So the Georgia women’s beach volleyball team beat the Russian women’s beach volleyball team. And all i could think was, wouldn’t it have been interesting if the leaders of the respective countries (whose names I’m too lazy to spell) had staked the resolution of their disputes on the outcome.
In fact, even better: rather than rolling in tanks and blowing up terrified citizens, have the Russian and Georgia presidents square off in the wrestling ring. Settle this BS like men.
PAD
• 
Actually, I just checked the meaning of every word so no false friends were involved and Intentional is an antonym of Accidental. And the Thesaurus says Intentional means “Planned, weighed, or estimated in advance”. That is, if Smith estimated the risk of offense, weighted that eventuality against other factors and still did it, you can call the offense deliberate.
You say the likehood of killing the civilians in the house can be measurable… and that is true. Physics can even give you numbers for it. But then the eventuality of offending a group of persons can also be measured, tho not in a numerical way.
The more you know about that group, the more accurate your estimation is… and if you want science, anthropologists sure can tell you certain acts/words/situations will get certain reactions. Of course, there will be exceptions; their maths wont be so neat and they study groups with a wide range of simultaneous stimuli. But not having an exact number doesnt mean you cant weight the possibility of offense.
You say “he intended Effect #2 as one of his motives, simply because he knew it would be one of the two consequences.”
…And I didnt say that. Actually I said Intention and Motivation are two diferent factors. Smith motivation was to entertain, express himself or make a buck… he weighted the possibility of offending certain people, aknowledged that and went on. So the offense is a colateral he considered worthy to create his work… there is no judgement in this, I actually love Smith’s films, seen everything hes done ever since I watched Clercks thrice when it got here(95?). But if the offense wasnt intentional, it was Accidental. And if his background is not enough, the fact that he aknowledges the possibility of such offense in the film kind of proves it wasnt accidental.
Vladimir Putin has a black belt in judo, and has even co-written books on judo, so Putin vs Saakashvili would be about as fair a fight as, well, Russia vs Georgia.
First of all, thesauruses do not give “meanings”. Dictionaries do. Thesauruses merely give words that are similar in meaning, but not necessarily identical. And when I consult The American Heritage, it says that intent means “aim or purpose”, which corroborates my position. If the aim or purpose of any act is one thing, and not a second thing, then it cannot be said that that second thing was the intent or motive of the person in question.
I’d ask you why you cited a thesaurus instead of a dictionary, but I can guess why: You looked up the word in the dictionary, and realized that it backed up my position rather than yours, and rather than admit that your position is baseless, you decided to cut argumentative corner.
Nice try.
The thing is, I’ve been presenting my position in a way that I feel is pretty simple, and could possibly resolve this issue if my reasoning were addressed directly:
If we assume Kevin Smith is being truthful when he says that his motive and intent when making the film was entertaining those he knew would like it, and that he did not want to offend others, even though he knew some would be, but could simply not control that, would you say that he chose to offend those offended? Would you say that he chose to offend them, even if it were known that he didn’t want them to be offended? I think the way you answer this question might, just might, shed some light on your viewpoint, because if you answer “yes”, then you’re saying that one can intend something and simultaneously not want it, which is logically incoherent.
Luigi Novi: You say “he intended Effect #2 as one of his motives, simply because he knew it would be one of the two consequences.
El hombre Malo: …And I didnt say that. Actually.
Luigi Novi: Your statement about intention and motive being different (which they’re not) have nothing to do with the fact that you have been advancing the idea that if one knows about a given effect of an act beforehand, that that is needed in order for it to be said that they “intended” that effect. You now say that you haven’t been saying that? What about this statement:
An artist motive to depict Ganesha eating cow might not be to offend the hindu community but completely different, yet he knows it will offend so he is beign intentionally offensive.
What implied or inferred principle is present in the statement “he knows it will offend so he is being intentionally offensive” if not that mere foreknowledge that offense will be one of the effects of an act means that that effect was deliberate on the part of the person?
My response to this remains the same: It’s a non sequitur.
El hombre Malo: I said Intention and Motivation are two diferent factors.
Luigi Novi: That has nothing to do with the issue of whether you have stated that knowledge of a given effect of an act constitutes deliberate intent of that effect.
