A Circular Argument

(note to myself: this may require a little editing - D)

We were at 'Girlie's' cottage, Bishop, herself and I. She said I should not have sent all my emails to everyone. I said I stopped doing that because of something Skywalker said (he said it was selfish, my thoughts would be more suited to a blog, then everyone could read them at their leisure). She said Egghead had just stopped reading my emails.

She said 'Anyway, I don't agree with your saying that (no one should do or say anything they wouldn't want broadcast live on international television)'.
Me: Why not?
She: People wouldn't like it.
Me: Why not?
She: I wouldn't like it.
Me: Why, what are you going to do or say that you wouldn't want anyone to know about? I never do or say anything I wouldn't say to everyone.
She: I wouldn't like it.
Bishop: What about going to the toilet?
Me: That's prudishness (anyway, why would anyone want to look?). Warren Buffet, who is the world's richest man, said never to do a deal you would not like to see in ten inch headlines in the newspaper next day.
She: That's different.
Me: He is an honest man.

She continued in this vein, adamantly saying I was wrong because people would not like it, but not saying why.

Me: Honest people would not mind, crooks wouldn't like it.
(Each of us said the other was wrong, I said we agree to differ).
Me: You call yourself religious. The truth stands naked, as our mother said, it has nothing to hide. One day you will stand naked before God. (No room for hypocrisy then).
I said her attitude was middleclass hypocrisy (bourgeois morality). She said it was not.
She: Everyone does not want everyone to know everything about them.
Me: Why not?
She: I wouldn't like it.
The argument went round in circles.
I said there were people called 'the lace curtain Irish', peering out at everyone but not wanting anyone else to know anything about them (as well as being snobs).

The argument appeared circular, as if it would go on for ever, each of us saying the other was wrong.

I said, anyway, I have stopped sending out those emails, and the topic changed.

One's own family are often the most difficult to deal with. As far as I remember, I had been sending everyone's emails to everyone else, not that there were many of them, and Girlie herself had asked me to send all Why's to her, which I also sent to everyone else. I asked 'Why do people send your own message back to you when they reply?' She said she often did that, it was easier that way. On another occasion she said I could have cut off the repeated message, she contradicted herself. She had asked me to send them, and I sent them as received.

In fact, there is no one rule for every occasion, circumstances alter cases.

To contradict myself, there is one rule, and one rule only, be true.

It appears to me Girlie's argument rested on mere assertion.

I know she is not alone, the world is run by a gang of crooks who would back her up every step of the way.

As Devil's advocate, I might say, would it not be that if you are dealing with crooks you don't want them to know what you are going to do? Why not? Suppose you are going to be true?

(True Story: A priest was walking past a man in a pub when the man said 'I don't believe in God'. 'Perhaps it doesn't suit you to believe in him', the priest replied.
That story is apropos of something or nothing, you pays your money and you takes your choice).

'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it' - Voltaire.

A friend who read some of my earlier pieces said some of my quotes were misattributed. I said I don't care who said anything, nothing is true because of who said it, it is true because it is true. At a later stage, I will correct any misattributions, if they are brought to my attention.


My family and other animals.

P.S. People should not know everything about everyone else, they should understand everything about everyone else and the first thing to know is the difference between knowing and understanding.
Knowledge is not a weapon and is misused as such, it is that through which we may gain understanding.

David