View Single Post
Old 11-19-2008, 02:20 PM   #66
Joe McParland
Joe McParland's Avatar
Dojo: Sword Mountain Aikido & Zen
Location: Baltimore, MD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 309
Re: Another harassment question

Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Joe -


It follows, therefore, that all posts subsequent to the original post are not part of the set of axioms, do not have to accepted at face value and questioning of or rejecting of does not constitute any actual or implied lack of respect for the poster.
As a mathematician, I'm burdened by the definition of "axiom" and am tempted to challenge what may be false conclusions based upon it

But, it's simpler and more effective to say that while I believe I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with it. I would hope that in this environment, just like on the mats, we can challenge one another's assumptions as well as the conclusions safely.

Without aligning or not aligning with Buck's argument, I will say we seem to have the following in common: We are both citing Tom28's perception of the events as an integral piece of the puzzle. Buck seems to begin at that point and argue that we cannot draw reasonable conclusions based upon one man's uncorroborated account of events. I am more or less doing the same, perhaps going a little further asking both Tom28 and as well as discussion participants to first check one's assumptions and one's perceptions to see if they are unobstructed.

Let's suppose I start a thread:

Joe McParland wrote:
Ron is a fool. What should I do?

PS: Please don't post if you disagree with me.
I certainly hope someone would say:

Reasonable Person wrote:
Hey, Joe- I don't know Ron, but do you mind if I ask some questions about why you think he is?
and that I wouldn't respond:

Joe McParland wrote:
Hey! That's not relevant! I said he's a fool!!! Get back on topic or get off the thread!!!
where "Please don't post if you disagree with me" isn't automatically promoted to an axiom. After all, if we do take Tom28's statements as clear-sighted, indisputable facts, then we must also accept this assessment of his instructor's character---(summarizing) he's a good guy who just gets a little silly around the women---and strike anyone's challenge of that point. That is, the instructor is not harassing anyone, victimizing anyone, or doing anything that commentators have brought to the table. If you have stated, or have thought to have stated, to Tom28 something similar to "How can you be blind to it!" then you have violated his framework.

When people are honest with regard to what they really know, what they think they know, and especially with what they do not know, a lot of fog clears up and you can determine how to act.

I'm guilty of carrying a banner here, too, by the way. Mine isn't women's rights, men's rights, victim's rights, or even victimizer's rights or the like. Mine says, "See clearly." Call it a meta-banner. I try to look at things like this clearly and I do often fail, but with practice (aikido and others) I believe I'm improving. By the way, I try to participate making sure I am seeing clearly without carrying the "See clearly" banner itself, but sometimes fail there, too.

Last edited by Joe McParland : 11-19-2008 at 02:24 PM. Reason: clarification