FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

(G*rd*n) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > ...
> > >
> > > I.
> > > (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> > > >>>>>>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> > > >>>>>>>> fellow citizens.
> > >
> > > II.
> > > :
> > > >>>>>>> I am a business owner.
> > >
> > > III.
> > > "G*rd*n" >
> > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.
> > >
> > > IV.
> > > "zztop8970" >:
> > > >>>> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out
> of the
> > > >>>> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up
> deposit cans
> > > >>>> out of the gutter ?
>
> (G*rd*n):
> > > > > >> Not at all.
>
> (zztop8970-):
> > > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur.
> > > > > > ...
> > >
> (G*rd*n):
> > > > > It does, doesn't it?
>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or
> are
> > > > they not?
>
> (G*rd*n):
> > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior
> > > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business
> > > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive
> > > construction) and that if he did he might have different
> > > opinions.
>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about
> > business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than
> > others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business
> > owning citizens.
> >
> > I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple
> > reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me,
> > and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat ,
> > though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean
> > Maxims.).
> > I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from
> > other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the
> > notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from
> > even more ludicrous suggestions in the past).
>
>
> I.3 there ("that this is because they are not like non-business
> owning citizens") is incorrect. As I recall -- hazily -- I
> had gotten the idea that wrjames thought business owners were
> _unlike_ other citizens.

If your memory of things posted a day or two ago is hazy, there are
specialists you can see who can treat that problem. Until then,
there's a web site, groups.google.com, where articles are archived,
and you can refersh your hazy memory.

Gratuitous fun at your expense aside, what WrJames posted was
"Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. " To me, this
suggests that he thinks business owners are the same as everyone else.
How you got from that to the notion that he thinks the are different
than everyone else is for your shrink to explain. Projection probably
comes into play.

> Perhaps I thought he was portraying
> them as unusually virtuous,

He siad they want the same things as everyone else. Is your reading
comprehension that deficient, or is this the best back pedaling you
can come up with?

<snip>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is
> > with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it
> > is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being
> > stated explicitly.
>
>
> I wouldn't make that assumption. If people automatically knew
> what they were, then Socrates would not have advised them to
> know themselves (because it would have been superfluous).

The fact the _some_ people may not know who they are ( a doubtful
proposition in itself, even if Socrates said so) does not alter the
default assumption that most people do know who they are, and that
when one retorts with "I am X" to the charge that he knows nothign
about X, that Gricean principles dictate we assume the ommitted ("and
thus I know about X")

> Nor would Robert Burns have written "O wad some pow'r the
> giftie gie us / To see oursels as others see us" which is
> surely an important component of self-knowledge.

Poppycock. While knowing how others see us is importnat, it has
nothing to do with what we know of ourselves. A negro may know he is a
human being equal in rights to his white slave owner. The fact that
all slave owners see him as a piece of property does not change what
he knows of himself an iota.

> Moreover,
> even if wrjames does know what he is as an individual, his
> sample is exceedingly small for the drawing of statistically
> valid conclusions for the whole population of business owners.

True, but is a different argument altogether. Had you resppnded to him
highlighting the anecdotal nature of his evidence, I probably would
not have bothered to intervene. But since you chose to respond with
non sequitur, I thought I might enjoy exposing you for the weasel you
are.