I love that one of the rules is “You can’t break these rules.”
Thanks. Anyway, it’s not such a big deal. I prefer not to engage with people who insist on misinterpreting my posts but I do like to explain my reasons.
Among other things, the thread in question was about the possibility of a future significant clash between Muslims and Christians in Europe.
From my posts, it was very clear that I considered such a clash to be a reasonable possibility but not a certainty:
Ok, and how does SherwoodAnderson characterize my position?
It’s hard to believe how any honest person with more than a few active brain cells could make such a leap, but I gave him the usual opportunity to either back up his statement or retract it and apologize.
He did neither.
The first rule of **brazil84’**s blog is…
Nobody reads brazil84’s blog.
Hmmm…my only concern is that some people actually appear to care about what the dickweed has to say.
Accurately? If you don’t think there’s a clash coming, those quotes sure had me fooled.
The way I’m reading it is that he thinks it is likely based on some current trajectories (Muslim population growth, increased anti-Muslim sentiment, and a lack of Muslims "growing up).
I’m not arguing or defending his point (frankly I don’t know enough about it either way).
I am disappointed that I can’t see the rules from work though (blogs are blocked).
I would agree with you, but I would hate to be “banned”.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply clarify your position, i.e. “No, I don’t think a clash is inevitable, but I can see it happening and I can understand why many Europeans believe it will happen and are acting accordingly.” Or whatever a clarified version of your views might be.
From what I can tell, not offering a clarification but instead demanding evidence/retraction/apology simply alienates others posters, rather than advancing debate.
I’m prepared to concede that you did in fact try this, because I admit I haven’t read all your posts on the matter.
[barneyfife] Rule Number One: Obey All Rules! [/bf]
I’m not sure I would call it “likely,” but I do think it’s a significant possibility.
I would say it’s easier to give him a chance to come clean and if he doesn’t, to cut things off. My position was clear enough that WilliamAnderson was either intentionally misinterpreting my posts or was not putting much effort into reading them and just arguing against a position he imagined in his mind. If a person insists on doing either thing, it’s easier to simply not bother with him.
I don’t see how. You could write one or two sentences of clarification, as opposed to requesting a retraction/apology and waiting for the reply. At the very least, it’s worth entertaining the possibility that you have not expressed your ideas with perfect clarity and/or you may have allowed some personal bias to colour your comments, such that intelligent people might reasonably draw a conclusion other than the one you intended.
I suppose if one has already concluded that any response short of immediate and total acceptance of one’s views shows that one has been willfully misunderstood, one wouldn’t bother with trying to clarify those views, but I suggest this is not a particularly good way to improve one’s debating technique. If my impression is wrong, I invite clarification. If instead I am “banned”, so be it.
Yes, he clearly made the mistake of translating your wishy-washy non-statements into the declarative statement they were quite obviously meant to imply.
This takes energy I’d rather not spend.
That’s why I gave him the chance to quote me. If I said something which could have been reasonably misinterpreted, he could have simply quoted it.
I agree with you that I could have given him a second or third chance to understand my position, but based on past experience I think this is a waste of time.
I doesn’t really matter if his misunderstanding is wilfull or accidental. If it’s accidental, it’s because he was putting little energy into actually understanding and responding to my actual position. I simply have no interest in engaging with anyone who insists on doing this.
:shrug: I mean what I say, nothing more, and nothing less. If I really made a “wishy-washy non-statement,” an honest debater would simply request clarification.
If I say “it’s not outrageous to predict that there will be a major earthquake in California next year,” then that’s what I mean. I do not mean that there will definitely be a major earthquake in California next year.
Of course, you are perfectly free to adopt a debating style where you take statements which entail a measure of uncertainty and interpret them as if they are definitive.
For example, every time somebody says “There is a decent chance of rain next week,” you could interpret that as saying “It will rain next week” However, I have no interest in engaging with a person who has this sort of debating style.
If people are constantly misinterpreting what you’re saying, do you think the problem is with them or the way you’re communicating?
I find this dubious, but okay.
Perhaps my point was misunderstood and I will now attempt clarify it - your original words have led someone to a conclusion that you feel is not an accurate summation of your views. Asking them to requote you won’t make any difference, or at least I don’t see how it is supposed to lead them to a conclusion other than the one they’ve already drawn.
I don’t know SherwoodAnderson well enough to know how responsive he might be to a clarification, though what I’ve seen from him quoted in this thread doesn’t strike me as all that unreasonable, nor inherently unworthy of the twenty seconds it takes to type “No, I don’t feel a clash is inevitable, but I can see why many Europeans feel it is and why they act accordingly.”
I’m prepared to accept the possibility that you’ve communicated with him on previous occasions and already found him to be unreasonable.
Then you’re cheating yourself of many an opportunity to expand your understanding of the issue under discussion. That someone might not “get” your position the first time does not automatically prove laziness or hostility on their part. It may demonstrate that they have knowledge of or a perspective on the issue that you lack, and by clarifying your views and asking them to clarify theirs, your own knowledge can improve as a result.
As an example, I can picture someone saying “All X are Y”, though I know from experience that some X are in fact not Y and I thought this was widely understood. I express my objection. The person may conclude that I’m being lazy or stubborn, or they might honestly not realize that some X are indeed not Y, or it’s possible that when they originally said “All X are Y”, they meant a category of X that were indeed all Y, or the X that I thought were not Y were in fact Y in a sense that I had not considered.
The point being that neither of us is going to improve our knowledge if one person readily decides (and possibly is even looking for a reason to decide) that the other person is not debating “properly” and should be cut off, or “banned”.
I’m prepared to restate this further if I remain unclear.
I find it interesting that on his blog he’s starred out all the names of the people on the SDMB that he’s “banned” but he didn’t do that with the one person he’s “banned” on another message board.
He used to use SDMB poster’s names there, too, but it seems that someone alerted the mods that he was taking discussions from this board to another site, and he was smacked down for it. In order to avoid being banned outright here, IIRC, he blanked the names.
Although, since he uses the same number of *s as there are letters in the poster’s names, and since he goes into great detail about why he’s “banned” so-and-so, it’s not really that hard to figure out who he’s talking about.
Oh, I think he’s answered that one already. The fact that you didn’t notice his post above probably means you’ll get “banned”.
So you see, it’s clearly not brazilnut’s fault.
It’s like the Soup Nazi episode.
But I didn’t understand your posts…
THREE DOLLARS!
Hunh? Your posts don’t make sense.
NO POSTS FOR YOU, BANNED!