The problems I have with come down to the fact that to quote indefinitely is to:
1) Potentially make an insanely redundant, unreadable thing.
2) Assume we are understanding the quote in the same way
3) Assume we understand words to mean the same thing
Number 2 and 3 seem like better issues. If you lay out the example of what marriage is, and I say "Von opposes gay marriage" then you and all readers know that I am not making a good faith effort to understand or respond to your argument. However, if I summarize and say that "Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals," most people will understand that a good faith effort to comprehend your stance and respond is taking place.
The question would then be, do you mean covenantal in the sense that is also includes God? My summary left that out, and therefore you could clarify if that is the case. Covenant in current terms often excludes God, but I suspect in your use would include Him.
That, to me, is the benefit of summarizing. By attempting to lay out what I understand your argument to be, you are able to know if I understood words as you are intending them, or if I have misunderstood the attempt, and am responding to this misunderstood assertion. If I quote you directly, I may mean God in covenant, and you may not, or vice versa.
I cannot steelman an argument without attempting to actually internalize the argument. I also could cherry pick quotes fairly easily to strawman. It seems to me that the question at the heart of this is whether you believe it is occurring in good faith. Am I attempting to strawman you, to score points, or am I attempting to ensure that I have understood your argument to be what you are attempting to communicate, and responding appropriately?
As for the fact that summarizing may omit facts or statements that are relevant, this is true, but somewhat unavoidable unless the person is going to read the post referenced. I would recommend that anyone reading my responses should read what you wrote as well, that way they can have the full scope. That is why I link to it, as I will never be fully able to summarize and hit every single thing mentioned. Quoting does not solve that, for to quote is to just pick which section of words will appear in the response, when in fact the words area readily available in full, through a simple mouse click or tap of the finger.
And for the triple comment, I fully acknowledge quoting has very valuable uses. I just use them to support my attempts to understand, i.e. when I quoted the definition of morality to support my understanding that the argument being made behavior is immoral if not done for the right reason, in this case, deference to God's will.
Thanks for your responses, but I’m afraid you missed the point a bit, so let me restart:
1) My post was meant in refutation to a statement of yours… not your post, or your general demeanour, but a specific statement:
“I will try to keep quotes from our posts to a minimum; they are readily linked to and available to read. I will always try to summarise, or condense, for two reasons: it is easier to read, and if I misinterpret, you can correct the record, as you did.”
2) What I suggested instead was:
“As a matter of truth, accuracy, and presenting my best argument forward, I am going to keep summarizing and condensing to a minimum, and present quotes from my opponent whenever possible, in context, along with links to his post and the overall argument.”
3) Which brings us to your responses:
The problems I have with come down to the fact that to quote indefinitely is to:
1) Potentially make an insanely redundant, unreadable thing.
2) Assume we are understanding the quote in the same way
3) Assume we understand words to mean the same thing
4) Here is how those responses are problematic:
a) You wrote, “to quote indefinitely” when what I said was, “keep summarizing and condensing to a minimum, and present quotes from my opponent whenever possible, in context, along with links to his post and the overall argument.” To be frank, I don’t think ‘to quote indefinitely’ is a good summary of that statement :) I think it would have been better to quote.
b) You wrote, “Potentially make an insanely redundant, unreadable thing.”. Truth. Which is why I said ‘whenever possible’ and ‘It is perfectly true that we can’t just data dump our opponent’s whole argument into the middle of our post. It would be unreadable if nothing else.’ So you present part of my position as an argument against my position, and imply you are arguing against my position when you are arguing in favor of it.
If I write so poorly that you need to quote half of my post in order to bring forward your point, then I need to work on my ‘conclusion’ statements! And my writing in general!!
c) You wrote, ‘Assume we are understanding the quote in the same way’. This is actually backwards. This is a reason you *should* quote me. Let’s use my example, which you also use:
I wrote: ‘I believe that marriage is a permanent, covenantal, sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.’
I said you might write: ‘“Von is against gay marriage.” ‘
What you actually ended up saying was, “If you lay out the example of what marriage is” and “"Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals,"
In both of those cases, I don’t actually see why you would change my words. If you actually wanted to get at ‘seeing them in the same way’, then I would propose the format:
Von said that he believes that, “marriage is a permanent, covenantal, sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.”. I take that to mean that Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals….
If you had written that, then I and all of the readers could have seen the translation itself. That you translated ‘permanent’ into ‘unbreakable’, ‘sexual relationship’ into the void, ‘man and woman’ into ‘two people of the opposite sex’, and ‘covenant’ into ‘solemn pledge’, etc.
