Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!era From: era@killer.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame Subject: Re: MESmith, Larry Lippman and sanity Message-ID: <2304@killer.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Dec-87 04:03:56 EST Article-I.D.: killer.2304 Posted: Fri Dec 4 04:03:56 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 22:20:20 EST References: <288@snark.UUCP> <1902@geac.UUCP> Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx Lines: 42 Keywords: sanity non-sequiteur consensus Xref: hoptoad talk.politics.misc:9682 alt.flame:858 In article <1902@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >In article <288@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP writes: >>I have now been attacked three separate times for stating my opinion that Your opinion? Is that your personal opinion, and the personal opinions of some other individuals, or a collective agreement by everyone? Obviously the people who you claim attacked you did not agree. They have differing opinions. So there is no collective agreement, no consensus, just differing opinions. And these differing opinions do not even divide according to gender lines. >> I *do* think he is a person who, under great stress, has substantially >> lost contact with consensus reality. > The last two words are critical: the argument is from consensus. Exactly, David. Eric's argument is from consensus. Yet there is no collective agreement as to the meaning of the word consensus. >> MESmith and his indignant defenders would have us draw, but a sobering So there is not only an attempt to discredit me, but an attempt to discredit anyone who does not agree with Eric. When Eric states a personal opinion, that is a consensus, and anyone who disagrees, is "indignant," that is, emotional rather than logical. Eric could have claimed to hold a traditional opinion, a majority opinion, or possibly even an official opinion, but when someone claims that they have a consensus, while admitting that there are people who disagree with them, a fact which indicates that they do not have a consensus or collective agreement at all, there is a fault in their thinking. Eric may not be aware of the meaning of the word consensus, or Eric may have difficulty with logic, particularly when the issues involved arouse strong emotional reactions. But to claim to have a consensus when no consensus exists, is irrational at best, a deliberate political ploy at worst, and, in any case, not behavior appropriate to one who would assume the responsibility of counselling others. --Mark