|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misunderstanding and Correction or Misrepresentation and Deception | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
This topic is only about the misunderstanding in the Money Isn't a False God between myself and Crashfrog. It is not about whether one's position concerning the money and false gods is correct or not. It is not about issues my opponent has had in other threads.
In Message 262, I officially reported a discussion problem and asked for an official determination. I didn't get one. A few brave souls have put forth their views of the situation and found in my favor. Many thanks. Although my opponent claims to be capable of accepting correction, he has yet to concede that he may have misunderstood what I wrote in Message 27. Here is a snapshot of the text in question:
Crashfrog writes: PurpleDawn writes:
Obviously it was intended as a non-compete clause for religions at the time. One's god of choice does not want his followers to put their trust and reliance in another god for support. That is what they are talking about in Jeremiah. But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns. (Message 26) PurpleDawn writes: Crashfrog writes: But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns. I think it is an appropriate way to construe it. There are plenty of teachings concerning spiritual concerns without turning money into a false god. (Message 27) A little insight into my thought process when replying. I responded to the question first and purposely mirrored the wording of my opponents question in my response to reemphasize my position. The word construe is not a word I tend to use at EvC. Responding to the rest of the paragraph was an afterthought and the remaining part of the paragraph was added to the quote before posting along with the response to that portion of the paragraph. The questions to be addressed by participants in this thread are: 1. In the snapshot above did I agree that worshiping false gods doesn't mean temples and prostrate worship and that it means putting material concerns ahead of spiritual ones as my opponent contends in Message 30 and Message 39? or 2. Did I respond to the question as I contend in my explanation in Message 40? If my opponent still feels there is deceit and misrepresentation, then he needs to provide evidence of such intent. As per the rules of this forum, please address the position and do not attack the person. This thread is strictly about the snapshot above and whether it was a source of misunderstanding or the beginning of deception. Edited by purpledawn, : Typo and Links Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I find this issue fascinating because people wonder why creationists doesn't change their belief when confronted with evidence to the contrary.
In this instance we have an atheist who had a belief for less than 3 hours before being corrected and can't change his point of view when confronted with evidence. Food for thought: If it is this difficult for an atheist to let go of a new incorrect belief, how much harder will it be for a creationist to let go of a belief they may have held for decades?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In this instance we have an atheist who had a belief for less than 3 hours before being corrected and can't change his point of view when confronted with evidence. What evidence? You've merely asserted after the fact that I was mistaken in how I interpreted your words. But I believe I was not, and that you are making that assertion falsely because you wish to backpedal from a position you adopted without thinking about it. So, I don't believe you. What evidence can you provide that actually supports your assertion that you meant something other than what you said?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If my opponent still feels there is deceit and misrepresentation, then he needs to provide evidence of such intent. I have provided the evidence; it's the difference between what you said, and what you later insisted you had actually meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I provided the evidence in Message 1 of this thread. I didn't mean something other than what I said. Your error is connecting my answer to the paragraph and not the question as it was intended. Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Since this thread is addressing a disagreement that has taken place in two other threads, please provide links to posts you feel contain your evidence. The only evidence you've provided in the other two threads is evidence of why you misunderstood my response.
Crashfrog writes: Oh, come on. You must think I'm truly a moron if you expect me to believe that you thought I was asking you if you agreed with your own position. Don't you think I'd assume that you did? Why on Earth would I ask you if you agreed with yourself? It beggars belief to for you to suggest that you innocently thought I was asking you if you agreed with yourself, and that the referent of "it" in "I think it is an appropriate way to construe it" is your own position, not the modern construction that I presented immediately before your assenting statement. Message 41 Even PaulK in Message 264 and Bailey in Message 42 agree that I was responding to the question and not the paragraph. You haven't shown evidence that I have been deceitful. You believe I've been deceitful, but you haven't shown evidence that I have. Just because you misunderstood what I wrote, doesn't mean I've been deceitful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I provided the evidence in Message 1 of this thread. No, you only provided the assertion.