This would allow me to ask you why you deleted ‘sexual relationship’ from my definition, for example… and, more importantly, to let the audience (and you, who might have done it inadvertently) see that you did it and wonder what it means.
d) You wrote, “Assume we understand words to mean the same thing”. I see that as a restatement of ‘c)’. If you mean something more by it you will have to explain how this format:
Von said that he believes that, “marriage is a permanent, covenantal, sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.”. I take that to mean that Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals….
Doesn’t help us see where we differ on the meaning of words.
—
Just to be clear, I think we largely agree here, and I think that your posts have been pretty good as far as the whole ‘quoting’ thing. I am disagreeing, on principle, with the ‘better to summarise’ thing, because I have seen it so badly abused over the years.
(And I do wonder why you deleted ‘sexual relationship’ from my definition of marriage :) I wrote a whole post on how marriage is a sexual relationship!!)
Marriage is a permanent covenant to exclusive sexual[3] union between a man[1] and a woman[2] that has been and is being consummated. It was ordained by God for the purpose of producing a Godly seed, in order that man should take dominion; to which end the woman is his helpmeet, and their children are arrows.
I wrote out a long response to this, long enough it probably could have been a stand-alone post. Then I realized I don't really care to debate the merits of this, as it seems clear by the updated comment that you do not feel I am attempting to misrepresent you. If you believe I am writing in good faith, then it really comes to a difference of opinion. My view is that quotes and words can be understood differently, but by reframing, you are able to grasp if I have understood what you intended to communicate, or if I interpreted it my own way.
If it were not so easy to just read your words, I would quote more. For instance, if this were a book responding to your worldview, I would quote at length, because your words are not otherwise readily available. Through the miracle (curse?) of the internet, this is not a problem for the current project. I fully accept that under different circumstances, the need to quote more is absolutely correct.
As for why sexual was left out, I suspect because it seems self-evident? People who believe marriage to be nothing but a legal contract, able to be entered and left behind assume it is sexual. Religious people assume it is as well. In fact, I suspect about the only part of marriage that is widely accepted by the vast majority of the human population is the sexual nature of it. The only reason I say vast majority and not whole of humanity is the very small (less than 1% of the population) of individuals who are truly asexual, and I suspect even a large chunk of them believe it to be sexual, even if they would prefer that it were not so.
The problems I have with come down to the fact that to quote indefinitely is to:
1) Potentially make an insanely redundant, unreadable thing.
2) Assume we are understanding the quote in the same way
3) Assume we understand words to mean the same thing
Number 2 and 3 seem like better issues. If you lay out the example of what marriage is, and I say "Von opposes gay marriage" then you and all readers know that I am not making a good faith effort to understand or respond to your argument. However, if I summarize and say that "Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals," most people will understand that a good faith effort to comprehend your stance and respond is taking place.
The question would then be, do you mean covenantal in the sense that is also includes God? My summary left that out, and therefore you could clarify if that is the case. Covenant in current terms often excludes God, but I suspect in your use would include Him.
That, to me, is the benefit of summarizing. By attempting to lay out what I understand your argument to be, you are able to know if I understood words as you are intending them, or if I have misunderstood the attempt, and am responding to this misunderstood assertion. If I quote you directly, I may mean God in covenant, and you may not, or vice versa.
I cannot steelman an argument without attempting to actually internalize the argument. I also could cherry pick quotes fairly easily to strawman. It seems to me that the question at the heart of this is whether you believe it is occurring in good faith. Am I attempting to strawman you, to score points, or am I attempting to ensure that I have understood your argument to be what you are attempting to communicate, and responding appropriately?
As for the fact that summarizing may omit facts or statements that are relevant, this is true, but somewhat unavoidable unless the person is going to read the post referenced. I would recommend that anyone reading my responses should read what you wrote as well, that way they can have the full scope. That is why I link to it, as I will never be fully able to summarize and hit every single thing mentioned. Quoting does not solve that, for to quote is to just pick which section of words will appear in the response, when in fact the words area readily available in full, through a simple mouse click or tap of the finger.
And for the triple comment, I fully acknowledge quoting has very valuable uses. I just use them to support my attempts to understand, i.e. when I quoted the definition of morality to support my understanding that the argument being made behavior is immoral if not done for the right reason, in this case, deference to God's will.
Response posted as a separate note.
My next post is up:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/the-knowledge-of-pizza-defintion
Thanks for your responses, but I’m afraid you missed the point a bit, so let me restart:
1) My post was meant in refutation to a statement of yours… not your post, or your general demeanour, but a specific statement:
“I will try to keep quotes from our posts to a minimum; they are readily linked to and available to read. I will always try to summarise, or condense, for two reasons: it is easier to read, and if I misinterpret, you can correct the record, as you did.”
