From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Tolerance (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:54:49 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<1992Nov4.193641.24848@adobe.com>
	<1992Nov8.222020.6599@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <24122@alice.att.com>
	<26121@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <24140@alice.att.com>
	<24155@alice.att.com>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

I must say, even with all the flaming that goes on here, I'm pretty
amazed at Alice!JJ's position.  First, the direct quotes (I apologize,
because try as I might (and I tried *very* hard), I could not access
JJ's earlier articles even though I know I saw them, and there are
much earlier articles I can still get to... might they have been
cancelled for some reason?  In any case, I believe that the
second-hand quotes that appear below are in reasonably accurate
context, given what I remember of the thread.):

In article <26121@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
 > jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
 > |> I have my differences with David's position, too, but I must say
 > |> that he shows tolerance for others viewpoints.  You are simply
 > |> OBLIGATED to have the same tolerance unless you are God and he is
 > |> a believer in your religion..
 > 
 > Nobody is _obligated_ to have tolerance for another's views if
 > that person feels those views are morally wrong.  

In article <26184@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
 > I don't normally respond to flames, but this one I feel obligated to
 > respond to (once).
 > 
 > jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
 > |> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
 > |> >Nobody is _obligated_ to have tolerance for another's views if
 > |> >that person feels those views are morally wrong.  
 > 
 > |> I see. You are not obligated to treat someone you disagree with
 > |> as a human being.  
 > 
 > 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.
 > 

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.
 > 
 > >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.
 > 
 > It is NOT necessary to tolerate another's views.  Disputing
 > other's viewpoints is the very essence of debate.

OK, let me see if I understand this:

 1. JJ tells Beth she's "OBLIGATED to have the same tolerance [as
    David Shackleford]" "for others viewpoints."
 2. Beth says she's not "_obligated_ to have tolerance for another's
    views..."
 3. JJ interprets that (wildly, in my opinion) as "You are not
    obligated to treat someone you disagree with as a human being."
 4. Beth points out that JJ has mis-stated her position, after
    referring to JJ's article as a "flame."
 5. JJ claims that by referring to his *article* as a "flame," Beth
    has "discount[ed] [him]."
 6. JJ goes on to quote a paragraph from Beth's post and make claims
    that cannot be readily judged by anyone reading the article in
    isolation because s/he has failed to provide the necessary context,
    i.e. the material that Beth had quoted in her prior article and to
    which she was referring in the paragraph that JJ did bother to
    quote.
 7. JJ then objects to Beth's supposed misrepresenting of his views.
    [Where she did that is a mystery to me, but perhaps JJ can help on
    this.]
 8. Finally, JJ ends up saying, almost verbatim, what Beth did in step
    #2 above, and to which JJ objected in a very inflammatory style
    in step #3.

Here we see JJ not only restating Beth's material in a clearly
prejudicial manner (#3), but also using another devious rhetorical
device: omitting proper context (#6).  Then s/he confuses the whole
matter by ultimately arguing exactly the point to which s/he had
objected so strenuously when Beth originally made it (#8).

JJ, if you're going to crusade against underhanded rhetorical devices,
the least you could do is abstain from them yourself.  Furthermore,
I'd suggest you pick your targets a little more carefully.  As far as
I've been able to tell, Beth has been one of the least inflammatory
contributors (much less than me) in this thread.  Heck, she even tried
to start a "no-flame" version of the spanking thread!

JJ continues in the latest article of the three I quoted above:
 > 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.  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.

There's nothing disrespectful about restating your understanding of
somebody's position when you wish to debate it.  If anything it's
highly respectful, as it lets the person know more precisely how you
interpretated their remarks.  When some or all of the debate really
just springs from a miscommunication, this is the most effective way
to find that out.  Restating someone else's position is an important
tool in effective communication.  Of course, restating someone's
position in a highly prejudicial manner so as to win observers over to
your side of the debate, as you appear (to me) to have done in step #3
above, is disrespectful and underhanded.

It's also important to understand that perfectly appropriate
restatement can come out looking more inflammatory in a medium like
netnews than it typically does in face-to-face discussion.  In
face-to-face communication what often takes place in reasonable debate
is a two-step process: (1) Person A clarifies their interpretation of
person B's position by restating it; (2) A respond to A's
interpretation of B's position.  If A misinterpreted B's position to
begin with, hopefully B will detect this before A gets to step (2),
and B can then clarify the point.  But with netnews, steps (1) and (2)
are usually lumped together, because anything else is simply too
inefficient.  If A misinterprets B, A's response in step (2) may end
up looking to B like a flame when it wasn't meant that way at all.

PS - JJ, if I have so grossly misinterpreted your statements in this
thread as to invalidate what I've said here, please don't take offense
(at least not for that reason :-).  I have sincerely tried to
interpret your remarks correctly, but I can't read your mind.  Please,
if I've got it all wrong, simply correct me.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598