With Jeremy Sherman PhD

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates · Where is Jeremy Sherman from? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Jeremy Sherman PhD

I

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/24/2024 at 11:08 PM

I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

It disappeared both times.

As our dialogue is on our blog, here is the post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/jeremy-sherman-rambles-without-due-look.html

II

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/24/2024 at 11:33 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

It didn’t disappear. I get to approve comments. I hear your fierce defense and dismissal of my suggestions. On contact. It seems like they must feel like poison to you. Such urgency to wipe them away.

I can assure you, you don’t have to worry about them. Carry on believing whatever feels true to you.

III

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 2:19 AM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Thanks for showing heavy psychologising, as well as a disposition for censorship.

On my blogs, I have rarely deleted comments other than spam for Indonesian casinos, and once I did so, it was to put the dialogue into a separate post rather than keep the comments section getting longer and longer.

"Fierce" / "dismissal" / "feel like poison" / "such urgency"

I think the real urgency to swipe things away is on your side, as your action shows, I take argument as argument and reply with argument.

I hope you will one day have to worry about this dialogue, for the sake of your professional reputation.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/25/2024 at 6:02 AM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Hi Hans,

Well, obviously we're both engaged in psychologizing, so the interesting question for me is how to do it ethically. Here's my answer. I've written a fair amount about it. We're both entitled to our respective interpretations of each other's behavior. It's perfectly with me if you come to the conclusion that I'm a dim and benighted thinker who is too scared to deal with the truths you offer. I get that lots. Oh, and that because I didn't share your pearls of wisdom, it's proof that I'm scared of your wisdom and closed minded.

I hope you're fine with me guessing that you're kind of lonely and get off on pretending that you're straightening out the dimwits of the world who don't see things your way. Why do I guess that? You're opening gambit was not about respectful engagement in mutual curiosity. You seem to think that you can win hearts and minds by pulling rank on them. I don't know where you learned that. I'm guessing you had a teacher or parent who did that effectively with you when you were young.

It doesn't work with me. It doesn't work with most people. When I hear people do pull rank like that, I strongly suspect that they are m...ing in public for the enjoyment or perhaps because of a deficit in self-confidence. Me, I love m...ion in all it's forms. If you look at my other videos you'll see that I think that self-pleasuring to self-aggrandizement is a basic human need. But how we do it matters. I say self-love is important but get a room, don't let it go to your head, and don't turn the public forum into your m...ion nest by trolling or prothletising like you've solved reality and anyone who disagrees with you is a dim wit.

But again let me assure you. You are under no obligation to consider my opinion worthy of your attention. I've decided to show my respect to you, not by humoring you or by silence but by respecting your ability to hear another person's opinion for whatever it's worth.

I wish you well.

Jeremy

V

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 3:59 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

"It's perfectly with me if you come to the conclusion that I'm a dim and benighted thinker who is too scared to deal with the truths you offer."

I did not arrive there before you preferred psychologising over argument.

"I get that lots."

You seemed to get it way too early.

"because I didn't share your pearls of wisdom,"

I did not expect you to share them. I expected you to argue against them. If you had, psychologising would have been left alone on both sides, you started.

"You're opening gambit was not about respectful engagement in mutual curiosity."

There is in my book such a thing as respectfyl engagement in restrained animosity. That is what I had to offer.

"You seem to think that you can win hearts and minds by pulling rank on them."

Not the least. First of all, I am not sure what the expression "pulling rank" even means.

But second, because I expect a debate across such a chasm of disagreement to start with restrained animosity and just possibly sometimes, lead to winning a heart or a mind.

And third, when it doesn't, I hope to win some other mind, by exposing a bad argument in words they, even if you making that bad argument can't, they can relate to.

"I'm guessing you had a teacher or parent who did that effectively with you when you were young."

I had lots of teachers and other school encounters, who, deploring my mother's Fundamentalism actually tried it with me and failed.

Your resorting to psychologising reminds me of them.

Your next line will not be quoted.

I don't equate debating with that vice you mentioned. A certain word you used will be censored.

"by respecting your ability to hear another person's opinion for whatever it's worth."

I actually started out respecting yours. So far, you haven't earned it.

VI

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 4:08 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Another thing.

The disadvantage of being a debater, and meeting a shrink, as a debater, I think myself under obligation to defend anything attacked, while the shrink is more like a guy thinking he should attack everything defended - by an ad hominem.

I don't think it is very heavy handed psychologising on my part why you shirk away from debating.

I didn't ever say you were a dimwit, and you know way too well, your arguments are not up for my level of debate.

There is a reason why people like you are preferring to isolate Fundies over engaging with them. And "engaging" in a psychologising way is a tactic for isolating them.

HG

VII

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/25/2024 at 4:41 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Again, it's totally fine with me if you decide you're right about everything and I'm wrong. I'm very familiar with your arguments about why I'm out of line. I get comments and mail like yours almost daily. And you could be right. I don't rule that out.

I'm a fisher of men. I sermonize publically. But it's all catch and release. I'm out to find people who want to consider my ideas. But I don't care who in particular finds them interesting enough to think with me.

I get fan and hate mail lots.

I agree with you about shrinks. Solving other people's problems is easy, like you've been trying to solve mine, for the sake of my "professional reputation." A vocational hazard in my line of work is thinking that because you can solve other people's problems, you're an expert problem solver.

