I was never particularly interested in debating the effectiveness of The God Delusion; I used it as an example, because in most of the places I have argued, it would have been accepted as such. I was mistaken about its effectiveness as an example for my point here. And I may be mistaken about the book’s effectiveness in converting people, but frankly, I’d rather be mistaken than debate its effectiveness with you, I will reserve that debate for people who are actually pleasant to talk with; my experience with you thus far means the negligible value of the truth of the matter to me would have a negative net utility.
I’ve categorized you as a person who is more interested in making criticisms of any point at any cost than making useful criticisms. A useful criticism, incidentally, after I elicited my -purpose- in using that example, would be asking whether that example served my purpose; that would elicit a positive response and a constructive conversation. Instead you persisted in questioning the example itself, arguments I had already dismissed and downplayed arguments about. Literally the only reason I -would- entertain that debate is if the debate -itself- was interesting. So seriously, it’s worse for me to argue with you than not. I’ll debate with you on matters I judge worth debating about, but don’t expect me to argue for the sake of arguing, nor to dismiss beliefs on the basis of a one-sided argument in which I’m not participating.
I’ve categorized you as a person who is more interested in making criticisms of any point at any cost than making useful criticisms.
This is a common from-the-inside view in people using a tone argument, yes. It’s similar to responding to criticism by complaining that the critic is the wrong sort of skeptic.
That would be relevant if I were, in fact, making a tone argument. Given that I am not, it fails to be inside the algorithm you reference. I am simply not interested in arguing that point with you. Although apparently you’ve been called the wrong sort of skeptic before, which is a good classification of you; your responses have been about as meaningful to the substantive thrust of the argument as a complaint about typeface.
Or, to put it another way: That soldier is dead. I’ve abandoned him on the front lines as a pointless cause, as he was out of formation and unnecessary to the battle. You’re not arguing with me, you’re desecrating a corpse.
I was never particularly interested in debating the effectiveness of The God Delusion; I used it as an example, because in most of the places I have argued, it would have been accepted as such. I was mistaken about its effectiveness as an example for my point here. And I may be mistaken about the book’s effectiveness in converting people, but frankly, I’d rather be mistaken than debate its effectiveness with you, I will reserve that debate for people who are actually pleasant to talk with; my experience with you thus far means the negligible value of the truth of the matter to me would have a negative net utility.
Good day.
But I paid attention to tone and everything!
I’ve categorized you as a person who is more interested in making criticisms of any point at any cost than making useful criticisms. A useful criticism, incidentally, after I elicited my -purpose- in using that example, would be asking whether that example served my purpose; that would elicit a positive response and a constructive conversation. Instead you persisted in questioning the example itself, arguments I had already dismissed and downplayed arguments about. Literally the only reason I -would- entertain that debate is if the debate -itself- was interesting. So seriously, it’s worse for me to argue with you than not. I’ll debate with you on matters I judge worth debating about, but don’t expect me to argue for the sake of arguing, nor to dismiss beliefs on the basis of a one-sided argument in which I’m not participating.
This is a common from-the-inside view in people using a tone argument, yes. It’s similar to responding to criticism by complaining that the critic is the wrong sort of skeptic.
That would be relevant if I were, in fact, making a tone argument. Given that I am not, it fails to be inside the algorithm you reference. I am simply not interested in arguing that point with you. Although apparently you’ve been called the wrong sort of skeptic before, which is a good classification of you; your responses have been about as meaningful to the substantive thrust of the argument as a complaint about typeface.
Or, to put it another way: That soldier is dead. I’ve abandoned him on the front lines as a pointless cause, as he was out of formation and unnecessary to the battle. You’re not arguing with me, you’re desecrating a corpse.