![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 32. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:22
In reply to My point exactly, posted by finelinebob on September 4, 2006, at 19:22:50
Friends,
It is written here,[...when does a statement become an accusation...?]
Well, an accusation is charging someone with an offense or to blame someone for such.
But in this forum, there is a much more extended definition of what an accusation is. This extended definition is gathered by collecting different post in the past-practice here.
There is also another definition here for an accusation. That is if the statement {could lead someone to [feel] accused}.
And then there is Dr. Hsiung's statement that evn if you are quoting someone else, that does not mean that it is allowed to be civil.
Then Dr. Hsiung on the admin board has said in particular that the statement in question is an accusation toward Jews.
Even not saying who the person is, could be an accusation, for there could be people here that the accusation could be directed to without writing the name of the person.
An accusation has a target, usually, and generally has the potential to arrouse ill-will toward the accused.
There are some accusations that have the potential to be racially sterotyping or are racial epithets. There are accusations also that have the potential to be of racial hatred.
Is the question here as to if the accusation in question can be considered to be civil?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:22
In reply to My point exactly, posted by finelinebob on September 4, 2006, at 19:22:50
Friends,
It is written here,[...no one ..asked me what the sum of 2 2 is, so I am..making a statement, not answering a question..].
A false statement is one that is made that is knowingly false. Does this mean that ;
A. the person making the statement must know that it is false?
B. The statement is known to be false?
Well, let us look at a university setting and a professor is teaching that the earth is flat.
This has been determined to be false and those in the community know that it is false. So if a professor teaches that the earth is flat {as fact}, then he/she is teaching what is {knowingly false}. The professor may believe it.
Now that is one example. But what if the professor was teaching Lamarkian evolution {as fact}?
Or let's say that the professor was teaching that the holocaust did not happen {as fact}?
So when a statement that is false is uncivil could be if the statement is being presented {as fact}. This is not the same as presenting the statement as an inquiery for exploration, for then there is no representaion as being a fact.
In this discussion, is it about whether or not the accusation toward the Jews is presented as fact or not?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:22
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of flb's post-prsfct, posted by Lou Pilder on September 4, 2006, at 20:36:18
Friends,
As to the question as to if the accusation toward the Jews in this discussion is fact or not, a restoration of the post could be usefull.
But as a Jew, I feel accused when I read the accusation. For you see, I have been revealed as to who was the responsible party. If you would like to know what I have been revealed , you could email me.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:22
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of flb's post-threal, posted by Lou Pilder on September 4, 2006, at 21:01:18
> For you see, I have been revealed as to who was the responsible party.
Regardless of whom one has isolated as being responsible for this particular event, I hope one does not accuse or put down an entire category of people by generalizing unto the many the actions of individuals. I think that this has been the mistake made historically. I would hate to see it repeated here.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of flb's post-threal, posted by SLS on September 5, 2006, at 4:43:28
Friends,
It is written here as a response to my invitation for others that are interested to email me to see what I have been revealed in regards to the accusation made agianst the Jews that is in question here,[...I hope one does not accuse an entire catagory of people...].
What has been revealed to me does not accuse a catagory of people, so if you email me for what has been revealed to me, you will not find that accusation in my reply to you.
I would like to post what has been revealed to me about this, but I am awaiting Dr. Hsiung's reply to my request for clarification to his new rules here about posting URLs and such.
In SLS's post here, it is written,[...mistake made historically...hate to see it repeated here...].
I agree with Scott and I am asking to post my response from my perspective to the posts in question here. In my response, if it will be allowed, I will have the opportunity to post from a Jewish perspective to be included in what has been posted. This response could have the potential to clarify what is fact, and what could be considered to be historically false.
If you email me for what I have been revealed about this, there is no accusation to a catagory of people.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:22
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of flb's post-threal, posted by Lou Pilder on September 4, 2006, at 21:01:18
Friends,
It is written her,[...If the.. statement was made inspite of {the author knowing} it was false, you are..seek some remedy...].
Well, what if the author does not know that what is in question could be false? And what if the author contends that it is true?
You see, in the past practice here, is the intent of the author been what determines what is civil or not? In other words, for me to seek some remedy, is it a requierment that it is to be shown that;
A. the statement is false?
B. the author knew that it is false?
One can search the archives to see what the past practice has been here in relation to this.
