4 ms·

> Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane It's not that. I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're rel

by philh 10y ago

> Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane It's not that. I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. If someone has other objections to ESR, which are relevant, then they're free to bring one or more of them up. If there are a lot of relevant objections, that should be easy to do. I'm not interested in saying: that particular objection was irrelevant, but there are so many relevant objections that it doesn't matter.

pvg 10y ago
I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. I'm quite sure they don't. They have some opinion which you apparently don't share. Fair enough. But that's basically it, they don't really owe you a defense of that opinion to some standard you define.
acqq 10y ago
> his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? Can you explicitly quote my words? I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). As others also commented here, the page I've linked to, written by ESR, does speak about ESR's personality, directly related to his vision of his own importance, his communication skills ("I am not in fact crazy" in the third sentence) and his perception of those not agreeing with him ("idiots"), and, as I've read his more recent statement "I shot ntpdc through the head" it surely made me think of that page that he proudly maintains again. P.S. To philh: your own words, again: "his [ESR's] views on guns are not relevant; or if someone [here in the context, acqq] wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim." It turns out "if X than Y" had X that was invented and false. P.S.S philh, have you ever known anything about ESR before or were all your responses triggered only by a link to the ESR's "I am a gun nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots" page which somehow you understood as an attack to your own gun beliefs, even if the link was in another context? Would you respond the same to somebody's else page which starts, approximately, "I'm a free speech nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots"? I claim not, I claim your responses reflect your own issues. Now you finally accept: "You [acqq} linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves." And the way you made all of your responses doesn't match with your mission statement "being charitable towards people I disagree with; and not mouthing off about things I don't understand." You didn't understand, you saw "it's a page about guns" and attacked. The reason: you saw that as an "insult" to you. Completely not understanding. You write now: "I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed." Sure. It hurts. Have you read the first paragraph of his page before you responded so many times? Haven't you noticed anything there? Also, have you noticed that you "analyzed" my intentions making wrong conclusions in all your responses?
- philh 10y ago
  > Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves. If you thought the relevant thing was something other than his views on guns, then okay: instead of defending a claim you don't believe, you need to make clear what you are claiming. I claim that you were either communicating poorly, or deliberately hiding behind ambiguity. > I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed.
  - acqq 10y ago
    Obsessed with guns too much and with drawing false conclusions? To the point of the cognitive dissonance? Like, how dare I linking to the page "on guns" (as you name it) without explaining to you that it's not something you should be "insulted" about! The last sentence in the post above, moreover, has certain similarities with one of the first statements on the page that initiated your response ("I am in fact...") Funny. Note how you ascribed to me the motivations I haven't had and now you write: "There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives." You actually did the later, accusing me as if I wrote "he supports gun rights" which I absolutely never wrote. Also "It's hiding behind some ambiguity and hinting, but I think the broad intent is quite clear." Apparently it wasn't clear to you, that much you were able to admit. But you continue, guns, guns. It's your invention, not my subject. My subject was the personality traits, all the time.
- philh 10y ago
  Reply to your PPS: Yes I was previously familiar with ESR. No I don't have strong opinions about gun control, I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed partly because you are just plain wrong about my motivations, and yes I would have replied the same way if it was about free speech. I try to be charitable, but that doesn't mean leaving myself vulnerable to vague hinting intended to retain plausible deniability, as I interpreted your initial post; and it doesn't mean tolerating bullshit accusations against me as you're now throwing around. There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives and emotional reactions (which is usually rude and unnecessary).

by philh 10y ago

pvg 10y ago

I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. I'm quite sure they don't. They have some opinion which you apparently don't share. Fair enough. But that's basically it, they don't really owe you a defense of that opinion to some standard you define.

acqq 10y ago

> his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? Can you explicitly quote my words? I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). As others also commented here, the page I've linked to, written by ESR, does speak about ESR's personality, directly related to his vision of his own importance, his communication skills ("I am not in fact crazy" in the third sentence) and his perception of those not agreeing with him ("idiots"), and, as I've read his more recent statement "I shot ntpdc through the head" it surely made me think of that page that he proudly maintains again. P.S. To philh: your own words, again: "his [ESR's] views on guns are not relevant; or if someone [here in the context, acqq] wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim." It turns out "if X than Y" had X that was invented and false. P.S.S philh, have you ever known anything about ESR before or were all your responses triggered only by a link to the ESR's "I am a gun nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots" page which somehow you understood as an attack to your own gun beliefs, even if the link was in another context? Would you respond the same to somebody's else page which starts, approximately, "I'm a free speech nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots"? I claim not, I claim your responses reflect your own issues. Now you finally accept: "You [acqq} linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves." And the way you made all of your responses doesn't match with your mission statement "being charitable towards people I disagree with; and not mouthing off about things I don't understand." You didn't understand, you saw "it's a page about guns" and attacked. The reason: you saw that as an "insult" to you. Completely not understanding. You write now: "I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed." Sure. It hurts. Have you read the first paragraph of his page before you responded so many times? Haven't you noticed anything there? Also, have you noticed that you "analyzed" my intentions making wrong conclusions in all your responses?

philh 10y ago
> Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves. If you thought the relevant thing was something other than his views on guns, then okay: instead of defending a claim you don't believe, you need to make clear what you are claiming. I claim that you were either communicating poorly, or deliberately hiding behind ambiguity. > I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed.
- acqq 10y ago
  Obsessed with guns too much and with drawing false conclusions? To the point of the cognitive dissonance? Like, how dare I linking to the page "on guns" (as you name it) without explaining to you that it's not something you should be "insulted" about! The last sentence in the post above, moreover, has certain similarities with one of the first statements on the page that initiated your response ("I am in fact...") Funny. Note how you ascribed to me the motivations I haven't had and now you write: "There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives." You actually did the later, accusing me as if I wrote "he supports gun rights" which I absolutely never wrote. Also "It's hiding behind some ambiguity and hinting, but I think the broad intent is quite clear." Apparently it wasn't clear to you, that much you were able to admit. But you continue, guns, guns. It's your invention, not my subject. My subject was the personality traits, all the time.
philh 10y ago
Reply to your PPS: Yes I was previously familiar with ESR. No I don't have strong opinions about gun control, I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed partly because you are just plain wrong about my motivations, and yes I would have replied the same way if it was about free speech. I try to be charitable, but that doesn't mean leaving myself vulnerable to vague hinting intended to retain plausible deniability, as I interpreted your initial post; and it doesn't mean tolerating bullshit accusations against me as you're now throwing around. There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives and emotional reactions (which is usually rude and unnecessary).