I didn't say you were. In fact, I explicitly asked for your opinion about that, and you previously refused to give it. I still don't understand why, but I think that was a mistake.
And? What's your point?
My complaint is with hypocrisy, not the subject matter of the particular hypocrisy. I don't care whether someone's on a diet or believes pornography is a sin, but if that same person is declaring how great their diet is going while stuffing their face with Little Debbie and decrying the evils of pornography while downloading fifty terabytes of porn I find that reprehensible. My point is that hypocrisy is bad.
That she's wrong about how bad it is? Previously you seemed to not want to take a position on that, even though I tried giving you an opportunity to do so.
I think she is, but it's not relevant what
I think of it, it's what
she thinks of it when she's going to do it herself.
If somebody picks up a gun, points it at your head, and pulls the trigger six times are you going to be okay with that if the gun turned out to be unloaded
but they thought it had been loaded? They thought they were trying to murder you, and only failed because they were wrong about the gun being loaded. The sin, if you'll excuse the term, hinges on the actor's beliefs, not the target's.
Is it that you think her method of argumentation is flawed?
Yeah, I think it's pretty flawed to argue X is bad, be confronted with having done X yourself, and then try to handwave it away as being acceptable hypocrisy.
Perhaps, but if that's all it is, your own presentation of that position hasn't worked well either.
Well, I can agree with that.
The posts you cherry picked simply employed it. Those posts don't exist in a vacuum, though.
It's hardly cherry-picking when the question is "did they ever use this terminology?" Every instance of that terminology use is a point of evidence that, well, yes they did. The lauded "context" defense doesn't work here because the context of those posts wasn't about the terminology employed-- they weren't an argument about using those words. They were posts about something else that happen to employ those terms. They certainly weren't 4D chess moves made in anticipation of a post two years later.
This thread has been going on for years, and you have not been a regular participant in it.
Ah, I see. Only club members are allowed. Who's in charge of the membership list?
These issues of terminology aren't new, EC's objection to "body-part-haver" terminology isn't new either, the recent post of yours is hardly the first time she has presented that objection.
So? Is there a expiration date on things, so they can't be challenged past a certain time? I was responding to the most recent post I saw. Which wasn't in this thread, by the way: it had been nominated for an award for how wonderfully expressed it was. And you know, for some odd reason I found it somehow
wrong that something I knew to be a hypocrisy should be praised.
I've never met anyone other than Bob who actually cares about hypocrisy over trivial matters. You don't strike me as being very much like Bob.
Over trivial matters? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a waste of everyone's time. Hypocrisy only matters and should only be challenged when the subject of the hypocrisy itself matters.
Putting the "some lies are okay" into ISF? Intellectual integrity, who needs that?
You can't champion truth while accepting dishonesty.
But if it matters, then your position on it matters too. You have been avoiding providing that position before now.
See above: my objection is to hypocrisy, not the subject of the hypocrisy. Unlike you, apparently, I think truth is in itself an inherent moral imperative.
There is no point in having a debate, honest or otherwise, about trivial matters.
I'd say there's no point in having a debate, trivial or serious, if intellectual honesty doesn't matter.
That's your issue. Why should I care?
If you don't care you don't care, but you're the one who started talking to me. I didn't pursue you to demand anything.
Whether or not the terminology is actually acceptable seems to me to be a more more significant, AND much more interesting, subject than what you see as EC's personal shortcomings. But for some reason, that's precisely the topic you have wanted to avoid.
You are interested in that, I am interested in the other thing you aren't interested in. These things happen.
Perhaps not. But it could help accomplish something more important: coming to a general consensus about what language is or isn't acceptable. Because to resolve what you see as EC's hypocrisy, there is still a choice to be made: are we to use "-haver" verbiage, or are we to reject it? Saying that she's hypocritical does nothing to actually solve that question.
Once again, that's the question
you are interested in. I'm interested in people staying honest. If they believe A then they should say A, and not B. Whether A or B (or C) is the "right answer" is a separate question. And in this case, of whether a particular terminology is "acceptable" or not, that's an opinion question. Acceptable
to whom? Obviously opinions will vary.
I think that's a pretty reasonable position to take. Now that you've finally stated your own position, I also think it might actually be possible for you to find some common ground with EC. Your discussion with her would probably have been far more productive had you led with that, and then stated the problems you see with her post. As it was, you came out confrontational in a way that basically precluded finding common ground even though, based on this last statement, I think common ground should be pretty easy to find.
Well, I'm certainly willing to "find common ground". I'll start with a statement of principle:
It's wrong to say you think a thing is bad and do that thing yourself.
