Bomb#20

This invites the question: who are these "other people"? Do their identities need to be kept confidential?

Good luck with that.

Angra Mainyu

My full sentence was:

So the answer to your question is of course no, they can post here and make their case if they like, but I didn't want to run the risk of mistakenly identifying someone whose position I might have misunderstood, or someone whose position I understood but who isn't interested in debating it.

Unfortunately, I guess it's going to be more difficult if potential posters see that there's some argument not related to the matter at hand going on.

Bomb#20

A sensible concern. But you understand that even without naming names you were running that risk, don't you? Context matters.

I take it your position that there exist people who think (A) is correct is not an issue you regard as related to the matter at hand. Then, though I remain skeptical, I shan't argue the point. So there is no argument on another matter going on. Come, one and all!

Angra Mainyu

The risk of misinterpreting someone's position?

Of course, but that seems inevitable in these threads.

The risk of accidentally identifying someone whose position I misunderstood, as holding a position they don't actually hold?

No, since I didn't identify anyone.

The risk that someone could take offense anyway?

Yes. Unfortunately, that seems to be inevitable in these threads as well, and I think it's part of what makes debating ideas so difficult - that, along with the misunderstanding of other posters' positions.

However, I thought that the issue was an interesting one to discuss, as a separate matter (i.e., not in the same threads in which philosophical issues are discussed), and I've come to the conclusion that's probably impossible to debate without risking offending someone. One can take precautions to try to reduce the risk, but often the precautions prove to be insufficient.

I was referring to the tissue of who's offended and why and if it's getting personal, etc.

With regard to the issue of whether someone holds position A), I'd rather not name names and debate what any poster may or may not think, but if someone wants to argue for any of them or against any of them, that's what the thread is for.

Of course, it's possible that I was mistaken in thinking that there are people who think (A) is correct. Misinterpretations of other posters' positions are ubiquitous, and I'm not immune to that.

In any event, if anyone wants to discuss these matters (and regardless of whether they hold that (A) is true or not), that can make for an interesting thread (interesting to me, anyway). If no one wants to debate any of that, well, some threads die young.

Bomb#20

You don't? That's unfortunate.

I disagree. You seem to be suggesting that context doesn't matter, and the only possible identifications are explicit ones.

Well, I won't argue about that if you won't.

Angra Mainyu

From your perspective. From mine, it's unfortunate that you claim and keep claiming otherwise in this thread. It's no longer a thread about moral psychology research, but a thread in which you raise accusations that I have to fend off.

You're offended, I'm offended, and the thread is lost.
I suggest – I say – that I didn't identify anyone in this context. I didn't name you, so if your position is not (A) (and you're clearly implying that it is not), I don't see the problem.

To be frank, I didn't imagine that that part of my post would offend anyone, but then again, different people get offended by very different things, and I can only prevent cases I've seen before or others that come to mind. This wasn't one of them.
I disagree, it's way too late for that.

Despite my attempts to explain my position and cool things off, you've continued implying that you're offended, and accusing of having provoked that by misrepresenting your position, which I didn't. I didn't identify you, but I even explicitly considered the possibility that my interpretation of other posters' position was mistaken.

I tried to reply in as neutral a tone as I could and save the thread, but that didn't work out and now it's beyond saving, so I guess we can continue this pointless argument for some time until a moderator closes the thread.

Unfortunate indeed, at least from my perspective since I wanted to debate the issue.

Bomb#20

With apologies to Panpsychist, who is invited to ignore this post...

The problem you created was a problem for me, not for you. Are you under the impression that the "context" of a post is the post itself? The context is the series of earlier posts in which you repeatedly presented the same arguments to me personally, repeatedly implying in that thread that you thought my position was hypothesis (A), even after I told you it wasn't. It's a context you explicitly referred the readers of this thread to.

"As you probably guessed if you've read some of my previous posts,"

So when you continued

"I maintain that the answer is B). However, it seems other people think that A) is correct"

there was little chance your readers would fail to think of me. That, IMHO, is identification. You inadvertently placed me in an untenable situation, so I altered it.

I didn't indicate that I'm offended. I indicated that I disagreed with your opinion that believers in (A) exist*; I indicated that I disagreed with your opinion that you didn't identify me by mistake; and I indicated that I wish you understood the broader consequences of your post. I haven't been talking about offenses, misrepresentations or provocations.

(* I may well have been mistaken on this point, although I suspect Panpsychic's tentative endorsement of position (A) results from terminological differences, since relative uniformity and disagreement being only a thin veneer do not sound to me like the same thing as morality being unique. But that's an issue for you to resolve.)

Which was appropriate; but since you presented it merely as a possibility, I felt it necessary to confirm that hypothesis (A) is not my position, lest your readers rely on your impression that other people think that (A) is correct, guess where you might have acquired that impression, and put two and two together.

I expect a debate about whose tone has been neutral and who has been heating or cooling the thread wouldn't persuade either of us. Though I disagree with your opinion on this subject too, I'm content to let the matter rest here. I hope you are too.

...we now return to your regular programming.

Angra Mainyu

Actually, I posted my opinion in several threads, and discussing with definitely more than one poster. I, however, didn't identify any of those posters. Whether readers would think of you would depend on whether readers interpret your position as being (A). If your position is not (A), then they wouldn't identify you, unless they've misread you – in which case, that's not a problem I create.

Still, if you wanted for whatever reason to say that your position wasn't (A), you could have just said so, without all these accusations.
After reading your posts again, I still get the same impression by both the words and the tone of it. If you didn't mean that, that'd be a misunderstanding.
Again, the tone and wording of your posts say otherwise to me. But I may have misinterpreted, I guess.
I do insist I didn't identify anyone. I've already explained my position, so we disagree. But by continuing this argument, this thread continues to be disrupted.
Regardless the existence of believers in (A), as I explicitly acknowledged in my OP, I considered the possibility of being mistaken in my interpretation of their stance.
I presented is as a possibility. Given that I've stated my position in several threads and debating with more than one poster, and given that if readers of this thread have read the thread in which I discuss with you they have their own opinion of your position – not mine – I don't see the problem.
However, if you want to say that your position is not (A), that wouldn't have been a problem, either, or disruptive at all. You would only have needed to say so.
Yes, I don't expect that that would persuade either of us, either.

I was content to let the matter rest with the post to which you latest replied, and now I'm content to let it rest here, but I'm not sure you'd be content to let it rest here now that I've replied. I surely hope so. Otherwise, I'd suggest continuing it in another thread, perhaps in the Complaints forum, instead of here.

windsofchange

Closed pending moderator discussion.

LoneWolf

<MF&P to ~E~>