I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...
What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.
So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.
I phrased it that way so it would obvious that I expected you to do the same. I did do those things, even though I wrote "I might," because you told me (then asked me) what I would do in your position.
Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I said with you in the position of someone else saying to you they will check your balances. There's no need for 'might' there.
And in the end it seems if you don't think you've offended someone, then that's it. So what else are you expecting of me - if I don't think I've entered into any problems you've described, then that's it, just as much, surely? It seems a little being able to give oneself a free pass, but maybe I read some other interpretation of what you're saying, Mike?
Anyway, poster to poster
Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...
Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?
It's not just your problem. Both Kellais and you recognized that he might have been clearer. And when Kellais tried for clarity a second time you seem to have suggested that he was being uncharitable because he didn't phrase it properly in the first place...
Assuming I'm understanding right, no, I didn't.
I mean, if you quote this your going to quote the section of me talking about impulses of the brain - and no one reading that as the electrical impulses of the brain.
Or is there another section you'd quote?
It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.
And then, if you look back further back to your previous post before this:
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.
Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.
Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?
Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.
Does it mean you DO grant them the status?
When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?
I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.
Fuck morals, in that case.
It seems fairly obvious to me that instead of asking all these questions, which almost certainly include the very phrasing or term Kellais was unclear about, you might have simply clarified your earlier statement and comprehension might have occurred...
Looking past whether I had no idea how he wanted elaboration, is Kellais making a claim in what you quote or not?
If you don't see him as making a claim, I can see where you're coming from.
If you can see a claim being made, you're being hypocritical.
[sarcasm]If you really have this amazing power to communicate everything you want to in perfect and clear encapsulated statements, I don't know... Preach because your unique recognition will astound us all.[/sarcasm]
If you really think you all have this amazing power to ask the right bloody questions, preach because....etc etc.
You're coming from perfection. Of course I have no way of competing with that.
The only person you have on the plate of examination is me. Come join me. The water's lovely.
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
Alright. You might well be the most uncharitable reader here by that metric.
Maybe? I'm not sure I understand your use of metrics here?
Do you humour that
you might, unexpectedly for you, end up as the most uncharitable? Or is it always the other guy?
It seems a little bit human default to just declare the conclusion (that I'm the most uncharitable) and...nothing else. Are you sure you aren't just doing the human default? Make your conclusion, figure the evidence for it afterward? What was the measure before this moment?
Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?
That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.
A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.
To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?
Nothing comes to mind?
Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.
The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.
To me, another random poster on this forum, starting off your "response" with "Nothing comes to mind?" has no communicative value other than to showcase that Kellais doesn't understand something that you think is obvious...
I don't understand why it was necessary to write that particular line.
To showcase something didn't come to his mind.
Granted, me treating sex slaves as something that should be noticed might be hubris.
But let's say its worth noticing as an example of human rights not being granted - how would you put it when the other person misses this example entirely? You wouldn't say 'nothing comes to mind?' - okay, what would you say?
Or would you avoid rocking the boat (in this, IMO, mild way)?
You can question the estimated mildness of it, but if you'd just hunker down and keep the boat steady - I can't say I'm the same.
This isn't shutting down conversation?
Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.
It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.
Again, as another random poster on this forum - the bold in your quote describes yourself. I can't even believe that you would compare this situation conversing with Kellais to "conversing" with Vox...
You're as certain as you describe me as being certain, Mike.
If you can only be right, then what can I say - your yardstick surely is the longest.