People on both sides are using evidence rather than insults to make their points, and citing references, and its just great.
I've found in relationships that granting others the benefit of the doubt (initially) is a good idea. But to do so repeatedly when they prove you wrong is foolish. Civility is generally a good idea, but when you know someone, honesty is the best policy.
I honestly think that there are some people in this forum (and one in particular) who are arrogant, and who attempt to use 'science' (or their frequently wrong interpretation of it) to over-rule and brow-beat others. They believe that their opinion is the only one that counts, and they disrupt discussions that are not framed around their perspective. They use straw-man arguments to mischaracterize the positions of others. They have a double standard and nit-pick at anything they disagree with as 'unproven' or 'folklore'. It doesn't matter to me if they do so with overtones of courtesy - politeness should not provide cover to such forms of aggression.
It is better to deal honestly with such people; empty courtesy and attempts to avoid conflict are not virtuous in such circumstances.
There's an old expression on the Internet (supposedly from the heyday of usenet) that is very applicable here:
Pot. Kettle. Black. --- Refers to the aphorism: "the pot calling the kettle black." Used when indicating that a person is accusing someone else of something the accuser is him- or herself guilty of.
brendan, I only wish you were right about evidence overtaking insults as the general mode of expression in this forum, but apart from the departure of one particular poster it seems to be very much business as usual.
Unpleasant and damaging to the forum as the personal attacks can be, at least they have one valuable function. Resorting to them indicates with great clarity that the abuser lacks the evidence to make his/her point, and is essentially conceding the debate/discussion to the target of the ad hominems.
Its certainly not all good, but really its not just one person insulting me any more, I'm a fan of that. This forum was next to dead, now we have half a dozen people posting.
>>> Pot. Kettle. Black. --- Refers to the aphorism: "the pot calling the kettle black." Used when indicating that a person is accusing someone else of something the accuser is him- or herself guilty of.
I think you miss the point of that idiom, or you are buying into a modern distortion - unless you are saying we both behave the same way, eric. Both the pot and the kettle are black.
Here are some similar idioms in other languages:
# Bangla: à¦à¦¾à¦²à§à¦¨à¦¿ à¦à¦¯à¦¼ à¦¸à§à¦à¦à¦°à§, "à¦¤à§à¦° à¦ªà¦¿à¦à¦¨à§ à¦«à§à¦à¦à§" ("Mesh sieve tells the needle", "You have a hole in your back")
# Bulgarian: ÐÑÐ¸ÑÐ¼ÑÐ» ÑÐµ ÑÑÑÐ±ÐµÐ» Ð½Ð° ÑÑÑÐ±ÐµÐ». ("Nick laughed at dent")
# Chinese: "äºåæ¥ç¬ç¾æ¥", "ä¹é¸¦ç¬çªé»" ("Soldier who fled off the battle fifty steps afar mocks those a hundred steps afar.")
# Croatian: Rugao se lonac loncu, a oba crna. ("Pot mocked another pot, and they were both black")
# Dutch: De pot verwijt de ketel dat hij zwart ziet ("The pot reproaches the kettle for looking black")
# Estonian: Pada sÃµimab katelt - Ã¼hed mustad mÃµlemad ("The pot reproaches the kettle - yet both of them are black")
# German: Ein Esel nennt den andern Langohr. ("One donkey calls the other long-eared")
Well the Bengla one doesn't really have them both on the same level.
>> Well the Bengla one doesn't really have them both on the same level.
Qualitatively, in all cases, both parties in the idioms are equivalent. You can make quantitative distinctions if you like(maybe one donkey does have slightly longer ears, maybe one ran 50 paces while the other ran 100). Regardless, eric muffed his metaphor. But that is one thing I have noticed in this forum - his logic is often quite flawed.
Pot.Kettle.Black. has a specific Internet meaning in line with the posted definition, and it continues to apply in this thread. ;)
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
So do you feel that the way you personally choose to take something is more important than the common way in which it is taken? A sieve and a needle both have holes, but the number of holes is important, its not a matter of 50% more steps or 15% longer ears, its a factor of thousands.
This thread is rotting on the vine. Are y'all seriously going to argue about the ratio of donkey ears?
You can sell that fruit on ebay, it is the image of the Virgin Herbalist.