Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
. . . . Yes Harold plays the provocateur. But, when I listen to him, I don't hear nonsense, I hear a challenge to go deeper.
|
When I say "nonsense," I am not suggesting that it is simply irrelevant drivel with no meaning. But, as Igzy has more directly said, you can't just make out-in-left-field statements and expect everyone to simply take note and start to discuss them. You need to give some cause to their being more than irrelevant. You need to make them relevant. And saying it over and over more forcefully is not the way.
As one of my favorite podcasters often says, "the plural of anecdote is not data." In the same way, the plural of off-the-wall is not evidence. If there is something worthy of discussion, it needs to be more related to the topic than the fact that someone said it in relation to the topic. So it needs to have some evidence provided suggesting sufficient viability for further consideration. The guy who arrives at his car which is parked on the street in downtown (whatever big city you want to suggest) to discover the passenger-side window broken and his favorite CD taken from the seat could proposition that an extremely small but violent tornado smashed the window and sucked it out. It might be arguably possible, but does it warrant another thought? Is it
plausible? Or is it a waste of brain power to continue to think of it that way? I suggest the latter. I realize this example is extreme, and silly. But it does demonstrate that we have reasonable cause to essentially ignore things that are not seen as meriting further consideration. If they are truly worthy of such consideration, then more than "I said it" should be found in favor of giving it more thought.
And now you have seen me once again argue both sides of this contentious issue. This side is "Keep the forum on target." The other is "how can Harold get the help he needs." On the latter, other than splitting the two apart, I'm not sure that this is very helpful to him. Maybe to us as we sharpen our skills of analytical and critical thinking. But not to Harold as he grapples with some deep issue(s) that he does not seem to be able to state calmly and clearly. And the fact that it is not calm and clear is not a critique. It is an observation that it needs what this forum cannot provide in its natural form.