I didn't mean something other than what I said. So you say, but I continue to not believe you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Even PaulK in Message 264 and Bailey in Message 42 agree that I was responding to the question and not the paragraph. And I explained how their interpretation was necessarily in error. If you had replied to the question and not tot he paragraph, you would not have quoted the paragraph and then replied to it. Because your reply follows the paragraph and not the question, I'm able to determine that you were replying to the paragraph and not the question. If you quoted the paragraph by mistake, that's fine; I'm willing to concede that your actions cause you to have said something other than what you intended. Of course, if that's the case, it looks a little suspicious that you waited so long to try to address the confusion you caused. I do genuinely think it's possible for us to arrive at a resolution of this disagreement but it's going to have to be based on you, overcoming your irrational unwillingness to admit that I'm right about something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Even PaulK in Message 264 and Bailey in Message 42 agree that I was responding to the question and not the paragraph. And I explained how their interpretation was necessarily in error. If you had replied to the question and not tot he paragraph, you would not have quoted the paragraph and then replied to it. Because your reply follows the paragraph and not the question, I'm able to determine that you were replying to the paragraph and not the question. If you quoted the paragraph by mistake, that's fine; I'm willing to concede that your actions cause you to have said something other than what you intended. Of course, if that's the case, it looks a little suspicious that you waited so long to try to address the confusion you caused. I do genuinely think it's possible for us to arrive at a resolution of this disagreement but it's going to have to be based on you, overcoming your irrational unwillingness to admit that I'm right about something. Your explanation is evidence of why you misunderstood my response. You expected a certain layout and I didn't follow that layout. On this board, we don't have to separate individual sentences. Remember, I'm the author of what I wrote. I provided insight into my thought process in Message 1. My response mirrored the words from your question. The two sentences don't make sense if they both refer to the paragraph minus the question. They would contradict each other. There was no major time lapse between your posts and my correction of your error, so that's just an excuse. If you disagree, please show me the timeframe you feel is questionable. I agree that you may have viewed the response to the question as a response to the paragraph. Unfortunately that is the wrong way to read it, and my guess is that you didn't even read the sentence that followed which would contradict the first sentence. Why do you refuse to believe that I responded to the question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
On this board, we don't have to separate individual sentences. On this board, replies to material follow the quoted material, and that's the format that I expected you were following because that's the format you have always followed, and continue to follow even in this thread.
Your explanation is evidence of why you misunderstood my response. Are you saying that you accidentally responded to the paragraph instead of to the question? If that's the case, I can accept that your mistake caused you to pretty substantially misrepresent your own position. If that's the case, though, why did you wait so long to correct the obvious misunderstanding?
They would contradict each other. I don't perceive them as being in any particular contradiction; I perceive one as an unsuccessful attempt to clarify the other. It is, frankly, not uncommon for you to unintentionally say things that are contradictory or simply unclear. Poor or unclear writing is hardly uncharacteristic of you.
Remember, I'm the author of what I wrote. So what? That doesn't place you in any particularly privileged seat when it comes to what you meant, and it certainly doesn't obligate me to take your assertions about what you meant at face-value or privilege them ahead of what you actually said.
Why do you refuse to believe that I responded to the question? Because you replied to the paragraph. Ergo, you responded to the paragraph. If you did so by mistake I'm prepared to accept that, but it leaves unexplained why you allowed the discussion to continue for so long on the basis of the obvious misunderstanding you'd caused. Surely it was immediately obvious that I was replying to you as though you'd replied to the paragraph and not to the question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let me get this straight...
Your position is that because PD wrote this line:
quote: directly after all this from you:
quote: Then that means that she *had* to be saying that "There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns" was the appropriate way to consture it? Also, you're saying that it is impossible that she was responding to "But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?" with a disagreement that 'no, it wasn't narrow, it was reasonable'? How could you possibly be so confident unless you had the ability to read her mind? To me, she intended either this:
CF writes:
I think it is an appropriate way to construe it. But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? or this:
CF writes:
I think it *is* an appropriate way to construe it. But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? And in no way do I see her as agreeing with this line whatsoever:
quote: Remember, I'm the author of what I wrote. So what? That doesn't place you in any particularly privileged seat when it comes to what you meant, Seriously, how the hell not? Nobody *BUT* her can know what she meant... you've got to be the most arrogant person on this board now that Rrhain is gone... for good I hope. Seriously, how can you possible think that you know more about what a person meant than the person who actually wrote it? That's gotta be the stupidest things I've every seen you type on this forum. I don't think you believe that one bit but are instead just being a cocky little asshole troll. I think I might just have lost all confidence in believing anything you will ever write again. This is all just one big joke to you and you're sitting there laughing your ass off because people are actually taking you a little bit seriously and thinking you mean what you write. You *are* a arrogant jerk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Then that means that she *had* to be saying that "There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns" was the appropriate way to consture it? Yes. Because "I think that's an appropriate way to construe it" is a sentence that signals agreement with whatever was just said. Just like if you said:
quote: and then I replied
quote: You would be correct in interpreting me as indicating agreement. "I think that's an appropriate way to construe it" is a sentence that clearly indicates agreement. If PD had really meant to reply to the question in the negative, she would have written a negative sentence that followed the question, not a positive sentence that followed a paragraph.