I would also point out that I already stated that intent and motive are the same thing, and rather than refute this position by explaining how they’re different, you’re simply repeating the original assertion. What I find interesting, given this talk of thesauruses, is that Websters’ Compact Thesaurus indicates that both words are synonymous with the word “purpose”. So much for that. But perhaps you can explain the difference between the two?
Megan,
“I’ve decided I’m too old to be lectured to by some bloke I’ve never met”
Well, that certainly advances the discussion. Look, Megan, you asked I question. If you didn’t want people to respond, why ask it? And that’s all I was doing, responding, in what was hardly a caustic manner. So I don’t understand why you would feel “lectured” to when I am simply responding to your question. And I would estimate you’ve “never met” 95% of the other people who post here, at least. So why single me out? Because you didn’t like what I had to say in response to a question you posed? Amazing.
Actually, I thought Thesaurus to be a dictionare, like Webster’s or Collin’s… In spanish we have the RAE (Real Academia Española) wich is official, and I would have consulted just that one.
Heritage also states intention is “A course of action that one intends to follow” while motive is “An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action”. One is the road one take knowingly, the other the place you want to get to, so to speak. But I realize my grasp of english semantics is not as strong as it should be when we reach these kind of depths.
As for the Keving Smith example… He would prefer no one would feel offended but knew some would be. And he still did what he knew would offend people after he weighted all the factors. He even aknowledged in the very film, in a humorous way, that he knew it would offend some people. Did he want to? I guess he didnt. But was the offense accidental? No it wasnt. It was intentional, it was an expected collateral, not measured in numbers but expected non the less.
“…saying that one can intend something and simultaneously not want it, which is logically incoherent.”
Lets say I dont want to work in retail But I want to have money for the rent, food and my small pleasures… So I wake every day at a time I woud prefer to be asleep, take the subway and for some hours do something I dont want… because from that I get something I do want: money.
I dont want to visit my girlfriend’s granny. I very much despise her, find the whole thing boring and gruesome. Yet I do this thing I dont want to do because that way I make my gf happy and thats a factor that outweights my disconfort.
I could give more examples but I think we all do many things we dont want to do, intentionally and for many reasons. My goal in life is to be able to do as few things I dont want as possible, like everybody else.
Luigi, you’re still missing the point. So do you Jerome.
The distinctions and points have been laid out repeatedly. There is no point to continue this discussion unless it is taken to a next or different stage.
El hombre Malo: …he knew it would offend some people. Did he want to? I guess he didnt. But was the offense accidental? No it wasnt. It was intentional.
Luigi Novi: Nope, sorry, wrong answer. You can’t not want something and simultaneously intend it. For the purposes of our discussion, these concepts are identical in contextual meaning, and to say that one can not want something and simultaneously intend it is a contradiction. If you’re going to use words so euphemistically, and in a manner that is so completely divorced from their usage, then they become essentially meaningless.
El hombre Malo: Lets say I dont want to work in retail But…I wake every day at a time I woud prefer to be asleep, take the subway and for some hours do something I dont want…I dont want to visit my girlfriend’s granny…Yet I do this thing I dont want to do because that way I make my gf happy.
Luigi Novi: So you didn’t intend to go to work on each of those days or visit your girl’s grandmother? Of course you did! You deliberately intended–and did–something you didn’t want to do. Whether you liked doing so is immaterial to whether you deliberately did it. You are again using vocabulary in a dishonest fashion, now making a deliberate confusion between whether you “like” something and whether you deliberately intend to do it.
The reason this analogy fails to work with the Smith example is that you’re comparing a physical act on the one hand to the effects of a physical act on the other, and it doesn’t work. In the examples you give, you either go to work and to your grandmother’s, or you don’t. Whether you do is entirely a matter of your control. But with regard the effects of a filmmaker, that filmmaker can not control the effects it will have on a viewing audience, at least not entirely, much less the effects it has on groups who haven’t even seen it. The most he can do is proceed in good faith, in making it for those he thinks will like it. If some are offended by it, and he says he did not make the film with that effect in mind or want that to happen, then it was not deliberate, or his intention.
