SC - questions/kinda long, sorry

[LrdRas@aol.com]

At 1:59 PM -0400 6/15/00, CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/15/00 1:11:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ddfr at best.com
>writes:
>
>  > You seem to be using "all right" as "this is something you can do
>  >  without deserving punishment" Why?
>
>Punishment?  Your Grace, surely you do not believe that anyone in this
>"hobby" should be punished for doing something in their own fashion....

Of course I don't, but you keep writing as if you think I (and Ras) do.

>This
>is not recess on the schoolyard!  If I were to pay (and pay I do) to belong
>to this Society, I would probably become physically angered and quite
>bellicose if anyone attempted to "punish" me for doing something which does
>not meet _their_ standards...

So you should. But then why do you keep saying things such as "it's 
their choice to make?" Saying that implies that someone 
else--presumably the person you are arguing with--thinks they should 
not be free to make the choice--i.e. that they should be compelled 
not to. But nobody is arguing that. So you are attacking an imaginary 
position.

>  >  Suppose someone asked you whether to read a book. You happen to think
>  >  the book is dreadful. Do you say "It's all right to read that book?"
>  >  Wouldn't it be more useful to say "I don't think you should read that
>  >  book--it is dreadfully written and boring."
>
>Of course I would tell them it's allright to read that book.  "I" may not
>read the book again, but I cannot, in good conscience, suggest that someone
>else not read it.

Why not? Why does it violate your conscience to pass on useful information?

>Their ideas of "good and bad" may differ from mine.

Obviously if you have reason to think that what they want is 
different from what you want, you ought to take account of that in 
the advice you give. But your claim is much stronger than that--that 
you "cannot, in good conscience,suggest " that someone else not read 
a book which you found to be boring and worthless. Note that 
"suggest" was your word here for what you could not in good 
conscience do.

>They
>may be looking for a different benefit from  the book than I was.  Case in
>point:  I am an avid atheist, and detest the Bible and all it stands for, but
>would never think of telling my son that he should not read it.  It is his
>choice.  If he asks me my opinion on it, I will certainly tell him, and then
>suggest that he make his own decision (which can only be reached _after_ he
>has read it for himself).

It sounds as though you believe that communication isn't very useful. 
If the only way you can learn whether a book is worth reading is to 
read it, people might as well pick books at random and read them, 
rather than asking other people for their opinions. Do you really 
believe human beings would be better off not wasting time talking to 
each other? That seems to follow from what you are arguing.

>  >  But every time someone says the equivalent for period cooking--"you
>  >  ought not to serve out of period food because it makes events feel
>  >  less period," or "you ought to cook from period recipes because it is
>  >  fun, interesting, and educational," you treat the statement as if it
>  >  were a command rather than advice.
>
>If someone on this list were to approach the subject in that way, I would
>have no quarrel with it.  However, if you take a look at the previous posts,
>you will quickly learn that the author in question was neither that
>diplomatic nor relaxed, by his own admission.  I do not have a problem with
>someone "suggesting" that further research be done, or "suggesting" that a
>more period attempt be made.  I do have a problem with someone "insisting"
>that it be done.  Until someone pays my membership dues, drives my tuchus and
>gear to War, pays for me at gate, and feeds me, clothes me, and provides me
>with libations and entertainments, _no one_ has the right to "insist" that I
>do anything in any manner other than my own.

Or in other words, everyone else in the world is obliged to tone down 
his language--to put his strongly felt beliefs as "suggestions"--in 
order not to offend any one's tender sensibilities. In the context of 
this particular discussion, Ras is obliged to tone down his language 
in order not to offend Anne-Marie's tender sensibilities.

Nobody here has suggested that someone ought to be forced to cook 
period food--and I don't know what else "insisting" means, beyond 
expressing an opinion strongly. We can't compel other people to do 
things, so any statement about what is or is not acceptable or what 
one person insists someone else should do is simply a strongly worded 
version of "it is better to do it this way."

In an earlier post you wrote:

" Because _that_ is the only group that matters at the moment the
feast is held.  Those who require more effort simply won't go.  No harm done."

Shouldn't you have written:

"Because in my opinion  _that_ is the only group that matters at the moment the
feast is held--but of course, the choice of deciding what matters is 
one that you must make for yourself.  Those who require more effort 
simply won't go--or at least, that is what I would expect. I suggest 
that no harm has been done--or at least I would suggest it if you 
asked my opinion on the question."

Similarly, shouldn't your statement above have been:

"In my opinion _no one_ has the right to "insist" that I  do anything 
in any manner other than my own, but of course that's just how I 
feel--I don't claim that there is any reason for other people to 
agree. Certainly, since I don't pay for their computers or their 
internet access, I don't have the right to insist that they not 
insist that ... ."

Is it only other people who are obliged to tone down their language, 
pretending they aren't confident of things they are confident of in 
order not to offend anyone?

Or in other words, you pressed one of my buttons.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/