I agree with your model of aaronsw, and think wedrifid’s comments are over the top. But wedrifid is surely dead right about one important thing: aaronsw presented his article as “here is a general point about rationality, and I find that I have to think up some examples so here they are …” but it’s extremely obvious (especially if you look at a few of his other recent articles and comments) that that’s simply dishonest: he started with the examples and fitted the general point about rationality around them.
(I have no idea what sort of process would make someone as smart as aaronsw think that was a good approach.)
If you find yourself responding with tu quoque, then it is probably about time you re-evaluated the hypothesis that you are in mind-kill territory.
In this particular context, I think a more appropriate label would be the “Appeal to Come on, gimme a friggen’ break!”
The comment he was responding to was quite loaded with connotation, voluntarily or not, despite the “mostly true” and “arguably within the realm of likely possibilities” denotations that would make the assertion technically valid.
Being compared, even as a metaphorical hypothesis, to sophistry-flinging rhetoric-centric politicians is just about the most mind-killer-loaded subtext assault you could throw at someone.
it’s extremely obvious (especially if you look at a few of his other recent articles and comments) that that’s simply dishonest: he started with the examples and fitted the general point about rationality around them.
Considering he has changed the example, I find this unlikely. In any event, he post would appear to stand on it’s own.
I agree with your model of aaronsw, and think wedrifid’s comments are over the top. But wedrifid is surely dead right about one important thing: aaronsw presented his article as “here is a general point about rationality, and I find that I have to think up some examples so here they are …” but it’s extremely obvious (especially if you look at a few of his other recent articles and comments) that that’s simply dishonest: he started with the examples and fitted the general point about rationality around them.
(I have no idea what sort of process would make someone as smart as aaronsw think that was a good approach.)
Well, he is heavily involved in the US politics scene, and may have picked up bad habits like focusing on rhetoric over facts, etc.
Unlike, say, wedrifid, whose highly-rated comment was just full of facts!
...
If you find yourself responding with tu quoque, then it is probably about time you re-evaluated the hypothesis that you are in mind-kill territory.
In this particular context, I think a more appropriate label would be the “Appeal to Come on, gimme a friggen’ break!”
The comment he was responding to was quite loaded with connotation, voluntarily or not, despite the “mostly true” and “arguably within the realm of likely possibilities” denotations that would make the assertion technically valid.
Being compared, even as a metaphorical hypothesis, to sophistry-flinging rhetoric-centric politicians is just about the most mind-killer-loaded subtext assault you could throw at someone.
How could I have phrased the point better? Or should I have dropped it altogether?
Considering he has changed the example, I find this unlikely. In any event, he post would appear to stand on it’s own.
The fact that he changed the example doesn’t seem to me very strong example that the example wasn’t originally the motivation for writing the article.
I made no comment on whether the post stands well on its own; only on wedrifid’s accusation of dishonesty.
Well, he could just be very good at it, I suppose. I had a much lower prior anyway, so I may be misjudging the strength of the evidence here.