![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by Damos on February 9, 2006, at 15:26:55
In reply to Re: One more thing » ClearSkies, posted by AuntieMel on February 8, 2006, at 10:04:05
Hey AuntieMel,
I was kinda hoping you might come and visit with on this thread, so thank you. Your opinions and point of view matter to me and I really admire the way you are on 'Politics'(h*ll, everywhere you are) - your clarity and passion. You bring a lot to the boards and it means a lot to me that you're here.
You take good care now okay.
(((((AuntieMel)))))
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 16:56:24
In reply to Re: A very un-me post » Dinah, posted by Damos on February 9, 2006, at 15:20:41
Thanks Damos. And I could say the same to you.
I'm ok today. The answer may be different tomorrow. :)
Posted by 5 on February 27, 2006, at 7:09:42
In reply to Alex's block - Dr Bob, posted by Damos on February 6, 2006, at 20:21:10
Why did this administration thread get ignored? Because you didn't have a good reason for the block? Or because you didn't have the time to come up with one?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2006, at 0:43:23
In reply to Re: Alex's block - Dr Bob, posted by 5 on February 27, 2006, at 7:09:42
> Why did this administration thread get ignored? Because you didn't have a good reason for the block? Or because you didn't have the time to come up with one?
I didn't ignore it, I just didn't think I needed to post to it. I thought the reason that I gave, that others might feel accused or put down, was a good one. Do you disagree?
Bob
Posted by 5 on March 1, 2006, at 21:27:25
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2006, at 0:43:23
> I thought the reason that I gave, that others might feel accused or put down, was a good one. Do you disagree?
When you blocked her you said that the reason was that others might feel accused or put down.
It was AFTER your 'explanation' that people posted saying that they didn't understand. Doesn't that suggest to you that they didn't think your reason was a good one?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:40:00
In reply to Re: Alex's block » Dr. Bob, posted by 5 on March 1, 2006, at 21:27:25
> > I thought the reason that I gave, that others might feel accused or put down, was a good one. Do you disagree?
>
> It was AFTER your 'explanation' that people posted saying that they didn't understand. Doesn't that suggest to you that they didn't think your reason was a good one?It could suggest that, reasonable people can disagree. I just hope she didn't take it personally, it didn't mean I didn't like her or thought she was a bad person.
Bob
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 3:36:05
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:40:00
> > > I thought the reason that I gave, that others might feel accused or put down, was a good one. Do you disagree?
I agree that it is good to block people for saying things that are likely to have others feeling accused or put down.
I don't agree that what was said was likely to have others feel accused or put down.
If others did feel accused or put down then I think that would indicate that they took what was said overly personally rather than indicating that what was said was inappropriate.
If someone felt accused or put down by what was said they could have posted something to that effect.
If they had done that then how do you think the poster who was blocked would have responded to that.
It is true that rational people can disagree...
But if they end up endorsing claims that are logically incompatible then (unless paraconsistent logics are true) they cannot both be right.> I just hope she didn't take it personally...
What are blocks about?
I thought they were about protecting the community from comments that are likely to have others feel accused / put down.
Should the blocked poster not take it personally that they were blocked...
While other people are considered entitled in taking what the poster said personally...
Where is the consistency here?
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 3:38:37
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:40:00
> It could suggest that, reasonable people can disagree.
I went to a couple seminars on that today.
That is controversial...
(Does that mean it is true)
lol.It might well be the case that reasonable people can disagree...
But it is still the case that one gets blocked...
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 3:53:26
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 3:38:37
And if there is reason either way...
Then how do you decide whether to block or not?
Depends on how you are feeling?
Posted by muffled on March 3, 2006, at 1:01:26
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 3:53:26
> And if there is reason either way...
>
> Then how do you decide whether to block or not?
>
> Depends on how you are feeling?
>
>Ya good thread, i'd like to know too.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 3:17:05
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 3:53:26
> Should the blocked poster not take it personally that they were blocked...
>
> While other people are considered entitled in taking what the poster said personally...
>
> Where is the consistency here?One way to look at it is in terms of roles. Mine is to administrate, while that of posters is to support.
> And if there is reason either way...
>
> Then how do you decide whether to block or not?I try to use my best judgment.
Bob
Posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 5:05:04
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 3:17:05
> > Should the blocked poster not take it personally that they were blocked...
> > While other people are considered entitled in taking what the poster said personally...
> > Where is the consistency here?
> One way to look at it is in terms of roles. Mine is to administrate, while that of posters is to support.Support and education. I thought education came into it too. And my variety of education... Is based on critique.
