.

Dear david f,

.

I wrote :

« I vote “no”. Do you maintain your “yes” vote?" »

And you replied :

« Why would you think otherwise? »
.
I wouldn’t. My initial thought was « I presume you maintain your “yes” vote.» But I wrote instead :

« Do you maintain your “yes” vote? », for three reasons :

1) I considered that my initial thought was too presumptive,
2) I always favour open questions rather than closed questions
3) I never provide the questions and the answers - just the questions
.

You also wrote :

« Do you favour either point of view? »
.

I think the “points of view” you are referring to are :

1) Life has a purpose and, 2) life does not have a purpose.

I consider that life does not have a purpose but that I can (and do) give my life a purpose.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Many of our arguments or discussions in olo seem to me rather pointless. Different sides restate their positions. Abortion/woman’s rights is one example. That has a resonance in the present world as it refers to a legal position which may be changed. However, the arguments themselves rarely state something new.

You wrote: "1) I considered that my initial thought was too presumptive,
2) I always favour open questions rather than closed questions
3) I never provide the questions and the answers - just the questions"

When one uses absolute words such as ‘always’ and ‘never’ one invites the opponent to search your previous statements for exceptions. I don’t feel like doing that.

Some questions I prefer to consider as closed. Evolution seems to me to have overwhelming evidence for it, and no counter evidence although some do not accept it because it contradicts their religious beliefs. However, since those who reject it may, if they get on school boards, interfere with the teaching of science it then becomes not a matter of argument but a struggle for control of the schools.

I think you are an erudite, thoughtful and courteous person, and I don’t feel like arguing more with you on this particular subject. May we have a future go.

.

Dear david f,

.

« Many of our arguments or discussions in olo seem to me rather pointless. »
.

That’s odd, David. Apart from that surprising statement and your opinion on the responsibility of Karl Marx in the practical application of his socio-economic policies, I have exactly the opposite impression. I find myself in agreement with the essentials of just about everything you say, whatever the topic.

I should even go as far to say that if our arguments or discussions on olo are rather pointless it is precisely because we basically agree on the essentials of just about everything. In my mind, our differences are, generally speaking, quite marginal. I don’t know anyone on olo with whom I am more in agreement than you.
.

« When one uses absolute words such as ‘always’ and ‘never’ one invites the opponent to search your previous statements for exceptions. I don’t feel like doing that. »

I don’t wish to be pretentious, David, but I honestly don’t think you would find any. As all the members of my (French) family could readily testify, I am notorious for constantly waging war against the abuse of such absolute expressions as ‘all’, ‘none’ ‘every’ ‘totally’, ‘completely’, ‘always’, ‘never’, etc. I do not use such words lightly.

I seem to recall that on one occasion, I even went as far to say, in respect to one of your posts during a discussion with George, that I should have liked to sign that post myself.

Eureka ! :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#268881

[ The link doesn’t seem to open on the exact post. You will find it in my comment dated Thursday, 3 October 2013 7:06:28 PM in George’s article: “Is being a scientist compatible with believing in God?” ]

Must I say more ?
.

« I don’t feel like arguing more with you on this particular subject. May we have a future go. »

With great pleasure, David, as always, and … please believe me ... that is no exaggeration!.

.