Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:56 pm
"Immanuel Can"
When you have to cut out all the salient points from my post to make your arguments stick, you're cheating!
Errr...
Okay, I shall have to address that accusation. Just remember:
you made me say it.
I try not to reproduce people's posts in totality for two reasons: one
practical, and the other
personal.
The
practical concern is that reproducing the entire message every time makes every response of double length. It seems to me a kindness to try to get to the important points instead.
The
personal concern is this: that sometimes, in their messages, people say things they don't mean or shouldn't say. They misspeak, or say things that read as silly, or even make points they may believe, but which answering would subject them to embarassment and exposure. That would then make them angry at being shown to have said something foolish, and the conversation then tends to turn bitter and hostile -- not in anyone's interest. Sometimes they even throw in spiteful little commments that, in their better moments, they perhaps would not. There's something about the nature of electronic communication that seems to raise the incidence of these; perhaps it is the impulsive, impersonal nature of the medium, but I can't say that for sure.
However, it's a reality: people mess up online. So charitability entails that a respondent should ignore any churlishness, such as
ad hominem cracks, or any obvious irrelevant comments, or anything that the respondent realizes immediately would be embarassing to his interlocutor to address. An honest respondent can still hit the main points: there is no necessity for exposing his interlocutor to ridicule. That's not kind. Charity dictates that he should draw out the
best of his interlocutor's points, and give him the benefit of the doubt as to the rest.
At the same time, the interlocutor, if he is dedicated to a point that may be obviously foolish or factually off-topic, will likely repeat it in his next message -- at which point, it is no longer impolite to respond to it in the way it calls for, even if the consequence is embarassment to the speaker. After all, he's kind of asking for it, isn't he? If he insists, he's really asking his point to be highlighted; and he can't blame the respondent if the results are unhappy for him.
I'll say this:
there is no point you have made that I feel unwilling to address.
Anything I have not yet addressed by you feel is salient, you may insist upon, and I will respond. But perhaps you'll forgive me if I do not address anything rhetorical or anything that doesn't seem the sort of point that an intelligent person like yourself would rest any weight on, at least the first time you say it. Or else, I guess I can speak to every line you say, if you prefer. But I think you would probably rather that I don't nit-pick if you misspeak, editorialize, or offer something obviously not well-thought-out, right?
So let's be polite, and not accuse each other of mendacity when mendacity is not in play.