this thread, but I did ++ some posts I agreed with (yours not included). I wouldn't -- a post unless it was seriously, radically bad in some way, like being factually or technically inaccurate.
That being said, I don't think it's wrong to -- a post with which one strongly disagrees, if the disagreement is serious enough, and on a truly serious matter.
In this case, there's a broader, more general question of advocacy that I keep seeing get debated here and elsewhere. It's a serious matter, and I think one side is actually wrong. I'm not much of a -- person (see above), but it's the sort of thing that, were I a -- person, I might well use some votes downvoting. But I wouldn't be doing it on a basis of personality, but on the quality of the ideas expressed.
It's easy, in this sort of debate, to confuse personality with idea. How one advocates (and similarly, how one interacts with others, how one teaches, and so on) is partly a matter of personality. But it's a matter of choice, as well, and of idea. I also think (even though this is an unfashionable idea these days) that one has some control over this aspect of ones behavior, that our personality isn't just a given, unchangeable fact.
They laughed at Joan of Arc, but she went right ahead and built it. --Gracie Allen