From: Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Basic Courtesy
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:15:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: therose.712341446.F00006

In a message to All <07-27-92 05:58> Terry Nutter wrote:

TN>  From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
TN>  Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
TN>
TN>  Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Hossein Ali Qomi send
TN>  greetings
TN>  and prayers for the blessings of Allah.
TN>
TN>  Recently Leonard Erickson responded to a posting by my lady wife,
TN>  Angharad. The views I express here are my own, not hers (and hence I am
TN>  the brickbat target not she).
TN>
TN>  >Therefore it behooves us to *not* assume that our "principles" justify
TN>  >saying *anything* hurtful. It's one thing to state facts, it's quite
TN>  >another to state opinions.
TN>
TN>  Three questions:
TN>     1.  Are opinions _really_ not truth-functional?  How is any
TN>  knowledge whatsoever possible if that is so?  After all the expression
TN>  of belief X is nothing more than my assertion of the truth of X.  No
TN>  knowledge whatsoever is possible if my belief is not as capable of
TN>  being true or false as any other referential statement is.

You appear to be playing word games here. I did not say anything about the 
truth or untruth of opinions. But In my experience few have any trouble 
getting the point when a disctintion is drawn between "fact" and "opinion".

It is a *fact* that filks are generally unwelcome in SCA song circles. It is 
an *opinion* that they are trash. The former is an observation. The latter 
tends to be *how someone feels about the matter*

TN>     2.  If you _really_ think that no opinion can be true, then why are
TN>  you wasting our time with your opinion?

This point does not follow from my statements. It only follows from the (in 
my opinion odd) way in which you interpreted it.

I am not speaking of truth of falseness. I am addressing the *emotional 
effects* of statements.

TN>     3.  If we can't "assume that our 'principles' justify saying
TN>  *anything* hurtful," then what would you say to Hitler or Stalin?
TN>  Have a nice day?  That's a reductio ad absurdum, but like any sound
TN>  reductio ad absurdum it reveals the flaw in the underlying reasoning.
TN>  If nothing's worth hurting someone over, then _nothing_ is the
TN>  principle you're left with.

Even you own words don't support this. If we can't assume something, then we 
cannot *assume* it. The "principles" may or may not justify something. But 
one needs to *prove* that, not assume it. And the principles need 
examination as well.

Personally, I wouldn't say *anything* to Hitler or Stalin. Once their 
actions justify it, then the ethically appropriate counter-actions should be 
taken.

The point, which you have managed to miss, is that being *intentionally* 
hurtful to someone because of "principles" shouldn't be automatically 
*assumed* to be justified. And Angharad had said that it *was* justified.

TN>  >Even if the filk is "offensive" to many here, that does *not* justify
TN>  >a response belittles the poster. A polite comment letting him know
TN>  >that it is not considered appropriate is one thing, "Thanks, this will
TN>  >make a great example of why filks don't belong here" is not.
TN>
TN>  I fail to understand why people who don't like mundanity in an SCA
TN>  context have to pussy-foot oh-so-delicately around the fact that
TN>  they're offended, when filkers are accorded every opportunity to
TN>  circulate any mundane thing they care to.

I fail to understand why people think that they have the right to jump down 
a newcomer's throat for an *innocent* mistake. People *do* make mistakes due 
to ignorance. If a person doesn't *know* that their behavior is offensive, 
then better results will be achieved by informing them of it than by 
berating them about it.

TN>  Filking of modern songs is
TN>  in principle a non-medieval practice.  When somebody posts a completely
TN>  unmedieval filk to the Rialto, how can we assume that the poster
TN>  intends anything but that the filk be circulated in the SCA?  If that
TN>  is so, then the poster is _deliberately_ hurting those who prize
TN>  authenticity.

Sorry, but it is *impossible* to *deliberately* hurt someone by an action 
that you do not know will be hurtful! You are *assuming* that it *is* known 
that such things are offensive.

He posted a song *about* the SCA to rec.org.sca. "Hey I wrote this song 
about you guys! Whadda ya think?"  Unless you can show *intent* to be 
offensive, you cannot show that the offense was deliberate.

In this case, it would be rather difficult, as he was careful to state that 
he was *not* sure if it was approriate, and requersting that people skip the 
posting if they feared it would offend them.

The Rialto is *not* the "Enchanted Ground". If encountering inauthenticity 
offends you, then I respectfully submit that you are in the wrong place!

TN>  Yet, in this case you deny that your justification by
TN>  response to _deliberate hurtfulness_ applies. If it doesn't apply here,
TN>  just when does it apply?  Your "principle" seems like so much hot air
TN>  on examination.

Sirrah. I am *very* tired of the practice of poeple who are offended by 
something that was done in all innocence of the offensiveness claiming that 
they are somehow *justified* in emotionally battering the person or persons 
who have offended them into submission.

I have lived with people who would at great length inform me in subtly (and 
not so sublty) abusive terms, tones and language as to how wrong-headed I 
was for not agreeing with their "obviously correct" principles. I have had 
to deal with such behavior in various organizations.

I took an oppurtunity to point out that just because a person feels that 
they have a right to do something hurtful that does *not* mean that any such 
right exists. And that the mere act of thinking that it does tends to 
indicate that they are in need of re-examining the situation.

Words can be a quite potent weapon. And too many are far to free in using 
them as such.

People should strive not to be offensive. On the other hand, they should 
also strive not to be easily offended.


A final comment. Your "anlysis" of my posting seems to be both far *too* 
detailed, and at the same time too far off target. This smacks of a style of 
"debate" I have encountered elsewhere online and *I* find offensive. If you 
truly did not understand that is one thing. But deliberately 
"misunderstanding" to "make a better argument" is a practice I find 
reprehensible.


private comments mayy be sent to 70465.203@compuserve.com 
 
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca