“They are clearly like that as a matter of objective reality.”
I don’t believe so.
“How does a person come to the point that he thinks he can get over on people like that?”
Words escape me as to how you can accuse people of “implying” you are “close minded”, bigoted etc (see start of this discussion), then come out with lines like that, and then have the temerity to not claim you are doing the same.
“It’s silly for you to imagine that people can’t read you.”
It is. Thats why I dont believe that.
“Besides, what in the world is insulting in people thinking that your statements (and their necessary premises and implications) reveal a good deal about you?”
Nothing at all. And the reverse holds true. Which is why when you do make close-minded statements and unsubstantiated claims you get called on it.
“Are you so brilliant, so superior, that we lowly mud-crawlers insult you in even imagining that we could comprehend the least vestige of your majesty?”
No, the insult is in thinking you know exactly who and what I am and believe based on just a few messages on an internet board, most of which, frankly, I consider have been grossly and consistently misinterpreted.
“Yes, I’ve been suspecting that yours is wrong.”
For this *particular* issue i.e. why I put quotes round “left”, which of our definitions is correct is quite immaterial. The point is that they are different.
“No, it’s not patronizing. It’s downright derogatory”
Curiously that doesn’t make me feel much better.
“Are you saying you’re a leftist?”
No you’re saying that, and making it quite clear you regard such people as the lowest of the low. I just think of myself as a very small part of God’s handiwork.
“That’s too kind. Oh, it’s true of many leftists, I agree, but many more are quite happy to engage in the worst forms of dishonesty if it furthers their cause.”
Maybe I am too good for this world (or too naive) but my experience is that very few people consciously think of themselves as being evil or even dishonest. By a process of self-deception and compartmentalisation they convince themselves they are actually the “good guys” with a mission and a purpose; and that someone or something else are the “baddies”, who need to be confounded or crushed at all costs. Once someone gets into that mode of thinking, they are one step away from believing the ends justify the means. And once that is accepted, they will do almost anything in the name of “the cause” or “the greater good”. Adolf Hitler caused the deaths of millions and attempted genocide, but he would have looked at you with steady eyes and tell you he did it for the glory of God.
“The correct definitions are forged by reality, independently of any person’s opinion.”
I understand that, but what are those definitions?
“My understanding of the definition of a leftist has come closer to the reality.”
OK, so you concede your understanding has altered over the course of time (not surprisingly) and you also imply, by saying “closer to the reality” that you consider your understanding is still incomplete. I presume that is because you accept the idea of the inherent frailties of being Human. Would that be a fair assessment?
“I can hope that my understanding will continue to develop in the right direction, but it will not reverse itself unless I go senile and then fall in with a 20-something hottie, like Goldwater.”
I was asking whether you thought it could change as a result of movement in the direction you are going now. I wasn’t suggesting that it would or might reverse.
“Even if I were mistaken about your comment being an indirect way of saying “f*ck you” to me, which I don’t think I am, saying so would not be patronizing. Dictionary.”
You were mistaken. When I say sorry, I mean sorry. A little terse this time I admit, but it was the end of the comment and I was tired.
Patronising means condescending in my book. Interpreting someone elses statements consistently in the most negative way possible, and in opposition to the plain meaning of the words, is extremely condescending, as by pushing them down you naturally assume a position of (false) moral superiority. This is ironic, as it is the very same thing you have been accusing me of doing! Even though I dispute a lot of that, I have conceded some wrongdoing. So I would appreciate acceptance of an apology.
And I don’t like swearing on internet boards anyway. The “*” in the middle of the word is a feeble fop to courtesy. It is still quite clear what is meant so as far as I am concerned it is as bad as using the word itself.
“I don’t believe so.”
Not extremely persuasive, particularly in light of the 17 or 18 years I’ve spent doing this.
“Words escape me as to how you can accuse people of “implying” you are “close minded”, bigoted etc (see start of this discussion), then come out with lines like that, and then have the temerity to not claim you are doing the same.”
