>>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:46:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> I read quite well, thank you. Such personal attacks would not seem to
fit
Matt> with your lofty philosophy of elevating social norms.
>>
>> Then the only explanation is that you do not ken the
>> distinction between goals and dependencies. Is that not worse?
Matt> This is a fallacious assertion. That is far from the only
Matt> explanation. In fact, I was asserting that your behaviour
Matt> suggested such a dependency.
Eh? My behaviour suggests to you that I _depend_ on people
being nice to me?
I rest my case on the appalling loss of logic issue.
Matt> Your statements do not at all strike me as efforts to promote
Matt> peace and understanding, but rather as negative reactions to
Matt> what you perceive as offensive behaviour by others.
Quite. Not into cheek turning, me. But I respond nicely when
people are not negative, and I try hard not to initiate the not
niceness (I still have a hair trigger, but I'm working on that).
Matt> If you did not ever expect to reap any benefit from your
Matt> "journey", then I suppose it would be a truly altruistic act,
Matt> and you a being of rare character. But if I may quote you
Matt> again:
>>
>> Read what I said what the Geeta said. And how you deduce it is
>> altruistic is beyond me, and, beyond logic. Letting the thought of
>> the reaping benefits distract you from following your credo does not
>> imply selfishness. It implies potential ineptitude.
Matt> Read what you wrote yourself. How you deduce it has anything
Matt> to do with the text you quoted from the Geeta is beyond me, and
Matt> beyond logic.
' If you did not ever expect to reap any benefit from your "journey"'
is close what the geeta says you should do (it says, really, that
your expectations, or lack thereof, ought not to govern your
actions). Umm, I do not find the connection illogical, or even
obdscure. You mileage has obviously varied.
Second, not expecting the fruits of ones labour has nothing to
do with altruism. Can you explain, beyond mere assertion, how not
allowing the fruit of ones labours to impinge on ones actions equates
to altruism?
Matt> Again: "Perhaps[...]if I can change social norms of conduct so
Matt> that I would nto[sic] be hurt in the future?" The phrase "so
Matt> that" implies a clear intention of reaping personal benefit,
Matt> and not "let[ting] the fruits and consequences[...]fall where
Matt> they will". I cannot see how you profess to follow this
Matt> philosophy in your life, even if you believe that you are doing
Matt> what is right.
Oh, I never professed to have attained the level of
perfection as to follow the Geeta always in my actions. But, even
then, protesting the pinpricks was the right thing to do, IMHO, even
though I do let the results motivate my actions.
The geeta gives good advice; but requires a certain amount of
discipline to follow.
Matt> ...it certainly sounds as if you expect personal benefit.
>>
>> Of course the desired goal is personal
>> benefit. Jesus. Depending on it is never implied. If you still do
>> not see how they are separate, well, I think we are done. My
>> commiserations also go with you.
Matt> You are using two unrelated arguments to justify one another:
Matt> what you said, and what you quoted from a religious text. This
Matt> is not logically valid.
The Geeta is only tangentially a religious text, but OK. But
where does the fact that I have a desired goal imply I depend on it
come from.
I mean, it has been my desired goal to own a '67 Rolls Royce,
does it now imply I depend on owning a Rolls Royce? (Sorry for the
blunt intellectual instrument, but I have to try and get the concept
across)
>> I did not provike you,except to correct a basic error in logic
>> about a posting of mine. Goal != dependency, if I may reiterate.
Matt> If I may reiterate:
Matt> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:57:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Matt> Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300
Matt> packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and
Matt> meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE.
>>
Matt> And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE?
>>
>> I can see you totally miss the point of the non-free GR.
Ah. Provocation. yes. But that was another thread; I try not
to let these discussions cross contanimate each other.
Matt> You responded to a sarcastic jest, about the barely significant
Matt> number of packages in non-free compared to the rate at which
Matt> new software enters Debian, and the irrational fear (held by
Matt> some in the project) of lost popularity of the distribution,
Matt> and accused me of not understanding a simple proposal on a
Matt> barely related topic (both related to the "non-free" archive).
Can't take a joke, eh?
Arguably, my comment was potentially ``dark humor''; had I
seriously been contending that I would surely not have stopped at one
meager sentence.
But, that is not my excuse, take it fully seriously, as you will.
Matt> There is little doubt in my mind that this outburst arose from
Matt> your personal opinions of Branden Robinson, which have
Matt> apparently spread to me on the basis of my continuation in a
Matt> similar vein of humour.
Was that so hard to discern? I find these jokes irritating in
the extreme, and after a few, with no end in sight, I wish to let my
opinions be known as well.
Matt> You adapt to the tactics people use by using them yourself
Matt> while engaging in judgement of them. That is hypocrisy, not
Matt> logic.
Who am I to sit in judgment? I just think that if people are
made to see what the flip side is, they may realize what it feels
like to be the other person. Who knows, it may even make them
change. (not that I am dependent on that, and would pine away into a
shadow waiting for it to happen, or anything).
Seems to have worked. You are quite as irritated as I was.
Matt> Appeal to popularity, overgeneralization, and hyperbole all in
Matt> one sentence, as well as misstating my position. This is a
Matt> notable feat of non-argument.
>>
>> You can't seem to distinguish between a goal and a dependency,
>> and yes, I did resort to extreme example in an attempt to deomstrate
>> the distinction. Since it has been lost on you, I admit to the
>> inefficacy of my message.
Matt> But you do not admit that when people do not conform to your
Matt> desired standards of behaviour, you seem to frequently react
Matt> irrationally. So, I might say that you are "dependent" on such
Matt> behaviour to maintain your composure. Your "goal" may be to
Matt> convince these people to behave differently, but the display
Matt> gives the impression that you cannot reasonably cope with it.
Irrationally? Yes, I do tend to be emphatic.
You may also say that I depend on people not to go slapping
me, since then I lose my composure and slap back, and there is a
whole list of things I am dependent on not to lose my composure.
Strange use of the word dependent. However, such a private
extention of meaning may explain why you think a goal is the same
thing as a dependency --- you change the words to mean what you want
them to mean.
manoj
--
economist, n: Someone who's good with figures, but doesn't have
enough personality to become an accountant.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