So to be charitable... Blocks aren't personal they are just admin actions.
But then to be charitable... Maybe my post wasn't supportive, but maybe it was more in the spirit of education. I don't think I was saying that the policy WAS hypocritical (in the sense of my trying to educate people that that was the case). It was more about 'lets have a think about whether there is a relevant difference' (aka educate me please). To get other people thinking. To maybe learn something new.
I found a link before and I was trying to find it again. T Nagel (on some accounts the best moral philosopher in the world - an American currently employed at NYU) was talking about one of his books. In his book he critiqued American foreign policy. He was going to publish it and then... September 11. He said in the interview that he held off publishing it for a year because the tendancy was to take criticism of American foreign policy personally. Like it was condoning September 11 or something. And he worried about offending people and getting them off side so they would be more likely to write him off as a complete crank. He has some fairly radical views that there is no ownership pre-taxation and that redistributive justice is a fairer system (I think it is okay to say that). I guess my point is that... I'm not used to people taking critique of government policy personally (even when I refer to the government shorthand as 'peoples'). It is alien to my way of thinking. That people are so emotionally involved like that. I mean... I appreciate that it is like that in some countries in the world... And I'd heard that Americans tended to be very nationalistic... But I didn't appreciate things were quite that way.
> > And if there is reason either way...
> > Then how do you decide whether to block or not?
> I try to use my best judgment.
Yeah. In my better moments I know you do.
I'm sorry about doubting that...I still think I need to leave politics alone. I don't think I've got my head around the relevant cognitive gymnastics. And... I'm not so sure I want to. I don't know. But to be fair how many times have I said that? Maybe it is more about... Stopping after getting a warning on the thread.
I'm sorry.
Thanks for talking this through.
Posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 5:16:50
In reply to Re: Alex's block » Dr. Bob, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 5:05:04
I'm truely not trying to hurt your feelings...
But
IMO
This recent pic is truely awful.
Hmm.
Posted by Dinah on March 6, 2006, at 9:14:16
In reply to PS, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 5:16:50
Actually, I kind of like it. It sort of fits with Admin lately.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:13:37
In reply to Re: Alex's block » Dr. Bob, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 5:05:04
> Maybe my post wasn't supportive, but maybe it was more in the spirit of education. ... It was more about 'lets have a think about whether there is a relevant difference' (aka educate me please). To get other people thinking. To maybe learn something new.
Education, even if not "supportive", still needs to be respectful of the views of others and sensitive to their feelings. Both of those rephrases would be fine...
> I'm not used to people taking critique of government policy personally (even when I refer to the government shorthand as 'peoples'). It is alien to my way of thinking.
Live and learn...
> Maybe it is more about... Stopping after getting a warning on the thread.
Stopping on your own would be *so* much better. :-)
Bob
Posted by zeugma on March 6, 2006, at 16:41:19
In reply to Re: Alex's block » Dr. Bob, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 5:05:04
I found a link before and I was trying to find it again. T Nagel (on some accounts the best moral philosopher in the world - an American currently employed at NYU) was talking about one of his books. In his book he critiqued American foreign policy. He was going to publish it and then... September 11. He said in the interview that he held off publishing it for a year because the tendancy was to take criticism of American foreign policy personally. Like it was condoning September 11 or something. And he worried about offending people and getting them off side so they would be more likely to write him off as a complete crank. He has some fairly radical views that there is no ownership pre-taxation and that redistributive justice is a fairer system (I think it is okay to say that). I guess my point is that... I'm not used to people taking critique of government policy personally (even when I refer to the government shorthand as 'peoples'). It is alien to my way of thinking. That people are so emotionally involved like that.>>
thomas Nagel... It is fair to say that there is no such thing as a view from nowhere, and that I would have thought a priori that the author of the portentously titled "Mortal Questions" would not be so cagey about disseminating his views. On the cover of the edition I have is a very beautiful painting by some Florentine master depicting a woman looking at a skull by candlelight. So odd, that a man who had written such a book would be so sensitive to public opinion.
Not all Americans are so sensitive to public opinion. I just wish his book had lived up to his cover.
-z
Posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 17:02:02
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:13:37
> Education, even if not "supportive", still needs to be respectful of the views of others and sensitive to their feelings...
Yeah see ouch again :-(
I don't think I was being disrespectful
And I don't think I was being insensitive to other peoples feelings either
And I would have thought that a charitable reading of my post in context...And there is the difficulty.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 22:19:21
In reply to random discourse on mortality, redirect if nec. » 838, posted by zeugma on March 6, 2006, at 16:41:19
> > I found a link before and I was trying to find it again. T Nagel (on some accounts the best moral philosopher in the world - an American currently employed at NYU) was talking about one of his books. In his book he critiqued American foreign policy...
