Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 2254734" data-attributes="member: 6533">Wayside, excuse me for a moment as I'm not going to have a good time to respond to this over the next couple of days, but I will get a good response down by Wednesday.  If it's not a problem with the rest of the folks joining this conversation I will continue the discussion in the format you have used, as long as I can figure it out.And I will get that analysis of Kill Bill, Vol. 1 out eventually as well.Sadly, tonight is probably going to be a bad night for me to put out responses in general, though there's a lot I'd like to respond to, particularly Joshua Dyal's first post and Wulf Ratbane's prior post.For now let me just provide what will hopefully be clarification of what I mean by prejuidice.Allow me to posit three forms of articulation: argument, opinion, and prejuidice.  I'll start with a very very simply dynamic for how I see these three categories working together but I reserve the right to change that dynamic drastically as the argument develops and as I develop a better idea of what I need to illustrate.  And I'd also like to point out that I certainly don't want to exclude the possibility that my own idea of how this works might be changed by reading things in this thread.Now this scheme is simply to provide a very large context for what I'm trying to say.  Now, both argument and prejuidice are forms of opinion.  There are forms of opinion that are neither argument nor prejuidice and you might posit forms of argument or prejuidice which aren't opinion either though I don't think any of them are germane to the discussion at hand.  Now all three of these categories can be evaluated both in terms of themselves and in terms of the end context of morality.  That is that there are both good and bad opinions but opinions may also be good or evil.  So I am not arguing that an opinion that is a prejuidice is necessarilly evil and I am not necessarilly arguing that it is a bad prejuidice.I would argue that, on the whole and all else being equal, a prejuidice is an inferior opinion to an argument, further that prejuidices make very poor arguments.So my point here is that I am not trying to say that GnG is evil, that it is bad, or that it has to be absolutely pinned down to little things as those are things that I don't think are inherent in either an opinion which I know GnG to be or a prejuidice which I suspect GnG is.In fact I would specifically say that where an opinion or prejuidice might be evil or bad, I don't think GnG is those things in either category.  It might have evil or bad fruits, but that's true of the very best arguments and opinions as well as the very worst prejuidices.If GnG is in fact a prejuidice, then the worst I think I could accuse it of is being snobbish, that is being disdainful of others while lacking any great level of self-awareness or modularity, but there's no doubt that GnG gets its name attached to a lot of very good work and I'd like to know both it and how to deal with it better.There's certainly a great deal more one could discuss on the issue of prejuidice and this post only has so much to do with the specific subject at hand, but I hope this provides some helpful direction to the conversation as it seemed that clarification was demanded on the one hand and that I might have been seen as making some sort of group attack on the other.  I hope I have defended myself in the latter and made some small progress in the former.I really like the thread thus far and I'm grateful for everyone who has participated and kept the tone delightful, curious, engaged, and civil.  This is the sort of thing I really appreciate ENWorld for.</blockquote>

Verification