Now, I address this simply as a matter of honour.
Oh gawd...
creating your own drama.
You ridicule me for my valuation of personal honour. Yours is an attitude endemic in modern times. Well, given that we are each respectively accused of being “wordy-men”, let’s try some wordy-man words:
And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible.... We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
(I generally disagree with Lewis’ worldview; but sometimes, he hit the nail on the head. I highly recommend “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment” (1949).)
It [honour] is a motive that would not be understood by jaded cynics who know only venal motives.
Are you talking about anyone in particular with such "venal" motives?
You ridicule honour as a concrete thing that some people treat as valuable. As quoted above. Honour would be ridiculed only by a jaded cynic who knows only venal motives.
Jaded cynics who know only venal motives are liable to project their own corrupted worldview onto others. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Accusing me of lying when I tell the truth would be lying about me—on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
It is likely irrelevant whether it is true or not.. because the various points that I made do not hinge upon the truth of the matter asserted...
[...]
It would be defamatory.
I doubt it. I am proclaiming that it is quite arguable that you are posting irrelevant and unnecessary information, so how could that be defamatory? You continue to insist on it, so it seems to me that you are causing your own issue.. I am not sure why you want to do that? I gotta feel bad for you in that regard.
You came within a hair’s breadth of accusing me of lying.
That would be defamatory. You also somehow imputed to me motives that are pure fantasy on your part.
Now, you are backpedalling while trying to turn it around on me.
Any ordinary reasonable person who actually reads this entire discussion will see why I described your post as a “bizarre outburst”. Indeed, it was. The problem is that I think very few people will read the discussion. Many may simply see your post, and take it within its four corners as “JayJuanGee said...”.
Whereas implying and insinuating as you do above is at best still smearing me, and casting me in a false light.
You are choosing to read the situation like that, so it seems that you are getting emotional about some topic that you should not have repeatedly posted.
Any ordinary reasonable person would read the situation “like that”.
Take some responsibility for your own words and behaviour, instead of trying to turn everything into a matter of me “taking it personally” or “getting emotional”.
I say it so firmly, for you have been doing much of that lately.
What would be my false accusation? You are saying that I called you a liar, but I did not because I have no way of establishing facts that are completely in your control and I do not even want evidence whether true or not because such information about your poverty status whether it exists or not is not necessary nor relevant.. especially once repeated 50 times..
It is good that you admit a lack of knowledge. But beyond that, you are strawmanning me there. What you describe as my “poverty status” was not mentioned in the post to which you replied, or anywhere even close to it. You made some remark about that earlier, to which I too exception; here, the context is quite different.
You replied to a post in which I discussed financial losses proximately caused by exchange errors. The subject was on my mind, because I was thinking about how best to seek recourse for that, or at least for some part of it. Where, in that context, did I mention my so-called “poverty status”?
You also grossly mischaracterize how much I have mentioned my so-called “poverty status”—oh, you have
no idea. Financially and otherwise, the overall reality of my life would be the biggest grand tragedy (or the worst sob story) that this forum has ever seen.
It is nobody’s business. As it is, here and there, I have barely leaked little bits about that at the tip of the iceberg—where it was contextually appropriate. For example: When I am discussing my financial situation in a thread where many people discuss their finances, should I lie and pretend to have more money than I have?
The tiny bit I leaked about the reality of my life is too much for me to be comfortable revealing. And I am no longer discussing my current financial straits; I have turned to other topics. Now,
you are bringing it up. Why?
Nonetheless, such a thing exists; and it is of prime importance to some people, of greater value than any other—certainly worth more than money. Once upon a time, men fought duels over such matters. Today, the available recourse may differ; but the principle is timeless.
Is that a threat or no?
Absolutely not. It is ridiculous for you to ask that as a serious question: You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, even as you pretend that I am doing that.
I have a demonstrated habit of poetical allusions, historical musings, and the like. I
correctly predicted that you would dismiss and ridicule my mention of honour. Therefore, I underscored the point that once upon a time, men took such matters with life-and-death seriousness:
That’s not “just me”. You read that as my maybe challenging you over the Internet to a real-life duel?
I think that I shall henceforth nickname you “Hamilton”. It is ironic, given that Hamilton was, in effect, post-revolutionary America’s first central banker. Although I dislike Wikipedia, this description makes a neat analogy for our discussion hereby:
A recurring theme in their correspondence is that Burr seeks avowal or disavowal of anything that could justify Cooper's characterization, while Hamilton protests that there are no specifics.
Now, some people would call Burr a big meanie. (He was.) Perhaps you would accuse him of taking things too personally, and of being overly emotional. (That would say more about you.) Men of that era—particularly,
gentlemen of that era better understood.
Poll
