My god, you’re a pompous ass. You read someone’s mind and accuse them of making a “dominance attempt” because you don’t like the writing style.
“You should consider” seems simply to have been an attempt to be polite. Inept, perhaps, but hardly “condescending.”
You have developed a plethora of self-protective rationalizations, hostile arguer, clever arguer, anything but your own inability to defend your positions in actual debate.
And then, so what if it were condescending? Your own dominance strivings (and chronic injustice collecting) keep you from engaging in argument honestly.
I have no horse in this race, but I note that right after saying this,
You read someone’s mind and accuse them of making a “dominance attempt” because you don’t like the writing style.
you proceed to say this, doing the exact same thing you condemn wedrifid for doing:
You have developed a plethora of self-protective rationalizations, hostile arguer, clever arguer, anything but your own inability to defend your positions in actual debate… Your own dominance strivings (and chronic injustice collecting) keep you from engaging in argument honestly.
No successful irony; only your special pleading. I didn’t criticize Werdifred for mind reading, which all humans are fully capable of. I criticized him for mind reading based on his mere dislike of the manner of expression employed by common_law.
What is truly ironic is indeed that Werdifred (Weird Fred?) is the epitome of what the lead essay condemns: arguing to establish personal dominance. Isn’t that plainly obvious? Can you honestly deny it, or is an actual example beyond the pale?
Let me take the opportunity to disagree with common_law on one important point. There’s nothing necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the “clever arguer.” Sometimes arguing a position tendentiously is a good way to test it. Take one example. Relative to E.Y., Robin Hanson is a “clever arguer.” But Hanson is the superior intellectual and is ultimately more intellectually honest.
I criticized him for mind reading based on his mere dislike of the manner of expression employed by common_law.
And how do you know he/she did that? For that matter, how do I know you’re not just leveling false accusations at him/her right now based on your dislike of the manner of expression he/she employed? Your “mind-reading” is, if anything, far worse than anything wedrifid did, because not only are you criticizing someone’s actions based on insufficient evidence, you also purport to know that person’s motivations. Have you heard of the fundamental question of rationality? “What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?” I suggest you apply it here.
What is truly ironic is indeed that Werdifred (Weird Fred?) is the epitome of what the lead essay condemns: arguing to establish personal dominance.
Again, you are drawing highly uncharitable conclusions based on little to no evidence. In addition, you misspelled wedrifid’s username as “Werdifred”, and I’m not sure if you did so intentionally in order to call him/her “Weird Fred”. I’m not sure what to call this, honestly; “ad hominem” might actually be too nice of a term. This is playground-level name-calling.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. From reading common_law’s comment, he/she does not appear to be making any claims about there being something “necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the ‘clever arguer’”. Bringing Eliezer and Robin into this seems entirely irrelevant, and moreover, your assertions about them are entirely unsupported, true or not. I feel no need to argue this point.
This will be my last reply to you on this thread, unfortunately. You have not yet demonstrated that you are capable of carrying on clear, constructive conversation; your first action was to call wedrifid, an esteemed long-time member of LW, a “pompous ass”, and it only got worse from there. At this stage I see no further benefit to carrying on this conversation.
My god, you’re a pompous ass. You read someone’s mind and accuse them of making a “dominance attempt” because you don’t like the writing style.
“You should consider” seems simply to have been an attempt to be polite. Inept, perhaps, but hardly “condescending.”
You have developed a plethora of self-protective rationalizations, hostile arguer, clever arguer, anything but your own inability to defend your positions in actual debate.
And then, so what if it were condescending? Your own dominance strivings (and chronic injustice collecting) keep you from engaging in argument honestly.
I have no horse in this race, but I note that right after saying this,
you proceed to say this, doing the exact same thing you condemn wedrifid for doing:
Irony much?
No successful irony; only your special pleading. I didn’t criticize Werdifred for mind reading, which all humans are fully capable of. I criticized him for mind reading based on his mere dislike of the manner of expression employed by common_law.
What is truly ironic is indeed that Werdifred (Weird Fred?) is the epitome of what the lead essay condemns: arguing to establish personal dominance. Isn’t that plainly obvious? Can you honestly deny it, or is an actual example beyond the pale?
Let me take the opportunity to disagree with common_law on one important point. There’s nothing necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the “clever arguer.” Sometimes arguing a position tendentiously is a good way to test it. Take one example. Relative to E.Y., Robin Hanson is a “clever arguer.” But Hanson is the superior intellectual and is ultimately more intellectually honest.
And how do you know he/she did that? For that matter, how do I know you’re not just leveling false accusations at him/her right now based on your dislike of the manner of expression he/she employed? Your “mind-reading” is, if anything, far worse than anything wedrifid did, because not only are you criticizing someone’s actions based on insufficient evidence, you also purport to know that person’s motivations. Have you heard of the fundamental question of rationality? “What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?” I suggest you apply it here.
Again, you are drawing highly uncharitable conclusions based on little to no evidence. In addition, you misspelled wedrifid’s username as “Werdifred”, and I’m not sure if you did so intentionally in order to call him/her “Weird Fred”. I’m not sure what to call this, honestly; “ad hominem” might actually be too nice of a term. This is playground-level name-calling.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. From reading common_law’s comment, he/she does not appear to be making any claims about there being something “necessarily better about the faux-naive arguer than the ‘clever arguer’”. Bringing Eliezer and Robin into this seems entirely irrelevant, and moreover, your assertions about them are entirely unsupported, true or not. I feel no need to argue this point.
This will be my last reply to you on this thread, unfortunately. You have not yet demonstrated that you are capable of carrying on clear, constructive conversation; your first action was to call wedrifid, an esteemed long-time member of LW, a “pompous ass”, and it only got worse from there. At this stage I see no further benefit to carrying on this conversation.