2) What I suggested instead was:
“As a matter of truth, accuracy, and presenting my best argument forward, I am going to keep summarizing and condensing to a minimum, and present quotes from my opponent whenever possible, in context, along with links to his post and the overall argument.”
3) Which brings us to your responses:
The problems I have with come down to the fact that to quote indefinitely is to:
1) Potentially make an insanely redundant, unreadable thing.
2) Assume we are understanding the quote in the same way
3) Assume we understand words to mean the same thing
4) Here is how those responses are problematic:
a) You wrote, “to quote indefinitely” when what I said was, “keep summarizing and condensing to a minimum, and present quotes from my opponent whenever possible, in context, along with links to his post and the overall argument.” To be frank, I don’t think ‘to quote indefinitely’ is a good summary of that statement :) I think it would have been better to quote.
b) You wrote, “Potentially make an insanely redundant, unreadable thing.”. Truth. Which is why I said ‘whenever possible’ and ‘It is perfectly true that we can’t just data dump our opponent’s whole argument into the middle of our post. It would be unreadable if nothing else.’ So you present part of my position as an argument against my position, and imply you are arguing against my position when you are arguing in favor of it.
If I write so poorly that you need to quote half of my post in order to bring forward your point, then I need to work on my ‘conclusion’ statements! And my writing in general!!
c) You wrote, ‘Assume we are understanding the quote in the same way’. This is actually backwards. This is a reason you *should* quote me. Let’s use my example, which you also use:
I wrote: ‘I believe that marriage is a permanent, covenantal, sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.’
I said you might write: ‘“Von is against gay marriage.” ‘
What you actually ended up saying was, “If you lay out the example of what marriage is” and “"Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals,"
In both of those cases, I don’t actually see why you would change my words. If you actually wanted to get at ‘seeing them in the same way’, then I would propose the format:
Von said that he believes that, “marriage is a permanent, covenantal, sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.”. I take that to mean that Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals….
If you had written that, then I and all of the readers could have seen the translation itself. That you translated ‘permanent’ into ‘unbreakable’, ‘sexual relationship’ into the void, ‘man and woman’ into ‘two people of the opposite sex’, and ‘covenant’ into ‘solemn pledge’, etc.
This would allow me to ask you why you deleted ‘sexual relationship’ from my definition, for example… and, more importantly, to let the audience (and you, who might have done it inadvertently) see that you did it and wonder what it means.
d) You wrote, “Assume we understand words to mean the same thing”. I see that as a restatement of ‘c)’. If you mean something more by it you will have to explain how this format:
Von said that he believes that, “marriage is a permanent, covenantal, sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.”. I take that to mean that Von believes marriage to be unbreakable, between two people of the opposite sex, with the express purpose of raising children, constituting a solemn pledge between two individuals….
Doesn’t help us see where we differ on the meaning of words.
—
Just to be clear, I think we largely agree here, and I think that your posts have been pretty good as far as the whole ‘quoting’ thing. I am disagreeing, on principle, with the ‘better to summarise’ thing, because I have seen it so badly abused over the years.
(And I do wonder why you deleted ‘sexual relationship’ from my definition of marriage :) I wrote a whole post on how marriage is a sexual relationship!!)
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/what-is-marriage-2b-or-not-2b-i-suppose
My definition from that post:
Marriage is a permanent covenant to exclusive sexual[3] union between a man[1] and a woman[2] that has been and is being consummated. It was ordained by God for the purpose of producing a Godly seed, in order that man should take dominion; to which end the woman is his helpmeet, and their children are arrows.
I wrote out a long response to this, long enough it probably could have been a stand-alone post. Then I realized I don't really care to debate the merits of this, as it seems clear by the updated comment that you do not feel I am attempting to misrepresent you. If you believe I am writing in good faith, then it really comes to a difference of opinion. My view is that quotes and words can be understood differently, but by reframing, you are able to grasp if I have understood what you intended to communicate, or if I interpreted it my own way.
If it were not so easy to just read your words, I would quote more. For instance, if this were a book responding to your worldview, I would quote at length, because your words are not otherwise readily available. Through the miracle (curse?) of the internet, this is not a problem for the current project. I fully accept that under different circumstances, the need to quote more is absolutely correct.
As for why sexual was left out, I suspect because it seems self-evident? People who believe marriage to be nothing but a legal contract, able to be entered and left behind assume it is sexual. Religious people assume it is as well. In fact, I suspect about the only part of marriage that is widely accepted by the vast majority of the human population is the sexual nature of it. The only reason I say vast majority and not whole of humanity is the very small (less than 1% of the population) of individuals who are truly asexual, and I suspect even a large chunk of them believe it to be sexual, even if they would prefer that it were not so.