That you can argue otherwise, and so incoherently that you can arrive a conclusion opposite of that which is shown by evidence or reasoning, a conclusion you refuse to let go of, even when it’s pointed out to you that it’s unsupportable, would seem to indicate that you’re motivated more by an Orwellian ideological desire to pass judgments regarding other’s mindsets, rather than a good faith attempt to reasonably explore an idea.
Micha: Luigi, you’re still missing the point. So do you Jerome. The distinctions and points have been laid out repeatedly.
Luigi Novi: And I have pointed out how the distinctions El hombre asserts are nonexistent.
Micha: There is no point to continue this discussion unless it is taken to a next or different stage.
Luigi Novi: Okay. It’s not like anyone forced you to do so thus far.
Now whos trying to read my mind… the fact is I argue because its enlightening. And I am ready to learn and change my views when pointed out wrong… but you have not. You have repeatedly said I am beign illogical and to assume attitudes and motives on my part, usually thinking the worst of each statement.
Maybe what we have here is a philosophical wall. You think intentionality applies only to the ultimate goal of an action. I think it’s applicable both to the goal and to the colateral consecuences that can be (measurable or not) expected from that act. The Legal language seems to back my position (at least in my countries and in the movies), separating intentional from accidental mostly because of the previous knowledge an individual have of the consecuences of his acts.
Micha: Luigi, you’re still missing the point. So do you Jerome. The distinctions and points have been laid out repeatedly.
Luigi Novi: And I have pointed out how the distinctions El hombre asserts are nonexistent
Micha: No you haven’t. You are missing the point of El-Hombre Malo’s and my distinction so You keep answering the wrong question and refuting the wrong distinction. One neither I nor El homber Malo actually dispute.
El Hombre Malo: Maybe what we have here is a philosophical wall. You think intentionality applies only to the ultimate goal of an action. I think it’s applicable both to the goal and to the colateral consecuences that can be (measurable or not) expected from that act.
Micha: Intentionality is used in both senses. Words are flexible.
Part of the problem with the argument between Luigi and El Hombre is that English is a second language for El Hombre, yet Luigi insists on discussing finer points in the English language.
And I DO believe I helped settle one misunderstanding, and hope to help settle more.
Language is a problem. But not because it is not understood well enough. The focus on the language detracts from the issue itself.
Luigi is talking about he fact that Kevin Smith didn’t make his movie in order to offemd anyone. Which is true (as far as we know).
El Hombre talks about he fact that Kevin Smith made a concious decision to make a movie which he knew would offend. Which is also true (as far as we know and according to the parameters of the thought experiment).
These two facts are both important, and are not contradictory. But he application of the word intent — which can correctly be applied to both — creates the appearance of contradiction.
Luigi strenuously defends the true claim that Kevin Smith did not seek out to offend anybody. Although this is not in dispute.
In order to do that he says something which is not true — that the offence was not avoidable, couldn’t be helped. But obviously, the offence could have been avoided. Kevin Smith could have decided that he didn’t want to make a movie offending the people who he knew would be offended by Dogma.
As a result Luigi misses the real question, which is not whether or not Kevin Smith wanted to offend? (we established he hadn’t) but rather, was a right or wrong to make a movie that he knew would offend some? (Yes in my opinion). If we say that the offfence was unavoidable, an unfortunate accident, we ignore the decision Smith made, and we can’t judge it as right or wrong. Nor can we judge many similar dcisions, some of which are right and some of which were wrong.
Jerome made the same mistake when he replied to Megan’s question:
“If you do something with the foreknowledge that it will be offensive to some, how can that not imply intent”
With the reply:
“Because, Megan. Some people will be – and some are determined to be – upset by everything. If we sometimes cater to this – which I sometimes fear we are in danger of doing – then we cannot have a provocative discussion, have any kind of serious art, cannot discuss politics, etc.”
The problem with Jerome Maida’s reply is not that it is a wrong answer, but that it is the right answer to the wrong question.
The correct question is: “Why should we at times conciously decide to do something that we know will offend some?”
To which the answer is indeed:
“Because, some people will be – and some are determined to be – upset by everything. If we sometimes cater to this – which I sometimes fear we are in danger of doing – then we cannot have a provocative discussion, have any kind of serious art, cannot discuss politics, etc.”