Lou
Posted by Alexus on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:23
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of flb's post-itnt, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2006, at 6:08:01
Lou wants to post from one Jewish persons perspective but he also wants to claim that he is speaking for ALL Jews.
I tend to believe that there is as much diversity within Jewish people as there is within Christian people and Mormon people and Buddist people and also within African American people and Hispanic people and Canadian people etc etc.
So...
You can only talk for you Lou
Just like I can only talk for me
And the next person can only talk for themThat is why there are limits on how many posts Lou can post. You aren't a spokesperson for all people of Jewish faith. Not anymore than I am a spokesperson for the mentally ill. Not at all... My opinion is one among many... And so is yours. You might find a few Jewish people to agree with you... But everyone can find that. It is being a representative sample that is that much harder.
Who gets to decide whether something 'may invoke feelings of hostility towards x group of people'?
One person from group x?
The majority of group x?
Do people from outside group x have a say?
Posted by SLS on September 16, 2006, at 9:25:23
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of flb's post-itnt, posted by Alexus on September 5, 2006, at 6:19:43
> Lou wants to post from one Jewish persons perspective but he also wants to claim that he is speaking for ALL Jews.
I think he had made reference to the position taken by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. There are other Jewish organizations that formulate and promulgate opinions as well. However, even these cannot lay claim to representing the thoughts and feelings of all Jewish people. I think they often portray the passions of the majority, though. Depending on your perspective, it has been the misfortune or the fortune in the history of the Jews that they be segregated and forced to congregate together such that they developed a common set of values, traditions, and goals.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 16, 2006, at 9:43:00
In reply to My point exactly, posted by finelinebob on September 4, 2006, at 19:22:50
> twice you have quoted me out of context within these boards and used these quotes, I feel, to further your own interests with no regard to my own.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS:
> 2 2=5 is a false statement.
Sorry, that should've been:
> 2+2=5 is a false statement.
The plus signs seem not to have been redirected correctly. Nor the "= 5" in the subject of the first post here.
Posted by finelinebob on September 17, 2006, at 1:50:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » finelinebob, posted by Dr. Bob on September 16, 2006, at 9:43:00
> > twice you have quoted me out of context within these boards and used these quotes, I feel, to further your own interests with no regard to my own.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.So, what should I have posted? Perhaps this:
I feel misrepresented when quotes of my posts are cited not just in portion, but incompletely (to wit: the use of ellipses to denote the removal of my own words) and used in logical arguments to provide support to points that may or may not reflect my own personal beliefs.
Would that be a fairly civil re-statement of the quote above?
"quotes of my posts are cited not just in portion, but incompletely (the use of an ellipsis to denote the removal of my own words)" is a demonstrable fact, not an accusation. How is that use of language different from the much more succinct "quoted out of content" which, again, is a demonstrable fact?
"used in logical arguments to provide support to points that may or may not reflect my own personal beliefs" is again a demonstrable fact in that these quotes are used as the basis for presenting a point of view of which I have presented no opinion. But how is that statement different from "used these quotes, I feel, to further your own interests with no regard to my own."?
In fact, the statement you use above to cite as an act of incivility on my part ends prior to the context of stating exactly the point I am making here. I'm not stating that the quoter is faithfully or unfaithfully representing my position, I'm stating my objection to being quoted out of context. My objection is based entirely upon the possibility of others who have not seen the original statement to mistake **my** meaning and intention.
In short, should I have said this:
I feel misrepresented when someone performs demonstrable fact A and/or when that same someone performs demonstrable fact B.If that is the case, then how more meaningful would that statement be than "PDP (nm) >> personX"?
Again, to place the text of my incivility within the context of that post in particular, or the thread as a whole, I see no accusations.
In particular, in the paragraphs preceding the out-of-context quote show a degree of respect and support for the general arguments being made. In the thread as a whole, however, I try to point out how a logical fallicy -- arguing from generalities to specifics -- can undermine support for that argument and so should be avoided if one instead is looking to rally support.If illustrating the untenability of logical fallacies and demonstrating the effect -- personal for me, in this case -- they can have on eliciting support for one's arguments is accusatory or defamatory, then I stand guilty as charged. Particularly if context and stated intention are irrelevant, I stand guilty as charged.
