From: shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Tolerance (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:25:13 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <24155@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj) writes:
 >
 >bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
 >>I don't normally respond to flames, but this one I feel obligated to
 >>respond to (once).
 >
 >I greatly resent your discounting me because you may find
 >my position upsetting.  Furthermore, I resent your 
 >misstatement of my position to your own ends.

I didn't see any misstatement of your position in the referenced
(and  conveniently unquoted) article.  The response was to a very
short segment of your article, which was included.  It is common
practice when writing responses to articles to extract just enough
to provide context, saving time and money in article propogation.

 >>These first four lines, taken without any editing, show very clearly
 >>that jj is reading something into my post that isn't there.  I state
 >>it isn't necessary to have tolerance for someone's _views_ and he
 >>reads that it isn't necessary to treat someone you disagree with as a
 >>human being.
 >
 >You are confusing two issues here, and commiting the same
 >rhetorical here that you do with Shackleford; that is
 >to say misrepresenting my position in order to 
 >dispute something more tractable.  In doing so, as your
 >article shows, you have taken issue not only with the argument
 >but also with the human, have used it to discount the
 >human and his words, and to take offense where none is
 >present.

I don't see anything wrong with quoting part of an article
and making a comment based on that quote (unless the meaning
is substantially changed).  The article you are responding
to clearly shows a statement, your response, and the rebuttal
to that response.  You make the same mistake you accuse the
poster of by not including the comments that seem to offend
you.

 >It is NOT necessary to tolerate another's views.  Disputing
 >other's viewpoints is the very essence of debate.
 >
 >On the other hand, it is an elementary standard of respect
 >and tolerance toward any human being, under nearly any
 >circumstances whatsoever, to be responsible and rigorously
 >careful when restating the other's viewpoint. 

Which you fail to do yourself by not including the relevent
text.

                                                   In the
 >case here, you (and many others) have restated Shackleford's
 >position in a fashion both incorrect (to the extent that
 >those of us have only net articles to evaluate) and prejudicial.

While this comment might have some merit, your overreaction
puts words in the mouth of another -- the same thing you
are condemning that person for.

 >This constitues an intolerance and disrespect for the human
 >holding the position, and reflects STRICTLY in the negative
 >on your own position.   Furthermore, it polarizes the debate
 >situation such that no improvement or movement becomes likely.
 >
 >If you are indeed restating his argument based on personal
 >discussions, you are obligated to say so, and to explain
 >why your restatement is not in line with the net.words
 >of your opponent.  We cannot read minds.

 >>|> This misstatement for
 >>|> purely emotionally manipulitive purposes shows that you
 >>|> do not even accept his status as a human being.  In short,
 >>|> you are treating him as something below deserving ethical
 >>|> behavior.  
 >
 >>This is the part that has caused me to reply.  I know David
 >>Shackelford personally.  We have worked together on projects.  I don't
 >>agree _at all_ with his views on spanking and his stated idea that one
 >>of parents' primary goals should be to teach child not to be brats. <
 >
 >And you are not, indeed, obligated in any fashion to accept
 >his views on spanking, whatever they may be.  (I'm not sure offhand
 >that your comment re: "... brats..." is accurate, or whether
 >it constitutes another misstatement, but I'll drop that for now.)

The comment about "brats" might be an exaggeration, but it is
one valid interpretation of what I said in another article.

 >>HOWEVER, I do respect David, I do treat him as a human being worthy of
 >>respect, and I certainly believe that he is worthy of ethical
 >>treatment.  Based on our interactions, David would never think
 >>I don't treat him with respect, and I resent your accusations.
 >
 >Based on net articles, you have misstated his position  in
 >a way that is (intent does not matter, I think) emotionally
 >manipulative and that also serves to question your 
 >opponent's reputation.  By that alone, you have shown 
 >disrespect, and have revolked fundamental courtesies and
 >rights that are normally accorded a human being, especially
 >in written debate.

I do not consider the article in question to be a serious
misstatement of my position.  The rhetorical device of
exaggerating an opposing viewpoint for the purpose of
satire is common and very useful.  We educated people need
to recognize these things.  It didn't bother me.

I see no reason to respond to the remainder of this article

 >Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
 >   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 >  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 > liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.

I resent your inclusion of such a "copyright notice" and am unsure of
its legality.  It does shed some light on the nature of your earlier
comments (though your purpose is still a little murky to me :-)

David Shackelford
Newsgroups: misc.kids