static variables

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 02-12-15 om 15:15 schreef Ian Kelly:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>> Op 02-12-15 om 14:11 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
>>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:09 pm, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then you better should.
>>>> If you use an argument when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't
>>>> you are showing you don't really have an argument. You are just showing
>>>> your preference and making it sound like an argument.
>>> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
>> So? That doesn't show that we are talking about a foolish consistency here.
> It's actually the truest use of the quote that I've yet seen on this
> list. Emerson was complaining about those who adhere to opinions that
> they've expressed in the past solely for the sake of appearing
> consistent in their values, which is basically what you're accusing
> Steven of not doing.

That is not true. I expect that the next time someone will try to
argue for private attributes or some such, Steven will be among
those that will support the "consenting adults" line. This view
of his, is not in the past, it is for all i know still in the
present. That his latest expression was in the past, doesn't make
his view something of the past.

If there was a reason to think he had changed his mind, you would
have been right. But I see no reason for that.

There is a difference between changing your mind and thus change
your arguments and using an argument selectively.