Contex does matter, absolutely; but aside from finding the rest of your post a little incomprehensible, I didn't really see how it really related to or softened the first two lines. I don't know what you would call hanging on to earlier frameworks of viewing authority, but to me it sounds like a dressed up definition of immaturity. I apologize for the part about jumping to conclusions, but I still stand by the assertion that wholesale resistance to authority is a matter of intellectual immaturity. Presenting an obviously false dichotomy that none of us suggested as a means of pointing out the absurdity of our argument is a little unfair. Perhaps just as unfair as jumping on a banal logical point. The reference to the SAT was not meant to be patronizing but was rather my attempt to make the analogy clear for myself. Sorry you took it as a disparagement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you know, lurkette, if my post was two lines long, i'd have come in and said yes you are right it was a jump mea culpa etc.
but it wasn't two lines long.
the problem your post poses for me is not its-----um-----selective editing of what i wrote--that happens lots in this kind of format...
the problem comes from my not being sure of what to make of your decision to route a banal logical point, which mayb be formally correct in itself, but which is wholly undercut by the fundamental mistake of ignoring context, through a patronizing reference to the sat.
no-one, not even the greatest of chess masters, would presume to have worked out an entire game based on the first move in isolation.
the first move only becomes other than arbitrary when it is followed by a second.
context matters.
if you have a problem with the substance of what i wrote, then speak to that.
i'll check back later, if i remember to....
|