For the same reason I created a little scenario about an inauguration speech and prior Congressional action that stalled. I could have simply written a dry OP that said, “Could a future president overturn capital gains taxes in the same way Obama has overturned portions of the immigration law?”
But I didn’t, because I thought that every would understand the parallel (stalled in Congress, it’s the right thing to do, etc). Why would I have added that detail in about being stalled in Congress and “It’s the right thing to do?” otherwise?
I ask again: did anyone read that and NOT know what the comparison was? I didn’t make it explicit because I was convinced it was already pretty damn obvious.
If you’re sincere (I’m very dubious), this is an extremely solipsistic post, assuming that of course everyone is as aware as you are of every issue, and draws the same associations with every phrase in English language that you do, and so certainly that you are freed from every bit of responsibility for making clear the connections you have made–it couldn’t possibly be the writer’s responsibility, and it must be the reader’s.
I doubt anyone who had actively debated the immigration reform issue would not have figured it out. I can’t say for sure if I would because I found that thread via this one.
Having said that, I think you’d admit that you have played this game in the past without making it obvious that you’re drawing a similar parallel.
Hypotheticals like this have long been part of the western canon, and it is customary to set them up exactly in this way – i.e., with enough resemblance to the actual dispute so people have in the back of their mind their previously offered position, but without explicit reference to the dispute.
And there’s a reason for this customary form, which flows from the purpose of this kind of inquiry. The whole point of such hypotheticals is to separate intuitions arising from the facts of the proposition actually in dispute from the logical reasoning that is produced to defend those intuitions (often post hoc, or at least ad hoc). The socratic method accomplishes this by separating the reasons from whatever facts produced them. If the result is the same, this tends to suggests that the reasons are both generally applicable (and therefore good reasons instead of being ad hoc), and that they are not driven entirely by the facts (and therefore good reasons instead of being post hoc).
Thus, the whole force of this kind of inquiry derives from separating the hypothetical from the thing actually in dispute. Not as a kind of “gotcha,” but as a recognition of how human cognition works. The goal is to suppress gut intuitions, or else attempt to produce contrary intuitions and see if the same reasoning still applies. You accomplish that by a kind of mutually agreed-upon hide-the-ball.
The notion isn’t to trick anyone. The notion is consensual manipulation of gut intuitions to separate the emotion from the logic (to the extent possible).
I appreciate the support, but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears; the posters most frothing at the mouth over this supposed dishonesty are the posters who think the western canon is a piece of field artillery in California.
But I say again: even if everyone immediately knew what the comparison was, they would also have to immediately know that you intended that they know what the comparison was… that is, even if you had absolutely zero intent of pulling a “aha! you think this about this, but not about Obama! Gotcha!”, and I honestly believe you if you say you didn’t, the fact that your post was so similar in content to one that would in fact be leading towards a gotcha of that sort, and the fact that you have made such posts in the past, led an awful lot of people to quite reasonably assume that that’s what was going on, leading to the kerfuffle we’re in now.
Fair enough. I’m not accusing you of having consciously done anything here, I’m just pointing out that I don’t at all find it unreasonable for people’s reactions to be what they were (at least in general).
I’m following the immigration story fairly closely. I’m changing the channel any time a tax story comes on.
Could easily be the other way around.
I don’t see how you can assume everyone is following both stories avidly, or else none, and is therefore responsible for catching every verbal allusion you make. Write clearly or else take the blame when you’re accused of writing deliberately to trick people.
I’m saying that my eyes glaze over when i see squabbling over taxes, and I follow immigration issues pretty well. If someone is riveted by tax-related issues, but doesn’t follow immigration stuff, then he won’t catch your allusions to immigration stuff.
So you’re trying to say that your eyes glaze over when you see squabbling over taxes, and yet you decided to follow a thread that - as far as you could tell - was completely about taxes and unrelated to your real interest, immigration.
Even if so, you’re still saying that you didn’t understand the true subject of Bricker’s OP because your eyes glazed over when you read it. Hard to blame Bricker for that, I would think.
Well, maybe because I haven’t read the thread with equal interest throughout, I’m missing something, but Bricker seems to be suggesting that anyone interested in Topic A on public affairs must be responsible for catching every verbal allusion to Topic B. Is this incorrect? If so, my apologies.