The argument that "we shouldn't try to guess the motives of others" is self refuting. For all I know, your intention in the post you just made was to encourage us to keep guessing at the motives of Jonmon. I would have to guess at your motive to arrive at the conclusion that you actually want us to stop. But then to do so I would have to ignore the argument that I am guessing you meant to make.
Now, I am again guessing that most people would assume that with high probability, based on your text and the context, you meant that we should stop. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. And with the case of Jonmon, many people would also assume with a reasonably high probability that he is seeking to intimidate people. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The probability that one is guessing his intention wrongly might be higher than the probability that one is guessing your intention wrongly, but it is unfair to call it useless or non-constructive.
If understanding Jonmon's activities in terms of intimidation helps people abstract the actions of Jonmon into a consistent mental framework and it helps them accurately predict his future actions, then it is not useless. The statement "we don't know his motive, it might be something we didn't think of," on the other hand, says nothing whatsoever. How can one ever know anything by such standards?
While koshmom's opinion is, of course, desired, she expressed it in a way that was intended on shutting down the discussion by falsely implying some kind of moral high ground, that's where the word "sanctimonious" comes in (it was not directed at you). My reply was my actual understanding of her argument spelled out in greater detail, it was not sarcasm, although I was definitely incredulous.
IMO - let people say what they want to say without shitting all over them with equivocal platitudes. Especially when they are understandably upset over being stalked in the middle of the night.
no subject
Now, I am again guessing that most people would assume that with high probability, based on your text and the context, you meant that we should stop. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. And with the case of Jonmon, many people would also assume with a reasonably high probability that he is seeking to intimidate people. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The probability that one is guessing his intention wrongly might be higher than the probability that one is guessing your intention wrongly, but it is unfair to call it useless or non-constructive.
If understanding Jonmon's activities in terms of intimidation helps people abstract the actions of Jonmon into a consistent mental framework and it helps them accurately predict his future actions, then it is not useless. The statement "we don't know his motive, it might be something we didn't think of," on the other hand, says nothing whatsoever. How can one ever know anything by such standards?
While koshmom's opinion is, of course, desired, she expressed it in a way that was intended on shutting down the discussion by falsely implying some kind of moral high ground, that's where the word "sanctimonious" comes in (it was not directed at you). My reply was my actual understanding of her argument spelled out in greater detail, it was not sarcasm, although I was definitely incredulous.
IMO - let people say what they want to say without shitting all over them with equivocal platitudes. Especially when they are understandably upset over being stalked in the middle of the night.