Anyway, brother Hans-Georg, I wish you well elsewhere. Humbled before your lord and lording it over anyone who disagrees with you. My ideas aren't interesting to you. That's A-OK with me. I could send you a list of people who, like you, have decided I'm wrong-headed and take my blocking as proof that they're open-minded and right about everything and that I'm a closed-minded fool who doesn't believe in free speech. It's a common troll move. I get that at least three times a week.

I wish you well elsewhere. There's room for both our kinds.

Cheers,

Jeremy

VIII

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 4:08 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

• Your ideas are interesting to me as something to refute.
• If you are serious, and they are not just a fancy excuse for psychologising over anyone they happen to provoke (even if to polite debate), any refutation (and that was what I offered) should be interesting to you.

You see, there is actually one kind of thing I didn't comment on in the video, that is how you used the words "popularity contest" ...

I think whereever two people differ, third party is a kind of arbiter.

In some cases, two people will differ irreconcilably, and the arbiter will divide itself into factions. But I think the appeal to the third party, with recognised rules of logic is the most rigorous testing you can get for ideas (apart from God).

So, you misconstrue "you are wrong and this is why" for "I'm right about everything and you are wrong" or "I want to lord you" or God knows what.

You persist, and you even use compliment and apparent good manners.

"like you've been trying to solve mine, for the sake of my "professional reputation.""

Not the least. People like you are surrounding me with social and mental checkpoints and doing so to my writings as well.

I'm not trying to solve your problem. I'm hoping you're the one who gets the problem, this time, instead of me.

The kind of "fisher of men" you present yourself as, is what I am myself.

What you present ME as, is what my worst enemies would love people to see me.

What I have said is not, "let me help you with your problem" what I have said is "enough is enough, it's YOUR turn to get a problem now!"

You are persisting in dishonest and calculated and therefore utterly unethical psychologising. I hope it backfires soon./HGL

IX

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/25/2024 at 5:36 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not listening to you. I don't care what your opinion is of me. Like you, I keep my own counsel. I have many allies and friends whose counsel I heed. You're not among them. You're wasting your breath. I fuss elsewhere.

X

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/26/2024 at 6:35 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

There is one thing you could do decently, in that case.

1) If you like to allow debate between me and your other listeners under your video, keep my comments where they are. Either restore my answer to your answer or delete your answer.
2) If not, delete my comments and post a link to the debate on my Assorted retorts post and our meta-non-debate on Correspondence post. So those who want to see another take than yours can go there:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Jeremy Sherman PhD

What's so far happened under your video is not even half decent. It's not even half decent to an opponent to give viewers who watch the comments the impression this opponent first commented and then was satsified with your answer, as it looks when my comment is followed by yours, but not followed by my follow up. It's also not even half decent to pretend I should censor myself by deleting that comment to get this false impression away.

That's not on whether you listen, it's on whether you are decent or not to opponents. I usually am./HGL

XI

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/26/2024 at 7:27 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

You really don't get it do you. You lost all moral standing with me. I don't hear you as the authority on decency that you proclaim yourself to be.

Here's how it seems to work for all of us: If we want someone's trust – if we want to be seen as credible by someone, we have to earn it. No one owes us trust and credibility. I didn't earn your trust or credibility. You didn't assume you owed it to me. I applaud your decision that I'm not worthy of your trust. That's fine with me.

What you don't seem to get is that your precious beliefs don't make you an exception to that rule. You have quite reliably earned no trust or credibility from me. None whatsoever. In part because of your absurdly pretentious double standard: You get to decide who's worthy of your attention; other's are simply supposed to take your word that you are worthy of their attention.

Why do you indulge in such laughable hypocrisy? My guess is self-infatuated desperation and the false assumption that your beliefs make you special.

Peddle your stuff elsewhere. I'm done talking with you.

XII

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/26/2024 at 11:31 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

My only claim to have any authority on decency is being human, so you have basically dehumanised me.

"If we want someone's trust – if we want to be seen as credible by someone, we have to earn it."

Debating you was not about having your trust.
It was not about seeming credible to you.

It was about having argument as common ground between people who have little reason apart from that to trust each other's judgement.

In other words, you are cutting away at common ground.

"What you don't seem to get is that your precious beliefs don't make you an exception to that rule."

I never used them as that, liar!

Argument and debate are not "my precious beliefs" and also did not presuppose gaining your trust.

So, you basically debate with the liars you can trust to not dislodge your house of cards before the audience.

"You get to decide who's worthy of your attention"

Not the least. Never claimed it, liar!

a) YOU decided to leave your video open to comments.
b) YOU decided to answer one of mine.

but above all

c) YOU decided to censor my answer.

If you claim I have no claim on your attention, why offer me that attention?
If you offered me that attention, and on top of that offer me this attention, why use my "non-right to attention" as argument for censorship?

The hypocrite with double standards is you.

"other's are simply supposed to take your word that you are worthy of their attention."

Not the least.

Your blast of denigration, none of which answers any of my arguments, is a very clear indication that you think me worthier of attention than you admit.

I don't seek your, I don't seek your kind of it.

And you will now be blocked, we'll see if YOU can keep quiet.

And what this will look like to others.