Ah well, those can’t be the singularitarians he’s talking about then. He doesn’t name any names, leaving it to Anonymous to do so, then responds by saying “I wasn’t going to name names, but...” and then continuing not to name names. I predict a no true Scotsman path of retreat if you take your argument to him.
It’s not clear to me how approaching your response with an assumption of bad faith will convince him or his readers of the correctness of your position. Let us know how it works out for you.
I’m not assuming bad faith, just observing a lack of specifics about who he is talking about. But I’m not intending to make any response there, not being as informed as, say, ciphergoth on the SI’s position.
I would have preferred that he use my (even more passive-aggressive) approach, which is to say, “I’m not going to name any names[1]”, and then have a footnote saying “[1] A ‘name’ is an identifier used to reference a proper noun. An example of a name might be ‘Singularity Institute’.”
Get it? You’re not “naming names”, you’re just giving an example of name in the exact neighborhood of the accusation! Tee hee!
(Of course, it’s even better if you actually make the accusation directly, but that’s obviously not an option here.)
Ah well, those can’t be the singularitarians he’s talking about then. He doesn’t name any names, leaving it to Anonymous to do so, then responds by saying “I wasn’t going to name names, but...” and then continuing not to name names. I predict a no true Scotsman path of retreat if you take your argument to him.
It’s not clear to me how approaching your response with an assumption of bad faith will convince him or his readers of the correctness of your position. Let us know how it works out for you.
I’m not assuming bad faith, just observing a lack of specifics about who he is talking about. But I’m not intending to make any response there, not being as informed as, say, ciphergoth on the SI’s position.
I would have preferred that he use my (even more passive-aggressive) approach, which is to say, “I’m not going to name any names[1]”, and then have a footnote saying “[1] A ‘name’ is an identifier used to reference a proper noun. An example of a name might be ‘Singularity Institute’.”
Get it? You’re not “naming names”, you’re just giving an example of name in the exact neighborhood of the accusation! Tee hee!
(Of course, it’s even better if you actually make the accusation directly, but that’s obviously not an option here.)