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding foreign policy to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/617294.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 838 on March 8, 2006, at 4:02:58
In reply to Redirect: foreign policy, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 22:19:21
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 9:28:00
In reply to :-( (nm), posted by 838 on March 8, 2006, at 4:02:58
You just *thought* you were going to stay off the politics board.
<grin>
Posted by Damos on March 8, 2006, at 16:05:11
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:13:37
> Live and learn...
> Bob
I know you didn't mean it to be but when I saw this comment in the context of the thread and the ongoing dialogue, I just thought "Ouch!"
Looks innocent just sitting there all by itself doesn't it? Hmm, so just maybe the reverse can also be true too. In my opinion it was highly insensitive.
Damos
Posted by Damos on March 8, 2006, at 16:57:24
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:13:37
Well it's taken me a while but just after midnight last night I finally worked out what was *really* irking me about this block.
Cast your minds back to the post that triggered the original "Please Rephrase That" (think i have all the links right)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121msgs/605246.html
I apologise in advance for repeating the phrase that was at issue from that post but it is necessary in making my point.
"the us has been f*cking it up for the other present citizens of the world too..."
This was the phrase at issue, this was what the poster was warned off about. However; contained in the same post, before this statement was the following:
"the us has nuclear weapons.
the uk has nuclear weapons.
why on earth shouldn't iran have them?i think this stance is a little hypocritical"
This received no warning, no hint that it was tippy-toeing on a knifes edge.
The poster then acknowledged the warning, apologised and re-phrased the statement at issue immediately
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/606360.html
They are then subsequently blocked for the following statement:
"i think the people with nukes are being hypocritical in saying another country can't have them."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/606759.html
In my opinion the poster would quite rightly have believed based on the pevious statement not being at issue that this was okay within the guidelines. Whether the perceived approval was explicit (precisely & clearly stated), implicit (expressed indirectly; contained in though not stated openly) or tacit (implied or inferred without direct expression) doesn't much matter. If that perception of approval existed in the mind of the poster, through no fault of their own and they are then blocked as a result I find that cruel and unfair. And their anger and frustration at not being able to make sense of the block becomes even more understandable.
I'd be interested in your opinion Bob.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 21:37:15
In reply to Re: Alex's block » Dr. Bob, posted by Damos on March 8, 2006, at 16:57:24
> In my opinion the poster would quite rightly have believed based on the pevious statement not being at issue that this was okay within the guidelines. Whether the perceived approval was explicit (precisely & clearly stated), implicit (expressed indirectly; contained in though not stated openly) or tacit (implied or inferred without direct expression) doesn't much matter. If that perception of approval existed in the mind of the poster, through no fault of their own and they are then blocked as a result I find that cruel and unfair. And their anger and frustration at not being able to make sense of the block becomes even more understandable.
>
> I'd be interested in your opinion Bob.My opinion is that reasonable people can disagree. Peace,
Bob
Posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 2:34:48
In reply to Re: Alex's block, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 21:37:15
It wasn't so much that I took silence for approval...
It is more that I took silence (on that issue - I mentioned the hypocracy idea twice before being blocked)... I took silence as the absence of disapproval. And I took the bit I was blocked for to be a shorthand for the idea I had expressed twice (in the absence of disapproval) before.I don't know... I do believe you do your best... But I guess I think you could be a little more careful (aka hesitant to block) when there are more charitable interpretations available...
I don't know.
Sorry :-(
Posted by Damos on March 9, 2006, at 15:21:17
In reply to Re: Alex's block » Dr. Bob, posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 2:34:48
> It wasn't so much that I took silence for approval...
> It is more that I took silence (on that issue - I mentioned the hypocracy idea twice before being blocked)... I took silence as the absence of disapproval. And I took the bit I was blocked for to be a shorthand for the idea I had expressed twice (in the absence of disapproval) before.That's what I was trying to get at. How, given that you'd basically said the same thing before were you able to protect yourself from/avoid the possibility altogether of, the block. You couldn't possibly and nor could any other babbler in the same situation.
> I don't know... I do believe you do your best... But I guess I think you could be a little more careful (aka hesitant to block) when there are more charitable interpretations available...
> I don't know.
Me neither >:-/
> Sorry :-(Nothing to be sorry about, you're just trying to make sense of something in order to protect yourself in future and in order to feel safe. Nothing wrong in that.
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.