But I guess people here are too polite to accept the notion that offending is sometimes justified. It is easier to treat it as an unfortunate accident. But that makes it indistinguishable from the kind of mistakes made by the Spanish and American Athletes, who accidently offended because they didn’t know that their actions might be perceived as offensive.
Someone please give me an insulin injection before all the friendship, kindness, and humility Luigi radiates gives me diabetes.
Jerome Maida –
So why single me out?
Now I wonder where I’ve heard that question asked before…
Luigi, intent refers to WHAT a person sets out to do, MOTIVE refers to why. Big difference.
Megan, people can offend by the personal choices they make. I do not set out to offend my mother inb law by not being Christian, nor do my wife and I intend to offend by not taking our son to church every Sunday.
Our decision regarding church attendance is practical. I’m on the road for three weeks at a time, and my wife works every Sunday. Now she’s offended that SHE can’t take him every Sunday. I have just accepted that she is happiest when she is offended.
Micha, it is also possible that that Kevin Smith set out to amuse some and offend others, hoping that in doing so, he would cause people to think.
Luigi, intent refers to WHAT a person sets out to do, MOTIVE refers to why. Big difference.
Megan, people can offend by the personal choices they make. I do not set out to offend my mother inb law by not being Christian, nor do my wife and I intend to offend by not taking our son to church every Sunday.
Our decision regarding church attendance is practical. I’m on the road for three weeks at a time, and my wife works every Sunday. Now she’s offended that SHE can’t take him every Sunday. I have just accepted that she is happiest when she is offended.
Micha, it is also possible that that Kevin Smith set out to amuse some and offend others, hoping that in doing so, he would cause people to think.
When was the last time you joined in on a dogpile on someone? You think just because you don’t get dogpiled on, it doesn’t happen? Or maybe you get pìššëd øff you do all of this tiptoeing around to avoid getting dogpiled on, when guys like Jerome and me don’t care enough to be so dainty.
“Micha, it is also possible that that Kevin Smith set out to amuse some and offend others, hoping that in doing so, he would cause people to think.”
Manny, it’s quite possible. But for the sake of this discussion, Kevin Smith is more of a thought experiment to demonstrate certain ideas than the actual Kevin Smith, so we assumed that Kevin Smith didn’t want to offend but knew that he would. In reality things might be different.
“Megan, people can offend by the personal choices they make. I do not set out to offend my mother inb law by not being Christian, nor do my wife and I intend to offend by not taking our son to church every Sunday.
Our decision regarding church attendance is practical. I’m on the road for three weeks at a time, and my wife works every Sunday. Now she’s offended that SHE can’t take him every Sunday. I have just accepted that she is happiest when she is offended.”
Exactly. Sometimes you have to weigh your desire not to offend somebody by other considerations.But mothers are a category in itself 🙂
Sorry for the double posts. New laptop, the buttons are still a bit twitchy.
Posted by Mike at August 23, 2008 12:13 PM
“When was the last time you joined in on a dogpile on someone? You think just because you don’t get dogpiled on, it doesn’t happen? Or maybe you get pìššëd øff you do all of this tiptoeing around to avoid getting dogpiled on, when guys like Jerome and me don’t care enough to be so dainty.”
No, Mike, you just dont care to acknowledge that, maybe, POSSIBLY, you might just (Drumroll please) BE WRONG!
I won’t speak for Jerome, however I don’t believe you don’t care to be “dainty”, you just don’t care to step back and think.
How appropriate to the discussion.
Posted by Micha at August 22, 2008 07:24 PM
“But I guess people here are too polite to accept the notion that offending is sometimes justified. It is easier to treat it as an unfortunate accident. But that makes it indistinguishable from the kind of mistakes made by the Spanish and American Athletes, who accidently offended because they didn’t know that their actions might be perceived as offensive.”
Micha, it is possible to offend by one’s very existence. As I have stated, I am a Wiccan. There are solid born agains who are offended by the fact that the laws that would have had me burned at the stake are no longer in force. In your region, there are people who are offended by the mere existence of Israel, the Jewish people, or different opinions.