How could you possibly be so confident unless you had the ability to read her mind? Because I have the ability to read her words. What she actually wrote is much more reliable guide to what she meant when she wrote it than anything she has later to say about what she meant when she wrote it. If she genuinely made an error in expressing her intent, that's fine. If that really happened I've stated several times that I'm prepared to accept it. But, she's adamant that she said exactly what she intended to say. Thus, I'm forced to reject her subsequent insistence that I've somehow misinterpreted her. She said what she intended to say - by her own admission! - and what she said was that she agreed with how I'd construed the passage.
Seriously, how the hell not? Because it's not. The author dies as soon as he writes. The person you were when you wrote something isn't the person you are, now, to later talk about writing it. The author's statements of intention are really irrelevant to the interpretation of the text. Seriously, I can't be the only one here trained in literary criticism, can I? You've honestly never heard of the Intentional Fallacy?
quote: Reasons for not committing the Intentional Fallacy:
quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_Fallacy Now, we're not talking about poetry, here, but we are interpreting language. Thus it's clear that committing the Intentional Fallacy - as PD would have us do - actually leads us away from the true meaning of what they meant. It's not a guide to the meaning of what people are saying to take their stated intentions into account; it actually conceals what they may have meant.
Seriously, how can you possible think that you know more about what a person meant than the person who actually wrote it? Because I'm not committing the Intentional Fallacy, but they are. Just because you wrote something, doesn't give you any particular insight into what it meant when you wrote it. Obviously.
You *are* a arrogant jerk. Not in the least. I'm continually surprised by this insistence that I'm somehow arrogant. I hardly know anything at all - I'm just a lot less credulous, apparently, than you. But I'm continually suspicious of my own ability to accurately apprehend things. That's why I insist on good evidence for things I believe are true and don't simply take people's word for things. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That's the format I followed. quote:No. quote:Please show evidence of this with links. quote:This leads one to believe you are behaving this way on purpose. As a supposed English Major and science guy, you know better than that. Your slip is showing. quote:You still haven't shown that a long period of time has passed. You have been shown otherwise. (Even though I quoted the whole paragraph, I bet you can tell which sentence I'm actually replying to.) I haven't figured out whether the first mistake was intentional or a real mistake, but the refusal to take correction is obviously intentional. You're creating conflict to argue for the sake of arguing. That is not the spirit of debate on this board.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And just to add to this, I believe I'm particular right in this view because it's what we're asked to do by the Forum Guidelines:
quote: Argue the position, not the person. In this case, preoccupation with the person - with their intent - leads us away from the positions. And it's the positions we're asked to address, not the person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's the format I followed. That's correct. You quoted material, and then you replied to that material. You quoted a paragraph and then you replied to that paragraph. So I was correct in how I originally interpreted you.
No. So you intentionally responded to the paragraph instead of to the question.
As a supposed English Major and science guy, you know better than that. Um, this is precisely what I was instructed as an English major - how to interpret text without preoccupation with author biography. As I've just explained to CS what I was instructed in as an English major was not to commit the Intentional Fallacy, as you are now asking me to do.
You still haven't shown that a long period of time has passed. My recollection is that several posts over several days elapsed in between my reply indicating that I had interpreted you as assenting to a paragraph instead of contradicting a question and your first insistence that I had "misrepresented" you, and that your insistence that I misrepresented you began only when I showed you how positions you had indicated assent to had directly contradicted the position you opened the thread to defend.
(Even though I quoted the whole paragraph, I bet you can tell which sentence I'm actually replying to.) You're responding to the paragraph. When you want to answer questions, you quote only the question - as you've done in this very post:
crash writes:
Are you saying that you accidentally responded to the paragraph instead of to the question?
PD writes: No.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024