3 ms·
>Since you don't know what he's done, why do you second-guess his explicit statement by positing "is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that som
by charmides 8y ago
>Since you don't know what he's done, why do you second-guess his explicit statement by positing "is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about privately."
>Apparently yes, it is unfathomable to Kuhn and Sandler.
I am second-guessing it because it obviously not unfathomable that the author, who has many years of experience in his field, has accomplished something that someone finds worthy of a private conversation. When there is any doubt of people's motives, you should not go around and assume the worst, let alone make angry, public accusations.
>I cannot easily reconcile what you wrote, when I compare it to the original text, as something other than trivializing institutionalized sexism.
It is regrettable that you had to add an inappropriate accusation like this to your comment. I hope you are more respectful in your daily life when you encounter people with opposite viewpoints to your own.
- eesmith 8y agoPlease explain your use of the term "unfathomable." I interpret it to mean that there is no possible, conceivable reason other than the one given. I believe this term is inappropriate, as it implies that "unfathomable" is somehow an appropriate guideline. The guideline should be "reasonable". Otherwise, I pointed out a 'fathomable' but unreasonable scenario. I can easily create more 'fathomable' but unreasonable scenarios. I believe the use of an extremist term like "unfathomable" serves to trivialize the topic made by making the goal posts too high. What is a reasonable scenario where a potential donor to the Conservancy, when told several times they should be dealing with Sandler, still insists on a private meeting with Kuhn (and not Sandler) as condition of the donation? I can fully understand why someone might want a private conversation with Kuhn, because of his background and experience. The question at hand, however, is why a private conversation with Kuhn is a gating condition for the donation. I strongly doubt that the only way to have a private conversation with Kuhn is by contributing to the Conservancy. So, what scenario do you propose which is more reasonable than institutional sexism?