You are right, giving offense, without malice, can be justified.
Or we can all just agree to disagree.
“Might be wrong”s don’t make it so. And I’m not asking anyone to take my word on anything.
What is anything I say to you?
“What is anything I say to you?”
Absolutly nothing
“You think just because you don’t get dogpiled on, it doesn’t happen?”
See, his problem is he came here for an argument, but this is abuse. He wants room 12A, next door.
Stupid git…
Abuse can be fun. Unless your name is Mike.
V.O.M.I.T Meeting!!!!
Or we can ignore him.
Micha, sorry I missed that Kevin Smith was a thought experiment, I kinda walked into the middle of this one.
I will say that what one person views an unintended and possibly regretable offense, the offended party may still view as a calculated slight.
It’s hard to navigate all the land mines out there.
I agree with you, Manny, and it can get very frustrating. What irks me though is that many of these types want to claim a sort of moral equivalence.
Fanatical Christian: “Gays are degenerates, they’ll burn in hëll.”
Me: “I don’t like your attitude, man. I don’t think I want to have anything to do with you.”
Fanatical Christian: “See! See! You’re as intolerant as myself, you are a bigot too, it’s just that you hate Christians! I’m being persecuted by liberals like you! I’m the victim here.”
Some arguments you just can’t win. Some people will feel offended no matter what you do.
Thank you for trying to disprove you dogpile — by dogpiling. It’s why I don’t have to ask anyone to take my word on anything. I merely refer to reality as it’s preserved in your archived posts.
Posted by: bittersweatheart@uol.com.br at August 23, 2008 07:42 PM
Fanatical Christian: “Gays are degenerates, they’ll burn in hëll.”
Me: “I don’t like your attitude, man. I don’t think I want to have anything to do with you.”
Fanatical Christian: “See! See! You’re as intolerant as myself, you are a bigot too, it’s just that you hate Christians! I’m being persecuted by liberals like you! I’m the victim here.”
Some arguments you just can’t win. Some people will feel offended no matter what you do.
Yup, had that argument one or two thousand times. How do you get them to admit they’re intolerant though? Short of water boarding? ;p
As for you, Mike. I do not deny it. I joined the dog pile. Show me my, or any other denial between your original statement and here. Not your usual connect the dots, real or otherwise. Show me where I denied it.
Then, as a bit of free advise, stop volunteering to be at the bottom of the pile.
My post didn’t need to refer to yours to be true. But thanks for volunteering your confession.
By your own admission of joining in on a dogpile, you’re the one pìššëd at me. What’s the meaning to you anything I’ve said, that you feel the need to indulge in a hateful act? I’m merely responding to posts directed at me. The mystery is you, not me.
Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2008 08:02 PM
Thank you for trying to disprove you dogpile — by dogpiling. It’s why I don’t have to ask anyone to take my word on anything. I merely refer to reality as it’s preserved in your archived posts.
Yup you are right, you don’t accuse people of denial, only that they are trying to disprove something they have not tried to disprove.
Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2008 09:36 PM
My post didn’t need to refer to yours to be true. But thanks for volunteering your confession.
By your own admission of joining in on a dogpile, you’re the one pìššëd at me. What’s the meaning to you anything I’ve said, that you feel the need to indulge in a hateful act? I’m merely responding to posts directed at me. The mystery is you, not me.
First, I’not pìššëd at you. Annoyed, amused, occassionally entertained, but usually stunned at your shocked reaction to other people disagreeing with you. Your constant assertions that any opinion contrary to your own is a “strawman”, your complete inability to either disagree civilly, or acknowlege that you may be wrong, or that you misunderstood somebody. The added unwillingness to ask for a clarification in the event of a misunderstanding. Your hypocritical demand that everybody prove everything they say, while not being willing to do the same.
Second, to paraphrase Tim Wilson, if enough people have a problem with you, well maybe it’s you.
Did I miss anything?
Bill referred to my dogpile-post as a form of abuse. His only other option in referring to it as abuse was to give me an “at-a-boy.” He wasn’t, so I treated it as the other option, which was a challenge to the notion you indulge in dogpiling, which you’ve conveniently confirmed for me as having taken place.
