Yeah, well weeding through all of the rhetoric and ad homs is tiresome. Pan has yet to make a clear and valid point, other than he was/is justified in believing that it is possible that I am ridiculing. That's not saying/proving much now is it?

It certainly does not justify/prove that I am.

The irony here is that he is attempting to ridicule me. That can be proven by the facts in evidence.

If something you say causes a person to feel ridiculed, then you have ridiculed them. Proof of intent is another story.

It may not have be your intent. It could be that you simply lack the skill of human understanding that people are very sensitive.

If something I say causes a person to feel ridiculed, then I have ridiculed them?

Whatever.

Interpretation causes feeling of ridicule. People can interpret things wrongly.

I know. I wonder about myself sometimes. I am just trying to make as much sense from as many perspectives as I can muster.



I know. Some people do not hold that a contradiction need be looked at a little more. Some accept contradiction. Some do not recognize it. Some do and don't care. Some can't. The possibilities are numerous. I just try to make sense of what other people say.

There are real life conditions that clearly supports this. Think about this a minute...

Has someone ever been offended by something you've said, and you have no idea why? I mean, have you been definitely not ridiculing, but have been taken wrongly? If what you say is true Jb, if you have been in that situation, even though you were not ridiculing another, you were because the person felt that way. That makes no sense.

Another...

Have you ever intended upon making fun of another - goodheartedly of course - but the other did not get it? Again, if you claim is true, then even though you were intentionally ridiculing another, becaue the person did not get it, then you were not ridiculing. It makes no sense.

That all that needs said regarding that.

Ridicule is intentional. If one believes that another is ridiculing them, and the other claims otherwise, then the burden of proof is one of proving intent. If that intent is not there, it cannot be proven. That is irrufutable. Because I'm claiming that it is not there, if another insists that it is, then they either believe me a liar, or believe that I do not know myself.

Either of those is a very dubious claim. So, when looking at this we can can clearly see that one ought be very careful in their allegations about another. The one's in question rest upon very dubious premisses. That is why it is necessary to appeal to emotion, ad hom, argue from a particular to a general, and all of the other fallacies that have been invoked in this part of the conversation.

I mean, I could go through the last few pages and clearly show at least 5 different fallacies of reasoning within my interlocutor's claims. Especially the one's about me peronally, for each of those is prima facie ad hom.

oh lordy...he does go on now doesn't he?...ok, bored now. Next topic.

An argument which depends upon a known fallacy is rejected by those who understand the rules of philosophical engagement, and are worth their salt.

He does, and it pleases him.



Thanx for the appraisal(s).

...and deeper....



How low can you go?

Spoken like a true believer.

Hey I'm just curious on how your minds works Pan. Why is it that you think that every response I offer, regardless of the content, equates to 'digging deeper' or being 'lower' or some other negative connotation? I mean you speak as if this is all fait accompli.

Could you clearly explain to me and any other readers how you arrive at such a conclusion?

You may not know yourself well enough to know that your own feelings and words do have an effect on others.

If your intention is to be kind, you are less likely to offend or use ridicule.

If you want answers to why people are offended by your words, examine your true intentions.

Your choice of words reveal an enormous amount of information about you and your intentions.

Why do you engage in conversation with others? What is the pay off for you?

I've already given sufficient response to the claim regarding what constitutes being ridicule Jb. The following are different matters altogether, however I'll do what I can to answer them clearly...



I know that words are powerful. I know that some words can invoke an entire state of mind. I know that the same word has the capability of invoking completely different states of mind within different people. I see no relevant connection here between knowing myself and knowing the power of language.



Agreed. It is important here to note, that even when one's intent is to be kind, offense can still happen.



My intentions are based upon my thoughts. They do not contain another's thoughts/feelings, therefore my intentions are not the place to look for why/how it is that another feels ridiculed/offended.



This is dubious. I mean, sure my choice of words does reflect my thoughts/beliefs. I mean there can be little doubt regarding that. However, you've used "reveal" here in an odd way, that suggests that you think/believe that a listener can know something about a speaker and/or his/her intentions based solely upon the words chosen.

I do not completely disagree, however, I suspect that we would wildly diverge upon exactly what it is that can be known based upon that. It can be a very misleading claim.



Another odd question. I engage in conversation because I'm human, we're curious, we're necessarily interdependent and social, and that's what we do. Why would there need to be a payoff? I mean what does that mean in clear terms?

--

Edited to add..



Is there such a thing as false intentions?

I believe just the opposit.

If (inadevertantly) something I say causes a person to feel ridiculed, then THEY have created their own ridicule...

Ridicule is a felt emotion... It comes from within.

Well put, AB.

You cannot completely divorce yourself from the consequences of your actions and words and lay the blame completely on the person you are having an exchange with for feeling that you have ridiculed them or insulted them.

You are partly responsible, especially when it keeps happening.

If you have any amount of irritation, arrogance, impatience, anger, frustration, etc. at all, it will show on your face and in your words. You will get reactions and have reactions and many of these will be unconscious.

In a forum, we only have the words. That adds to the problem of any misunderstandings.

This is the reason for the use of emoticons. They allow people to speak with emotion in a forum where you cannot see the other persons face. Facial expressions are a form of communication. They show emotions.

In communication you cannot disregard emotion and feeling. We are humans, not Vulcan or robots.

If you alienate the person you are talking to either intentionally or unintentionally with various snide remarks and "philosophical" rudeness you are only agitating people.

Of course you can claim that your remarks were unintentional, and deny responsibility for how other people interpret them and get insulted blah blah blah... and to some extent I agree that we cannot know what might insult people.

But after a while, when it keeps happening over and over, one would think you would learn from your "mistakes." But if you continue to get negative reactions from people, sooner or later you have to take some responsibility.

Unless getting negative reactions from people is your pay off.

So what is the pay off for you?




There is always a payoff. Why else would we be here? example:

Do you do it to make friends? (How's that working?)
Do you do it to feel superior?
To practice being a philosophy lecturer?
Are you exploring your own thoughts or trying to find support for them?

You know... the pay off.

You don't have to tell me.

I just wonder if you know.