04-27-2009, 04:37 PM
Well, I don't mind accusing people of things. Here's an accusation, and a well founded one.
I'm accusing you, Paul, of going out of your way to be tiresomely intent creating disputes, sneaking around and trying to find things to disagree with. I don't see any constructive end to it, as it's rare indeed that you add anything to the conversation but disagreement. What's the point?
While some might appreciate your self-appointed position as the truth police, or rather truth-as-you-see-it-police, perhaps not all of us find that kind of hubris that charming. Faulty math? That's preposterous. Where the faulty math comes in is to look at numbers offered in a conversational setting and cherry pick the most implausibly possible interpretation, and then critique that. It's pretty transparent. There would be at least a dozen ways to read the numbers I've offered--perhaps in a far too off the cuff manner--but again your response is to try to read them in the most contentious manner that you could possibly think of and then attempt to parade all that around. Sure, there are numbers for deaths world wide for the Spanish flu that range from 2 to 100 million people. They don't know. It's a generalization. The outbreak lasted from 6 months to 6 years in places. Again a generalization. Some places had no deaths, some had mortality rates of 20 percent or higher. A generalization again. It doesn't bother me to put a sensible middle number on the whole thing for the purpose of given a reasonable sense of expected scale of impact. It too, will be a generalization. No doubt all of these numbers are subject to dispute. But, simply to quibble generalizations? For what end, what's the point?
Just recreational disagreement?
Really, I don't mind constructive disagreement, and beyond that I don't care much what non-constructive people think. I do, however, think it's important that it's understood that most of us do see the difference between people that sincerely attempt to offer meaningful discourse and constructive input as opposed to people who just get off on being an ass. At the very least those of the latter groups should not have the luxury of pretending that their intent isn't completely clear to the rest of us. And that's my point with this post.
There are two ways to work through a disagreement. One is to snipe at one's "opponent's" position and attempt to break it down. The other is to offer one's own views with the hope that they are ultimately more convincing. While at times there may be a place for both, certainly the first tactic is more small-minded and contentious than the latter. I think most of us would agree by and large while attempting to persuade in a constructive rather than destructive manner is more demanding--ultimately it is much more effective.
So back to the topic at hand. To clarify and restate: It is my belief with a little sensible preparation the risks that we locally might face from a potential flu pandemic can be greatly reduced. Don't panic.
I'm accusing you, Paul, of going out of your way to be tiresomely intent creating disputes, sneaking around and trying to find things to disagree with. I don't see any constructive end to it, as it's rare indeed that you add anything to the conversation but disagreement. What's the point?
While some might appreciate your self-appointed position as the truth police, or rather truth-as-you-see-it-police, perhaps not all of us find that kind of hubris that charming. Faulty math? That's preposterous. Where the faulty math comes in is to look at numbers offered in a conversational setting and cherry pick the most implausibly possible interpretation, and then critique that. It's pretty transparent. There would be at least a dozen ways to read the numbers I've offered--perhaps in a far too off the cuff manner--but again your response is to try to read them in the most contentious manner that you could possibly think of and then attempt to parade all that around. Sure, there are numbers for deaths world wide for the Spanish flu that range from 2 to 100 million people. They don't know. It's a generalization. The outbreak lasted from 6 months to 6 years in places. Again a generalization. Some places had no deaths, some had mortality rates of 20 percent or higher. A generalization again. It doesn't bother me to put a sensible middle number on the whole thing for the purpose of given a reasonable sense of expected scale of impact. It too, will be a generalization. No doubt all of these numbers are subject to dispute. But, simply to quibble generalizations? For what end, what's the point?
Just recreational disagreement?
Really, I don't mind constructive disagreement, and beyond that I don't care much what non-constructive people think. I do, however, think it's important that it's understood that most of us do see the difference between people that sincerely attempt to offer meaningful discourse and constructive input as opposed to people who just get off on being an ass. At the very least those of the latter groups should not have the luxury of pretending that their intent isn't completely clear to the rest of us. And that's my point with this post.
There are two ways to work through a disagreement. One is to snipe at one's "opponent's" position and attempt to break it down. The other is to offer one's own views with the hope that they are ultimately more convincing. While at times there may be a place for both, certainly the first tactic is more small-minded and contentious than the latter. I think most of us would agree by and large while attempting to persuade in a constructive rather than destructive manner is more demanding--ultimately it is much more effective.
So back to the topic at hand. To clarify and restate: It is my belief with a little sensible preparation the risks that we locally might face from a potential flu pandemic can be greatly reduced. Don't panic.