That particular statement implies feelings of superiority, not closed-mindedness or bigotry.
Further, I’ve never said that I wasn’t implying it; I said I wasn’t assuming it.
“Which is why when you do make close-minded statements and unsubstantiated claims you get called on it.”
Haven’t made any. That’s why I say you are assuming (incorrectly) where I am not.
“No, the insult is in thinking you know exactly who and what I am and believe based on just a few messages on an internet board”
Exactly? I guess people could quibble over what is meant by exactly. Of course, your notes have not revealed your taste in wine or perfume, but they have revealed a good deal about what you think.
“most of which, frankly, I consider have been grossly and consistently misinterpreted.”
As some people who spell “realize” with an “s” often say, “Pull the other one, mate.”
“No you’re saying that (you’re a leftist)”
I haven’t come right out and said it. You do behave a lot like a leftist, and you hold some leftist positions, but with all your fancy footwork I can’t say where on the continuum you fall.
“and making it quite clear you regard such people as the lowest of the low.”
The only thing lower than Satan’s minions is Satan.
“I just think of myself as a very small part of God’s handiwork.”
Yeah, well, sorry, but what you think of yourself is only one part of the picture.
“very few people consciously think of themselves as being evil or even dishonest.”
Of course they don’t. Even the most evil, dishonest people don’t.
“By a process of self-deception and compartmentalisation they convince themselves they are actually the “good guys” with a mission and a purpose”
Yes, and that leads such leftists to believe that they are justified in committing any act of deception. In the worst cases, such as Che Guevara and Hillary Clinton, it even leads them to believe that they are justified in committing murder.
“Once someone gets into that mode of thinking, they are one step away from believing the ends justify the means.”
That’s a much-misinterpreted saw. Some ends do justify some means. The problem arises when one attempts to justify evil means by pointing to a putatively good end.
“Adolf Hitler caused the deaths of millions and attempted genocide, but he would have looked at you with steady eyes and tell you he did it for the glory of God.”
Now, see, statements like that betray a long association with the left, even if only as a student subject to the abuse of leftist teachers and professors.
Hitler would never have said anything like that. He hated Christianity only marginally less than he hated Jews. Many priests were swept up by the Holocaust. While he knew he couldn’t eradicate long-standing German religions, the only religion that Hitler endorsed was a faux revival of pre-Christian Germanic paganism, and even that was only a tool and not a matter of belief for him.
By the way, Hitler and his National Socialists were the darlings of the left, right up until the day he invaded the USSR. During the space of less than a day he went from “proof that socialism works” to an evil right-winger. If convincing people that he doesn’t exist was Satan’s greatest feat, convincing them that Hitler was a right-winger is a close second.
“I understand that, but what are those definitions?”
Are you asking me to set forth one of them, or asking for a philosophical definition of definitions?
“I presume that is because you accept the idea of the inherent frailties of being Human.”
Of course.
“Interpreting someone elses statements consistently in the most negative way possible”
Eck-tuwally, I don’t do that.
“and in opposition to the plain meaning of the words”
Any adult will tell you that statements quite often communicate a meaning diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the words.
“as by pushing them down you naturally assume a position of (false) moral superiority.”
No, one assumes a position of understanding what is being said. I know you very much wish to turn my statements back on me, but you’re going to have to provide some examples and evidence to do that.
“I have conceded some wrongdoing. So I would appreciate acceptance of an apology.”
All right, I accept it.
“And I don’t like swearing on internet boards anyway.”
You know what I hate worse than that? The Oscar Wildean mal mot, the subtle understatement, the “If I couch my insult in these terms he’ll never even see that he’s been insulted” barb that covers the offender with a semblance of civility while conveying insult that is every bit as crass as swearing, while lacking even swearing’s single virtue of straightforward honesty.
“so as far as I am concerned it is as bad as using the word itself.”
You have that in common with Elmer Gantry style fundamentalist protestants.