As I said within the context of the quote cited above, I consider accepting responsibility for one's actions admirable in others and a given for myself. As such, I choose to disengage from futher discussion here in order to demonstrate any sense of honesty to those convictions.
flb
Posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 4:30:38
In reply to Again, out of context, posted by finelinebob on September 17, 2006, at 1:50:28
Trying to help. If I'm not helping then ignore me. I think the problematic bit is this:
'used these quotes, I feel, to further your own interests with no regard to my own'.
I don't think that putting 'I feel' in there changes the point that you are making a judgement about Lou's intentions.
(That he is doing the editing with the intention to further his own interests and to disregard yours).
If you say you feel misrepresented then I think that is okay.
> I feel misrepresented when quotes of my posts are cited not just in portion, but incompletely (to wit: the use of ellipses to denote the removal of my own words) and used in logical arguments to provide support to points that may or may not reflect my own personal beliefs.
I think that is okay.
Posted by Toph on September 17, 2006, at 7:35:04
In reply to Re: Again, out of context » finelinebob, posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 4:30:38
So let me see if I understand this correctly, alex. Hypothetically speaking, say there is a person who is obsessed with, let's say religion, which is manifested in that person having a persecution complex. And this individual on Psycho-Babble is hypervigilant, for example, and manipulates another poster's comments into altered statements that changed their meanings and offended the original author - this is not uncivil, but the author describing what had been done to him, that is uncivil?
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 7:50:21
In reply to Re: Again, out of context » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 17, 2006, at 7:35:04
> So let me see if I understand this correctly, alex. Hypothetically speaking, say there is a person who is obsessed with, let's say religion, which is manifested in that person having a persecution complex. And this individual on Psycho-Babble is hypervigilant, for example, and manipulates another poster's comments into altered statements that changed their meanings and offended the original author - this is not uncivil, but the author describing what had been done to him, that is uncivil?
I think it is the "accusing" and "jumping to conclusions" type thing. You know, the attempt to read one's mind. These are the things that are, I believed, being judged to be implied by the words "used these quotes, I feel, to further your own interests with no regard to my own".
It is the judgment of another's intent that I believe is being focused upon here.
- Scott
Posted by Toph on September 17, 2006, at 7:58:37
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 7:50:21
Exactly.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 9:40:33
In reply to Re: Again, out of context » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 17, 2006, at 7:35:04
These are boards for people who struggle with mental illness.
Everyone has their own hang ups, I would say...
And I'm not sure a full and fair description can be captured quite like that.
I mean... Open a psychodynamic text if you want to know what interpretations some theorists put on... Bipolar. Or depression. Or whatever.
I think that sometimes it is viewing behaviour as volountarily malevolent that causes us to feel anger or frustration. Seeing it that way can also help us feel justified in our indignation.
Sometimes if you change the way you view it...
You can change how you feel about it.
It just doesn't get to you that much.
Or you feel sympathy instead of frustration.Sometimes
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 11:00:58
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 9:40:33
> Sometimes if you change the way you view it...
> You can change how you feel about it.
> It just doesn't get to you that much.
> Or you feel sympathy instead of frustration.
>
> SometimesI hope Dinah is reading this.
Dinah, what was that pearl of wisdom you offered a few weeks ago that roughly translated into having unconditional acceptance?
Ok. I went back and found it.
It was some sort of Eastern philosophical thing.
"Radical acceptance"
I guess it is something like what we have now "It is what it is.", but better.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 11:04:08
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 9:40:33
> Or you feel sympathy instead of frustration.
Or respect instead of sympathy.
- Scott
Posted by Racer on September 17, 2006, at 15:22:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of flb's post, posted by finelinebob on September 3, 2006, at 22:15:15
Depending, of course, on context....
I haven't finished reading this thread yet, so someone else may have pointed this out already. If so, forgive me.
2+2=5, is true, for large values of 2.
Sometimes context can be the deciding factor.
"The earth is flat." Well, if you mean the entire planet, no, but if you mean "the earth throughout much of the Midwestern United States is flat," well...
