Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Himself amongst others, yes. I also see him as being a member of the target audience - he's both a member of these boards and a member of the public as well as being an individual capable of expressing whether or not and how he relates to the OP.

No argument here. If you think that I have been saying otherwise you are much mistaken.

I didn't know (and still don't) what you were trying to say with that sentence, its relevance is somewhat opaque, but it is the only part of your post I felt I could respond to without just repeating myself.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Himself amongst others, yes. I also see him as being a member of the target audience - he's both a member of these boards and a member of the public as well as being an individual capable of expressing whether or not and how he relates to the OP.

No argument here. If you think that I have been saying otherwise you are much mistaken.

I didn't know (and still don't) what you were trying to say with that sentence, its relevance is somewhat opaque, but it is the only part of your post I felt I could respond to without just repeating myself.

Please highlight the sentence of which you speak, and I shall do my best to shed some light.

ETA: when I return after sleep. Goodnight all.

Destroyer wrote:Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Himself amongst others, yes. I also see him as being a member of the target audience - he's both a member of these boards and a member of the public as well as being an individual capable of expressing whether or not and how he relates to the OP.

No argument here. If you think that I have been saying otherwise you are much mistaken.

I didn't know (and still don't) what you were trying to say with that sentence, its relevance is somewhat opaque, but it is the only part of your post I felt I could respond to without just repeating myself.

Please highlight the sentence of which you speak, and I shall do my best to shed some light.

The red one, as a response to post #135.

Thommo wrote:

amok wrote:I don't see a solicitation for critique in the OP.

I do:-

Verbose in Defense of Reality
Can You Relate?

I'm assuming that the multiple people who gave positive responses also felt it was a solicitation for critique, otherwise why offer it?

Fair enough. I didn't notice that.

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
No opinion can provide that which is precisely why opinions are of zero value

Is not an informed opinion based on knowledge and understanding more valid than an uninformed one that is not

Valid?

Horrendous misuse of that word aside, no. An informed opinion iris of no more utility than an un- or I'll-informed one. Opinion in and of itself is utterly useless.

If the OP is verbose then I'll take verbosity any day of the week. In a world where the written word more often than not reflected in a form that can only be described as "Byers-esque", a bit of verbosity is more than welcome.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
No opinion can provide that which is precisely why opinions are of zero value

Is not an informed opinion based on knowledge and understanding more valid than an uninformed one that is not

An informed opinion is of no more utility than an un or ill informed one . Opinion in and of itself is utterly useless

That is way too logical and absolute for ground apes who are notoriously subjective and emotional

Consequently you are going to have an impossible task removing it from the thought process

Opinion is not useless because without it we would not have this thing called democracy

And those who we elect make laws that affect us all based on their informed opinion

So less you have a better model in mind you have to accept it imperfect as it is

You think we have this thing called democracy?

Even were that the case, those who make the law don't actually possess informed opinions (that there is even such a thing as 'those who make the law' demolishes any notion that there is really any such thing as democracy), they possess mere opinions.

Oh, and I don't have to accept anything. I DO accept that which is supported by robust evidence, and opinions, regardless of the source of said opinions, do not constitute robust evidence.

hackenslash wrote:
You think we have this thing called democracy

Even were that the case those who make the law do not actually possess informed opinions ( that
there is even such a thing as those who make the law demolishes any notion that there is really
any such thing as democracy ) they possess mere opinions

I do not have to accept anything . I DO accept that which is supported by robust evidence
and opinions regardless of the source of said opinion do not constitute robust evidence

I never said democracy was perfect but it is better than the alternatives : No large society can function unless as a pyramid structure : They tried Communism and it was not very popular [ though that was ironically by pyramid structure too ] : You may get genuine egalitarianism in smaller communities but translate that to nations and it just does not work : Now what robust evidence do you have on the best way for us to govern our selves : Assuming that you do please present it : But if
you have none then would not the logical conclusion to that be anarchy : So are you therefore an anarchist and if not why
not : You are applying the Scientific Method to non scientific criteria : As how nations should be ruled is not a falsifiable
principle other wise Parliament would be full of scientists : For democracy is not some thing that you can examine under
a microscope : But it is the most preferable means of government people choose and so is taken as the default position

If you go through your entire life only accepting what can be falsified then out side of science or mathematics you shall find
it to be rather use less : For philosophy and psychology and sociology and politics and history and religion and ethics cannot
And those are just off the top of my head : We can not be uber logical twenty four seven no matter how much we may wish
to : That is a Utopian fantasy and the only place you find that is in a novel or a dictionary : So expecting ground apes to be
Spock like clones with zero emotional capacity is a tad idealistic : And as a realist you should accept this : Now I know that
you do but your dissatisfaction with the political process and the general subjectivity of our species is not some thing that
you can do any thing about : So just have to accept what you cannot change : For reality is as it is not as we want it to be

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:Loren Michael did specifically see himself as the target audience.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
No argument here. If you think that I have been saying otherwise you are much mistaken.

