Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 14:23:41
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 9:39:45
Friends,
It is written here hypothetical situation involving gummy worms. The example says that,(A) a person posts repeatedly that he/she eats gummy worms so that all the starving people in the world could be helped
(B).Another poster suggests that the motive for that person to eat gummy worms is that they are hungery.
The question before us is:
A. Is it civil to accuse the poster that stated his/her motive that he/she eats gummy worms, that the motive that they gave,ie, that it was to help the starving people in the world, is seen by them to be something else,ie in this case, because they are hungery.
There is the issue to be deceided.
Now there are several issues here. First, is it reasonable for someone to have a motive to eat gummy worms so that it could help starving people? And is the answer to that relevant?
My resoning is that whatever the poster gave as her/his reason for eating gummy worms, that reason is real to him/her regardless as to if it is rational. Now if this was not a mental health community, there could be an argument as to if what the person believed was rational. But by what authority does anyone have here to impute their ideas as to the motive of another here?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:676011
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/676729.html