Whuhhhtehhhverrr…
I’ve only referred to one strawman here. By your account, then, your dogpile was inspired by a single disagreement. How sick does that make you?
What’s your quota for accuracy? How much accuracy will you tolerate from someone, before you’re justified in joining in on a dogpile on them? How sick are you that accuracy is to be punished, and not encouraged?
Why would I think such a thing? If we can’t go by what you say, what business do you have publicly disagreeing with anyone?
It’s not hypocritical if I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I’ve said this, and you haven’t disagreed with me. Why would I think anything other than what I say I’m thinking? Fear of your dogpile? How sick does that make you?
In case anyone’s wondering, my prior post was a paraphrase from Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” sketch, something I allude to from time to time when the arguments get silly. It seems appropriate, and it amuses me.
Thank you for confirming you were trying to discredit what I was saying. Meaning Manny was wrong when he said no one was trying to do any such thing.
It seems appropriate, and it amuses me.
I think quotes from “The Parrot Sketch” might be a more accurate description of the conversation at this point.
Hey, Mike, remember this post from the thread entitled “The Comedy Stylings of George Takei”?
“Posted by: Mike at February 26, 2007 12:25 AM
I’ve gotten what I’ve been looking for here, paradigms for the motives of the people here that have been baffling me. The price for these paradigms has been my time and, as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.”
Can you please get to that “if at all” point sooner rather than later? It would be a really cool thing for you to do and make lots of people really happy.
Thanks.
~8?)`
Manny,
First I have to get over the fact that so many of you seem to be thin-skinned.
Second, the people who agree with me, you likely would not ask to one of your parties, where you can all agree, so what’s the problem?
Manny, I don’t engage in any discussion here unless I “step back and think”, which can be a way for Hillary to rally low-income Democrats, for example. As of today, however, I am going to do and say everything in my power to ensure McCain is elected President. There are not as many racists out there as you may think.
Jerome:
I think you are responding to a post that was directed to Mike. So the offense your perceive is certainly not intended. How all this connects to the elections, I’m not clear. I would have liked to be invited to the parties though.
Jerry:
Well, Mike always says we shouldn’t take his word for anything. It’s sound advice. Time to ignore him.
Manny: “Micha, sorry I missed that Kevin Smith was a thought experiment, I kinda walked into the middle of this one.”
There was no way for you to know. There’s something to discuss here about the role of offense in satire.
Manny:”I will say that what one person views an unintended and possibly regretable offense, the offended party may still view as a calculated slight.”
True, that often happens. That’s why the distinction Luigi made is also important.
But I think people should own up to offending, if they think it is right. So, instead of Kevin Smith saying that he never intended to offend, he should say: “Yes, I knew some people would be offended, but I wasn’t going to let the thin skins of some humorless people gag me and prevent me for offering my own take on religion. I’m sorry they are offended, but you know what, I’m also offended by some of their takes on religion, and I live with it.”
“It’s hard to navigate all the land mines out there.”
Yes, but we have to. And that’s the point I was trying to make. Where I live people are easily offended.
Jerry, that was before you tried to apply the eastern water metaphor for the mind’s liquidity as a metaphor for the accumulation of knowledge. And extended it as a metaphor for how people pass, with no sense of irony, uncorrupted knowledge to each other. To which I pointed out how diabetics would provide the most diluted urine to come closest to what you were literally describing. And because I turned your own stupidity on itself, you had to take it and like it.
Most of your errors aren’t that entertaining. But I can rely on them, like in this thread where you implied the Chinese government spoke for everyone who could possibly be offended by the Spanish photo. So there’s always a reasonable hope you’ll err. And considering the authority you enjoy professionally, I consider pointing out these kinds of unforced errors on your part a service to your community and everyone around you.
You’re welcome.
[Not directed at Micha]
[Micha, with no sense of irony]
Yeah, it’s a wonder anyone feels the need to challenge anything I say.
Challenge?
That would require me taking you seriously. I don’t
Thank you for validating what I say, by disregarding your own stated resolve to ignore me.
You seem to have an issue with authority figures, Mike. Do you want to talk about it?
Christ on a pogo stick, what is it about this thread that seems to have reduced virtually everybody to a mental age of six?