I didn't know (and still don't) what you were trying to say with that sentence, its relevance is somewhat opaque, but it is the only part of your post I felt I could respond to without just repeating myself.

Please highlight the sentence of which you speak, and I shall do my best to shed some light.

The red one, as a response to post #135.

Thommo wrote:
As far as "target audience" goes, I'm not much concerned with it. This is a public forum, so I tend to regard the target audience as "the public" or "the membership". After all there is a private messaging function, or the ability to specify a target audience in writing.

My comment was in reference to the above highlighted statement. I was simply saying that Loren Michael had specifically made the point that as the target audience the OP should be considerate of his sensibilities.

Just to try and clarify this whole debate: when we criticize we ought to be able to demonstrate that something/someone is at fault. If someone only has a difference of which I do not share, this in itself does not warrant criticism, only dislike. If we only dislike something then we ought to respect the rights of others to like whatever it is that we do not. Faults are to be criticized; whereas differences endured (since everyone has a right to their own distinct tastes).

If we construct a fault into someone’s character, as you did with ‘lying’ being who they are; then that someone is already open to criticism. They already have a fault which can be demonstrated... Who can demonstrate that verbosity has a fault?

surreptitious57 wrote:
I never said democracy was perfect but it is better than the alternatives :

I passed no comment on the perfection or otherwise of democracy, I stated categorically that it doesn't exist.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I never said democracy was perfect but it is better than the alternatives

I passed no comment on the perfection or otherwise of democracy I stated categorically that it does not exist

But do you have any suggestions on how what is referred to as democracy could be improved on

Universal egalitarianism does not work : So what we have seems to the best that we can manage

Destroyer wrote:Just to try and clarify this whole debate: when we criticize we ought to be able to demonstrate that something/someone is at fault. If someone only has a difference of which I do not share, this in itself does not warrant criticism, only dislike. If we only dislike something then we ought to respect the rights of others to like whatever it is that we do not. Faults are to be criticized; whereas differences endured (since everyone has a right to their own distinct tastes).

I agree with basically none of that. To criticise (for example) a film one can make positive, negative or neutral comments that are all entirely subjective in nature. There's no need to find faults or objective faults. If I dislike something and state why, that is criticism, but notwithstanding a semantic debate about the term "criticism". The point is that I don't agree that anything should be sheltered from these kinds of comments of "I like it because..." or "I dislike it because..." (amongst other responses).

Destroyer wrote:If we construct a fault into someone’s character, as you did with ‘lying’ being who they are; then that someone is already open to criticism. They already have a fault which can be demonstrated... Who can demonstrate that verbosity has a fault?

Who can demonstrate that lying is a fault? It simply isn't relevant, lying was one example from a non-exhaustive list, a list which also includes being too wordy or too concise.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:Just to try and clarify this whole debate: when we criticize we ought to be able to demonstrate that something/someone is at fault. If someone only has a difference of which I do not share, this in itself does not warrant criticism, only dislike. If we only dislike something then we ought to respect the rights of others to like whatever it is that we do not. Faults are to be criticized; whereas differences endured (since everyone has a right to their own distinct tastes).

I agree with basically none of that. To criticise (for example) a film one can make positive, negative or neutral comments that are all entirely subjective in nature. There's no need to find faults or objective faults. If I dislike something and state why, that is criticism, but notwithstanding a semantic debate about the term "criticism". The point is that I don't agree that anything should be sheltered from these kinds of comments of "I like it because..." or "I dislike it because..." (amongst other responses).

Destroyer wrote:If we construct a fault into someone’s character, as you did with ‘lying’ being who they are; then that someone is already open to criticism. They already have a fault which can be demonstrated... Who can demonstrate that verbosity has a fault?

Who can demonstrate that lying is a fault? It simply isn't relevant, lying was one example from a non-exhaustive list, a list which also includes being too wordy or too concise.

I am certainly not saying that anyone’s comments should be sheltered from anything. But if we equate "dislike" with "criticisms'" then how do you respect the rights of others to be at fault? We can respect someone’s right to be different but how can we respect their right to be wrong?

Lying is a fault precisely because one is conveying false/wrong information.

