No, absolutely not. You're making an induction yourself. You THINK you know what was going through my head when I wrote this.
First, as for "name calling", it was never intended as diminutive. Fine, I'll call you Penguin. I'm really not sure why you care. People refer to me as 'zilla frequently. I don't take it as diminutive - even though it's a modification.
Let me explain wh yI see no self-contradiction and why I think you're making an induction yourself:
1. My evaluation of a person's past behavior, as manifested outwardly, is for the purpose of deciding whether they are a desirable associate. I'd draw sharp distinction between this and "judging the person as good/bad". After all, have you never deemed someone an undesireable associate yet also an entirely good and worthy person?
2. Even a judgment of bad behavior need not imply bad person. You seem to be making that equation. I am not interested in the extrapolation, just choosing associates.
The way it might work in practice is that you look at someone and get an intuitive read based on cues. Honestly, in most cases, my intuitive read is pretty neutral. the vast majority of people neither interest nor repel me. However, let's say I see a woman smoking, then hear her speak in a gravelly voice. I might say, that's kind of gross - and it is. Yet I recognize that doesn't means he's a bad person or even that I think she is. However, it might mean that I choose not to associate -and that was the nature of my guidance - choosing an assoicate. It had NOTHING t odo with evaluating the person as good/bad. That was the direction you took us. I had nothing to say on that matter until you attemped to put words in my mouth.
Now, I'll admit, in the case of a parolee, I might also be included to dismiss the person as a miscreant. Admittedly, that's a fundamental judgment. However, it's also exceptional.
So, you see, my "switch" was not one at all. I discussed guidance for choosing your company. you changed it to "rules of judgment". I told you my own.
If that is the case, then, your point about the girls being 'undesirables' was that they were parolees? That does seem to make a bit more sense then, seeing a parolee shotgunning beer after beer at a bar while smoking is enough to put anyone off.
The way you said it seemed was extreemly judgemental, though. I mean, with the defamatory portmanteau and calling them tramps, along with anecdotes about your wife laughing at them, it seemed like you were bent on caricturing them (for better or worse) as woebegone drunkard trolls (and not the internet kind).
That is an interesting meta-argument, but wouldn't all replies to posts then be inductions?Now, as a following corollary and for the sake of the argument, let's ask you what you've got against someone discrimating enough to consciously choose their associates. Your reaction to such a concept seems viscerally negative, dare I say, excessively judgmental (and by transit, therefore also hypocritical)?
Yet I would ask you if you do not do the same yourself in choosing your friends? So why carry the pretense that such is bad or wrong?
You see, just because an La-7 can climb to 30k it doesn't... (and so on).
One additional point, beware the word "seem", for the chasm between seems and is often yawns. That's part of the reason I used it above. See if you can take advantage of it.
Otherwise, recognize I have not judged you a bad person for this entertaining exchange.
The idea that criticizing someone's approach to selecting company is judgement of their entire self is absurd, as it would make any conversation on the topic impossible. In the direct sense, I have never made a comment about you, only your statements.
What do you mean by entertaining?
-Penguin
