Do I really credit this behavior only to theists?
See this recent exchange between myself and BillyT and AlexG - starting here.
What generalizations?
Compare
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
to
why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Do I really credit this behavior only to theists?
See this recent exchange between myself and BillyT and AlexG - starting here.
What generalizations?
Compare
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
to
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The onus of clear communication lies largely with the the person speaking, or writing. Certainly the listener or reader must play a role, but if they say the words are ambiguous or obscure it is generally wrong to blame the listener or reader. the fault is more often than not that of the author.
To go on the offensive when ones words are misinterpreted is, therefore, an example of arrogance and perhaps evidence for lack of compassion. If on has sympathy for ones audience one will make more effort to be understood, blaming ones own shortcomings, not those of the audience.
If anything in the foregoing is not clear I shall be happy to rephrase, or articulate in more detail.
Yours with compassion (and a touch of irony, verging on sarcasm: but then I never claimed to be a nice guy.)
At least no such claim has been made in this thread.
Last edited:
Ophiolite,
In ths case, not only was the dialogue a question, which traditionally requires and answer, it was crystal clear, not ambiguos, not obscure.
These words weren't misinterpreted, they were understood, and the response was made to avoid the responsibility of giving an answer.
Every effort was made, and I would be surprised if anyone didn't understand the question, or how the question could possibly have come about as a response.
jan.
In ths case, not only was the dialogue a question, which traditionally requires and answer, it was crystal clear, not ambiguos, not obscure.
These words weren't misinterpreted, they were understood, and the response was made to avoid the responsibility of giving an answer.
Every effort was made, and I would be surprised if anyone didn't understand the question, or how the question could possibly have come about as a response.
jan.
Typical Jan. Again.
Post something obscure, claim it was understood (despite the numerous requests for clarification) and then blame the recipient for deliberately misunderstanding so as to avoid the "point".
Don't you ever get bored of that particular tactic?
Sorry, apparently not since you resort to it so often.
Post something obscure, claim it was understood (despite the numerous requests for clarification) and then blame the recipient for deliberately misunderstanding so as to avoid the "point".
Don't you ever get bored of that particular tactic?
Sorry, apparently not since you resort to it so often.
Speaking for myself there have been a number of occasions where I have made numerous requests for clarification. Which was not forthcoming.
What you're doing here is part of the same pattern of behaviour.
It's like talking to a wall, why bother?
Gee, what part of "Most people tend to be like that anyway, so this is nothing special" did you not understand?
Come and help us derive the Creator in a way that suffices for all rather than first running off and supposing all kinds of suppositions about what it does, which is only speaking for it, and going nowhere in many threads since the sure identification of it has not been done yet:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816554&postcount=98
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816554&postcount=98
Spoken like a true god!
Perhaps it's time for you to get off your high horse and allow for being surprised.
Really surprised, not feigning.
Spoken like a true god!
You know how a true god speaks?
Or should I view that as a metaphor?
jan.
I think it would do you good to update your sarcasm radar.
In light of your current discussion style, I wasn't being sarcastic.
jan.
I was. You didn't see it; or didn't accept it.
True ...
But people do tend to have the drive to think of people as persons, as more than walls or robots, so we try to communicate with everyone.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Now you are just being arrogant. You think it was clear. You think it was unambiguous. You think it was not obscure.
It seems, therefore, that I have failed to write clearly in my post to which the above was a responce. I'll try again. If the reader finds the writing unclear, to the extent that the writer thinks he has jumped to a conclusion, then in most cases the writing is unclear. It is not in the remit of the writer to judge the clarity of the communication: that is the role of the reader.
That is a supposition. A compasionate person would have assumed that the fault was theirs and made a further effort to be understood.
Once again, you would be surprised. You will not even entertain the possibility that you are the one who is obfuscating, obscuring and clouding the scene. When it is done so persitently it comes to look like deliberate, cynical policy. A cynicism that, through such repetition, emerges as a really nasty streak.
Ophiolite,
Not necessarily, as not all circumstances are the same.
What do you base the claim of ''supposition'' on?
As for me, I talk quite alot with the person to whom the question was directed.
:shrug: Do you think the use of the word compassion or lack of is necessary at this point?
I didn't say that.
I said I would be surprised if anyone didn't understand the question or the nature of the question.
What is your problem with the question?
jan.
Not necessarily, as not all circumstances are the same.
What do you base the claim of ''supposition'' on?
As for me, I talk quite alot with the person to whom the question was directed.
:shrug: Do you think the use of the word compassion or lack of is necessary at this point?
I didn't say that.
I said I would be surprised if anyone didn't understand the question or the nature of the question.
What is your problem with the question?
jan.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Read my frigging words. I stated that "then in most cases the writing is unclear". That excplicitly contains your "not necessarily" comment. Therefore you have avoided addressing the fact that your words are considered to be unclear.
It is a supposition because you suppose it to be so, you do not offer any evidendce to spport your supposition.
The word compassion is appropriate because in another thread I offered to point out to you examples of where you lacked compassion. Compassion has broader definitions than the one you have offered.
And as to your penultimate point, of course you didn't say that. that's the friggiing nature of the complaint. You avoid saying most things of substance, but imply a hell of a lot. The overall effect is of one who is intellectually dishonest and who despises those who disagree with them, feeling they are in some way sub-human.
And just so we are clear, I am not saying this is how you think, I am saying this is how you appear to think. If that is not your intention, then you are the one who is miscommunicating, you are the one who is repsonsible for any misinterpretation.
It is a supposition because you suppose it to be so, you do not offer any evidendce to spport your supposition.
The word compassion is appropriate because in another thread I offered to point out to you examples of where you lacked compassion. Compassion has broader definitions than the one you have offered.
And as to your penultimate point, of course you didn't say that. that's the friggiing nature of the complaint. You avoid saying most things of substance, but imply a hell of a lot. The overall effect is of one who is intellectually dishonest and who despises those who disagree with them, feeling they are in some way sub-human.
And just so we are clear, I am not saying this is how you think, I am saying this is how you appear to think. If that is not your intention, then you are the one who is miscommunicating, you are the one who is repsonsible for any misinterpretation.
Ophiolite,
I don't get you.
Use the dialouge in question to point out where I'm being dishonest or whatever.
And I don't your point about compassion.
jan.
I don't get you.
Use the dialouge in question to point out where I'm being dishonest or whatever.
And I don't your point about compassion.
jan.