Edit: quote tags for clarity

Destroyer wrote:I am certainly not saying that anyone’s comments should be sheltered from anything. But if we equate dislike and criticisms then how do you respect the rights of others to be at fault.

I've no idea, I'm not sure that I have a meaningful conception of this. What do you think it means to respect someone's right to be at fault?

Normally when one talks of rights one refers to things that can actually be taken away - e.g. right to life is infringed when you forcibly stop someone being alive, right to assemble is infringed when you forcibly stop someone assembling. I'm not aware that it's actually possible to forcibly stop someone from holding incorrect opinions, short of infringing the aforementioned right to life - and I somehow don't think this discussion we are having is about whether it's correct to murder someone for being incorrect or expressing themself in a manner we dislike.

Destroyer wrote:We can respect someone’s right to be different but how can we respect their right to be wrong.

Lying is a fault precisely because one is conveying false/wrong information.

And presumably in your opinion conveying information imperfectly is a "fault". Ok, so if someone else thinks that being overly verbose is a fault due to the same justification, then they are liable to reject this is a basis for immunising style/verboseness from criticism.

surreptitious57 wrote:
But do you have any suggestions on how what is referred to as democracy could be improved on

Yep, make it democracy.

Universal egalitarianism does not work : So what we have seems to the best that we can manage

How do you know it doesn't work? Can you provide evidence for that assertion?

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:I am certainly not saying that anyone’s comments should be sheltered from anything. But if we equate dislike and criticisms then how do you respect the rights of others to be at fault.

I've no idea, I'm not sure that I have a meaningful conception of this. What do you think it means to respect someone's right to be at fault?

Normally when one talks of rights one refers to things that can actually be taken away - e.g. right to life is infringed when you forcibly stop someone being alive, right to assemble is infringed when you forcibly stop someone assembling. I'm not aware that it's actually possible to forcibly stop someone from holding incorrect opinions, short of infringing the aforementioned right to life - and I somehow don't think this discussion we are having is about whether it's correct to murder someone for being incorrect or expressing themself in a manner we dislike.

Destroyer wrote:We can respect someone’s right to be different but how can we respect their right to be wrong.

Lying is a fault precisely because one is conveying false/wrong information.

And presumably in your opinion conveying information imperfectly is a "fault". Ok, so if someone else thinks that being overly verbose is a fault due to the same justification, then they are liable to reject this is a basis for immunising style/verboseness from criticism.

The point that I was making is that a natural dislike can be respected. Whereas a fault should not be, it should be rectified.

Why should conveying information imperfectly be classified a fault. If that was the case then our fallible brains would have to be considered at fault all of the time. A lie is a deliberate conveyance of false/imperfect information.

Anyway I have now exhausted the necessary points; and shall be calling it a day with this particular topic.

Destroyer wrote:The point that I was making is that a natural dislike can be respected. Whereas a fault should not be, it should be rectified.

What can I say, I don't consider either of us the arbiter of either what constitutes a "fault" rather than a "natural dislike" in any objective sense, nor do I see myself or you as responsible for a correctional programme of "rectifying" others. Perhaps this explains my unwillingness to adopt your principle.

I don't see why the deliberate transmission of imperfect information is more amenable to criticism than the accidental transmission of imperfect information either - it's perfectly acceptable to inform someone of their errata regardless of perception of their intent, indeed this is common in literary and academic criticism.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Universal egalitarianism does not work : So what we have seems to the best that we can manage

How do you know it does not work . Can you provide evidence for that assertion

Go all the way back through human history and you shall not find one example of absolute egalitarianism on a national or
global scale : That is because human society operates on a pyramid structure : The higher up one is the fewer there are
Both democracies and dictatorships operate in this way : Unless that is altered then true equality can never be realised
The best one can hope for is to make the process of promotion within the structure more fairer : But the real problem
how ever is not political but psychological : The former is just a manifestation of the latter : We are adapted to think
in individual rather than in collective terms : And unless that changes then nothing shall since you are dealing with an
imperfect model : Therefore change the model and progress shall follow though that is easier said than done : And it
will not happen in the for see able future if at all : It is a bit like evolution : It moves at glacial speed : Democracy in
its present form maybe the best approximation of universal egalitarianism we can achieve : I am surprised you even
asked the question since history provides the answer : The fact it may not be the one you are looking for happens to
be incidental : Remember reality is as it is not what you want it to be : That is as you already know not how it works

OK, so it hasn't worked when it's been tried, largely because people don't have an egalitarian mindset. Does that really mean it cannot work? History isn't future.

The best one can really hope for is that people learn to think. Therein lie all the problems, along with the solution.