Tim,
Aside from this helpful comment, do you have anything to add to the discussions about the Spanish athletes or about offense in general?
Tim Lynch—
I’m rubber, you’re glue.
Mike—
Seriously, d00d, medication.
Everybody—
Isn’t it time we ended this Spanish Inquisition?
Tim Lynch: “Christ on a pogo stick, what is it about this thread that seems to have reduced virtually everybody to a mental age of six?”
Micha: “Tim, Aside from this helpful comment, do you have anything to add to the discussions about the Spanish athletes or about offense in general?”
This is why in large part I rarely participate here anymore, and why I paraphrased Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” sketch. Because it seems there’s something about the Internet that reduces everyone, myself included, to pointless bickering.
If you aren’t familiar with the sketch, I’d urge you to get it on DVD or read the transcript provided in the book Monty Python’s Flying Circus: Just the Words, Volume 2. It’s about a guy who pays to have an argument. First he walks into the wrong office and is verbally abused until he exclaims, “I came here for an argument!” The abuser’s demeanor instantly changes and he explains, “I’m sorry, this is abuse.” He then directs the hapless customer down the hall, only to mutter under his breath, “Stupid git.”
The customer then finds the argument office
and soon there’s a hilarious sequence where he complains that what he’s getting isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction. The paid staffer declares, “No it isn’t.”
I think there’s more than a passing similarity to what’s going on here and throughout the ‘Net.
What’s wonderful about the sketch is that at a deeper level it’s about what constitutes an argument. Because one definition of an argument is a heated disagreement, of which there seems to be no shortage here. But an argument can also be something more elevated. As the customer in the sketch says so eloquently, “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.”
I think we would all be well-served — and yeah, that includes me — to give some thought to how we treat those with whom we disagree. Also, I’d ask those who like to verbally pound on Mike (as I used to) to consider how that impacts the enjoyment of others. The verbal snipe-fests make these threads hëll to read, which is why I rarely read them anymore.
Oh, and finally, I realize I should’ve left the “stupid git” part out of my earlier post. I thought it was a funny commentary on the way this thread has progressed but I left out the context, leaving people with no choice but to infer that I was calling someone names. Sorry ’bout that.
Later, all.
1) I’m familiar with the Monty Python sketch.
2) I’m interested in a discussion about issues.
3) For high brow discussion more is required than ignoring Mike. If and when the discussion flows, ignoring Mike is the easy part.
4) It is beyond me why it is only when I respond to Mike — which I don’t do as often as people seem to think — that Western civilization as we know it comes tumbling down.
5) Though I try to hold myself to high standards, I am unwilling to hold myself to such high standards that any time I post a response that has emotion in it other than reason, I should feel the need to castigate myself.
At this point, honestly, what is the point of engaging/arguing/trading insults with Mike Leung? Everything he has to say has been said, repeatedly. There are no surprises. Nobody, to my knowledge, takes him seriously so that removes the need to confront him when he goes off the deep end. If some newby who doesn’t know better gets drawn into a frustratingly pointless conversation with him it would be better to just send them an email gently explaining why nobody else is coming to their aid. A few suggestions of where to go to read rpevious posts should be all it takes to transform anger into a kind of pity.
Too many of us feel that silence=assent but the point has been made. Frankly, benign neglect would seem to be the best use of time and would also be the one thing that most upsets him, by his own admission.
Of course, it took me quite a while to grow bored with him so I can’t complain if it takes others longer to do the same.
Micha, I stopped reading this blog around the time you stopped participating. I returned when you did. That wasn’t a coincidence. I’ll continue our conversation via e-mail.
It seems I’ve left lots of room for misinterpretation, first by being too cutesy, then by being too wordy. Let’s try this one — and only one — more time.
This thread has even some of the most intelligent and decent people among us at each other’s throats, and it’s not an isolated thing. It happens quite a bit here and throughout the blogosphere. I’ve succumbed to it myself. I think it’s unfortunate because it doesn’t have to be this way.
I didn’t mean to single out Tim or Micha, nor do I believe I am beyond reproach, and I apologize if I gave that impression.
Take care, everyone.
Also, the arguement sketch illustrates that some people will go out of their way for a fight.