@Legend*I touch the side of my head, in a gesture more for show than anything else, and close my eyes for a second. The smile has faded somewhat, though it still beams.*
To begin: you say that I cannot pick and choose pieces of information to censor, when I very clearly said, and I quote 'your little spiel there was exactly the sort of thing I wanted, because I wanted to hear whatever you have to say'. There is a divide, at least in the culture of the Hierophany, between asking someone to stop transgressing the other's cultural norms, and censoring, or picking and choosing, pieces of information.
To follow, then, on the matter of assumptions. I have recorded the entire conversation. You've just accused me of refusing to learn new methods of understanding, when instead I have decided not to employ them. You are, at best, implying that I am ignorant of things that instead I am choosing to avoid. I have a different methodology than you would recommend, apparently, not necessarily one that is incomplete. I want to make the caveat, before I continue, that you may very well be right, but I cannot see how you'd make accurate predictions from our brief interaction here.
You couched your response to the trolley problem in the subjunctive, so obviously that shields you from culpability since it's more than possible that my culture has led me to read different meaning into certain words than others, that I think differently. My question on this matter would be, why say things like:
*My voice shifts, to a recording of Data speaking. My mouth simply hangs open a hair as the sound proceeds*
"If, hypothetically speaking, I were discussing the very scenario of a train approaching individuals on tracks in order to gauge the "moral development" of another creature I had not interacted with yet, I would consider another scenario with fewer loose ends, greater detail, and more resulting information instead of assuming ethical superiority or higher understanding"
"If I only desired to understand whether he valued individuals or groups to a greater extent, a "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few" ideology, I would perhaps ask directly instead of assuming he reasons on such an elementary level that all factors of a situation can be reduced to a binary decision with hazy conclusions, fit more for a thought experiment performed by one first being exposed to the concept of the psychology of intelligent beings. And I would also suggest others he speaks to do the same—that is, hypothetically of course."
*The recording ends, and I begin speaking normally once more*
...this? You'll notice that none of these are answers to the trolley problem as it is posed. I can't find a reason for these answers unless you think that I am likely to fall into one of these categories, into which I am certain I most resolutely do not. Whether or not you offered alternatives is of secondary relevance: I understood from your comments you have taken certain likelihood of meaning from the evidence you've seen, a meaning my culture has conditioned me to consider offensive and I believe is incorrect.
Perhaps most importantly, and I'll reiterate, you're assuming I'm not asking what I want to know. I want to gather data, in general rather than in particular. That's what I want to know, and despite all of this...
*I wave my hand in the air loosely, as though to indicate the tangent the conversation has taken.*
...I think I'm succeeding quite well. Ah, but perhaps we've just gotten off on the wrong foot. I'm sure I've caused you just as much unintentional offense, and for that I apologize. Would you like to drop the subject? It might be more expedient, for both our interests.
