So I’ll share, I think Mike was posting to create some debate on the topic. I think he knows how this topic already plays out in this forum and usually its myself and davan arguing over who is strawmanning whom in it.
You think? Why, how underhanded of Mike to start a thread on an internet discussion forum that might create some debate!
With that said, if Mike thinks I was personally attacking him he could ban me or he could message me or he could say cool it. None of those were done, Mike posed the rhetorical question back to me earlier in the thread which I answered and I think he presumes like I do for all intentions my post is about the hypothetical being to simple to draw a parallel from in my opinion. The equality in the comparison is simple equals redneck, which is a true statement and not derogatory as I know many people who take the simple road in life and lead the simple life and are quite happy in doing so.
Not speaking for Mike, but his response had nothing to do with the hypothetical, only about your degrogatory comments. And equating redneck to simple is derogatory. I know some extrememly intelligent, hardworking, internally complex people who are proud to call themselves rednecks.
However, I don’t think you can force the simple life on everyone or in this instance the simple hypothetical, because the issues at hand are more complex and diverse between the 2 examples used. Trust me, I generally would let Occam’s Razor take hold in a hypothesis, but the difference between the two example are many fold suggesting a few more conditions are needed for the hypothesis to hold true. If Mike was offended he would have stopped debating me in this thread after I posted that comment.
I think you have totally missed Mike’s point. Here’s the quote again…
“The person receiving that shipment has promised that your payment for this job will be based on how quickly you can get the shipment to him. The faster you get it there the more you’ll be paid. In fact, your pay will go up exponentially for every hour of time you save. He’s also given you secret directions on back roads that he guarantees speed limits will not be enforced.
Would you speed?
Would you drive through the night despite laws prohibiting it?
I think many on here would probably say yes to at least one of those questions. Do you see the parallel? Think of what’s been going on in the MLB and NFL.”
The parallel is that, rightly or wrongly, the truckdriver, and the athlete, have been convinced, or allowed themselves to believe, that this shortcut will not cost them anything, but instead will allow them to be more successful, exponentially so. So all the logical mumbo jumbo is irrelevant. The truckdriver/athlete falls for the lie and takes the bait. THAT is the point of the hypothetical as I see it. Not that the actual circumstances are a parallel, but the willingness for both to believe something that reason and logic should tell them is obviously unbelievable. They can cheat and win…nobody gets hurt.
…you went on this rampage about how you are offended and how others are offended.
First, I believe you were the one to go on the rampage, calling names and hurling insults. And two, I never said anyone was offended, I only questioned your assertion that you never intended to insult anyone. And I don’t need an apology from you, it would be meaningless, as is the majority of what you write.