[Vision2020] Don't change the subject DOUG

[Glenn Schwaller]

Dr. What You Wish,

Ok, cheap shot, but it was one that had to be taken, seeing how you
constantly accuse me of not listening to you or answering your questions.

If it were true that "the writer of those posts is a pastor at a local
church who is pretending to be someone he is not. . . what would you think
of that pastor?"
I don't think I would ally myself with him in matters of a personal,
religious, political, or social nature.

"Would you think he was crazy?"
Crazy?  No.


"Would you think that he was a danger to the town that you lived in?"
Unless he is harboring terrorists, criminals (aye there's the rub), or
threatening to physically harm me or others, I wouldn't think he was a
danger.  I might questions his motives, but I wouldn't necessarily assume
they were nefarious.

"Would you worry?"
Well, I wouldn't let it keep me up at night.  I come across all sorts of
pretenders in the course of my day - I don't worry about them either.

"I don't think that you are a pastor of a local church,"
Well, THAT'S encouraging.  I'm not a pastor of ANY church for that matter.

". . . although you sound like one."
Which in itself sounds a lot like statements tossed out by Bob "our hero"
Herodotus.  That could lead one to consider the fact Dr. Joe is posting
under a pseudonym as well.  I don't think you are, but you sound like him.

. . . what would you think of such a man (who) might not actually write the
posts but that he encourages others to do so?"
I'd wonder why he was too lazy / afraid / unable to write his own stuff.
But I'd probably be a little more concerned about the individual who follows
such encouragement.

As far as arguments are useless when it comes to changing one's beliefs,
that was probably a bit stronger of a statement then I wanted.  I wasn't
intending to say "stop arguing about stuff, it's useless" but that in many
instances, presenting two or more sides of a topic doesn't change an
individuals viewpoint.  Sometimes it does, sometime it causes them to dig in
even harder.  Too often, people are in the "don't confuse me with facts"
mode, and are not willing to consider other perspectives.  That to me is
when arguments seems useless.  So I'll retract my previous statement, if I
may.  See?  You made a valid arguments and it changed my beliefs!  I'm not
as hopeless as you want me to be.

As far as "Mr Campbell" is concerned, I don't recall, or didn't read (until
now) you stating you didn't want to be called Mr Campbell.

Glenn


On 6/15/07, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Good question, Schwaller!
>
> Rational discourse is difficult, so I don't think that faulty reasoning is
> necessarily an indication of some kind of character flaw -- unless the
> faulty reasoning is intentional. Deliberately using fallacies, deception, or
> lies in an effort to get someone to believe something is an indication of a
> character flaw but that is more than bad reasoning. Thus, if "one arrives at
> an incorrect assumption or conclusion based on logic and reasoning" it
> doesn't necessarily "say anything about the individual." Though it would if
> the person were a liar.
>
> Which brings me to a hypothetical question. First suppose that you are not
> Glenn Schwaller but that you're someone else like me, reading the posts of a
> man who calls himself 'Glenn Schwaller.' Suppose also that the writer of
> these posts is not named 'Glenn Schwaller' and that no one with that name
> exists locally. Furthermore, suppose that the writer of those posts is a
> pastor at a local church who is pretending to be someone he is not. If this
> were true, what would you think of that pastor? Would you think he was
> crazy? Would you think that he was a danger to the town that you lived in?
> Would you worry?
>
> Remember this is a hypothetical question -- I confessed last time that I
> don't think that you are a pastor of a local church, although you sound like
> one. Keep in mind EVERYTHING that you've said so far. If you were someone
> else reading the posts of 'Glenn Schwaller' and it turned out that the
> writer of those posts was actually a pastor of a local church, what would
> you think of that man? I guess we should suppose, also, that the pastor
> might not actually write the posts but that he encourages others to do so.
> Still, what would you think of such a man?
>
> Since I have your attention and you're finally answering my questions, I
> have another question. I might have asked this before but not directly.
>
> Given that it "seems to you" that "arguments are useless when it comes to
> changing one's beliefs," why do you raise topics like polygamy? It can't
> really be, as you say, an attempt "to generate some discussion on the issue;
> an 'attempt to dialogue' if you will." What is the point of dialogue given
> that you are of the "opinion" that "arguments are useless when it comes to
> changing one's beliefs"? This, by the way, is one reason why I think you're
> merely throwing poop bombs and not actually attempting to engage in
> dialogue. What, according to your own opinions and seemings, is the point of
> dialogue?
>
> There is another question that I asked you previously [Sun Jun 3 18:00:52
> PDT 2007] but I'll save that for another time. Thanks!
>
> And please call me 'Joe,' which I prefer. My gripe was not with folks
> calling me 'Mr. Campbell' as opposed to 'Dr. Campbell.' It was folks calling
> me 'Mr. Campbell' after I happened to mention that I didn't like it. It is
> the stick in the eye that bugs me, not the name. Call me what you wish.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ----------------
>
> Thu Jun 14 17:55:49 PDT 2007
>
> Since I have not read a re-write of the history of American slavery, I am
> in
> no position to compare that with the Holocaoust, denial or otherwise.  And
> I
> have no idea what I have done that would suggest I use my religion as a
> "shield for my actions."
>
> If one arrives at an incorrect assumption or conclusion based on logic and
> reasoning, does this say anything about the individual, or their reasoning
> processes, or both?  Is their logic invalid, or is their interpretation of
> the data faulty?
>
> Glenn
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070615/be278170/attachment.html