martin2007 wrote:
When reading your last post, Remogami, I sensed we were being fast-forwarded to some sort of crime tribunal. Commission of the act had been more-or-less determined and acknowledged by attorneys on both sides, but motivation and intent were still being examined in order to arrive at a fair and just sentence. What I like about your post is that even though you're personally committed to a particular vaccine stance you're still seeking to deconstruct the complex forces that are at play within someone who holds an opposing view. I respect your desire to dive deep and to seek answers to questions of motivation and intent
lol your first statement made me laugh. thanks martin, i appreciate your (obviously) careful consideration of my post, which, i'm sure, would be ridden off as some kind of 'SR lover in disguise' by some, even perhaps by myself, if i had seen it under another's name, on another day lol. no, i wouldn't, but you know what i mean. so i appreciate your response,
martin2007 wrote:
Many of us, however, will consider a person's tendency to dive deep something of a luxury, or even worse: offensive. A conspicuous lack of self-righteous zeal: that readiness to pile on when summoned, to fight dirty. A lack of zeal probably gets in the way of getting things done during an emergency. Who wants complexity when simplicity requires much less work and is easier and less costly to apply? Most of us have limited patience, not to mention the cognitive capacity, much less the empathy, to pursue a better understanding of an adversary's motivation and intent.
i like the way you see things. i agree with your points here. many forces at play, against the idea that my post has much or any utility. not to say my post is right, it can also be very wrong. but you've got my intent right, that's for sure. the good thing i guess, is that the post can be ignored or read according to which kind of person falls upon it.
which ties into your other post, i agree, that we should not be thinking 'we should' stop such discussions. i mean, obviously there are times to cut them (mod determined, etc), whether for irrelevance or violating policy etc, but outside of that, no big deal.
it would only be a loss, for as you say, there clearly already exists interest (so why cut it?). that point becomes even stronger, when we consider that this entire topic, as beefy and as diverse as it is, overflowing boil, is yet (still) packaged in this 'single tiny thread instance', squeezed between hundreds more.
it's not exactly an advertisement banner,
martin2007 wrote:
Again, what I liked in your discussion was the desire to get the facts right, and to not borrow from the abundant supply of ready-made and incorrect assumptions that most of us are happy to embrace simply because they're a shortcut to getting what we've sought all along: the validation of "we're right, they're wrong, another beer, please!"
unfortunately for me i have to ask for all my beer
before i approach the topic. because that "another" won't come around lol
which could explain things, some may think
cheers,