I dunno. I just get sad when I read a lot of these threads, because I start to feel as though feelings get hurt unnecessarily. My own feelings sometimes get wrought up, even by something not directed at me personally. I also feel very frustrated, which I know comes from my own perspective: if looks pretty simple to me, and I have a hard time understanding why it's so hard for someone else. I know that's because my own perspective blinds me to other valid perspectives, so that's not at all meant as suggesting anyone else is wrong. It's just an attempt to explain my own feelings here.
So, I dunno...
Posted by Racer on September 17, 2006, at 15:40:40
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 11:00:58
> >
> I hope Dinah is reading this.
>
> Dinah, what was that pearl of wisdom you offered a few weeks ago that roughly translated into having unconditional acceptance?
>
> It was some sort of Eastern philosophical thing.
>
> "Radical acceptance"
>
> I guess it is something like what we have now "It is what it is.", but better.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
>I think "Radical Acceptance" is part of DBT?
But, I could be wrong about that...
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 15:54:43
In reply to I think... (someone can correct me...) » SLS, posted by Racer on September 17, 2006, at 15:40:40
> > >
> > I hope Dinah is reading this.
> >
> > Dinah, what was that pearl of wisdom you offered a few weeks ago that roughly translated into having unconditional acceptance?
> >
> > It was some sort of Eastern philosophical thing.
> >
> > "Radical acceptance"
> >
> > I guess it is something like what we have now "It is what it is.", but better.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I think "Radical Acceptance" is part of DBT?
>
> But, I could be wrong about that...
I think its origins are in Zen.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 17:46:52
In reply to I think... (someone can correct me...) » SLS, posted by Racer on September 17, 2006, at 15:40:40
You are both right.
Linehan imported aspects of Eastern mindfulness training into DBT.
Radical acceptance is one of those zen concepts that come up in DBT.
Yeah, that kind of was what I was getting at.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2006, at 21:12:14
In reply to Again, out of context, posted by finelinebob on September 17, 2006, at 1:50:28
> what should I have posted? Perhaps this:
>
> I feel misrepresented when quotes of my posts are cited not just in portion, but incompletely (to wit: the use of ellipses to denote the removal of my own words) and used in logical arguments to provide support to points that may or may not reflect my own personal beliefs.
>
> Would that be a fairly civil re-statement of the quote above?That would've been fine.
> "used in logical arguments to provide support to points that may or may not reflect my own personal beliefs" is again a demonstrable fact ... But how is that statement different from "used these quotes, I feel, to further your own interests with no regard to my own."?
As others have already said, the difference is that the former doesn't jump to any conclusions about the other person's intent.
Also, IMO, it sometimes can be uncivil to state something even if it's a demonstrable fact.
Bob
Posted by Toph on September 17, 2006, at 21:16:59
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 9:40:33
> These are boards for people who struggle with mental illness.
>
> Everyone has their own hang ups, I would say...
>
> And I'm not sure a full and fair description can be captured quite like that.
>
> I mean... Open a psychodynamic text if you want to know what interpretations some theorists put on... Bipolar. Or depression. Or whatever.
>
> I think that sometimes it is viewing behaviour as volountarily malevolent that causes us to feel anger or frustration. Seeing it that way can also help us feel justified in our indignation.
>
> Sometimes if you change the way you view it...
> You can change how you feel about it.
> It just doesn't get to you that much.
> Or you feel sympathy instead of frustration.
>
> SometimesDefinitely radical acceptance would help me with my frustrations here, alex, and probably allow me to tolerate myself more, as well. And I think it might have a beneficial effect on certain obsessions.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 17, 2006, at 22:20:12
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by Toph on September 17, 2006, at 21:16:59
> Definitely radical acceptance would help me with my frustrations here, alex, and probably allow me to tolerate myself more, as well. And I think it might have a beneficial effect on certain obsessions.
I guess we can only worry about our response. Our response is (in theory) within our power whereas other peoples aren't.
You know...
I never really thought of the reframing as radical acceptance. But maybe it is a way of going about... Enabling oneself to... Radically accept another person. And yeah, sometimes (well most times) we need to radically accept ourselves too.
(((((Toph))))))
Nice to see you here :-)
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2006, at 18:31:16
In reply to Re: Again, out of context, posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 11:00:58
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.