thomblake comments on Missing the Trees for the Forest - Less Wrong

64 Post author: Yvain 22 July 2009 03:23AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (159)

Tags: politics

Comments (159)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 22 July 2009 07:43:16PM * 0 points [-]

I have said nothing that gives you such a basis for believing so.

I think bogus's comment is evidence to the contrary. The proper response when you're misunderstood is not to be incredulous that you were misunderstood and leave it at that.

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (60 children)

Comment author: bogus 23 July 2009 09:15:57AM * 2 points [-]

And I did not "leave it at that", I stated what my position was and left it to bogus to show the counterevidence.

What counterevidence is needed? I realize that this most likely doesn't apply to you, but when someone complains about being "told that they are an oppressor", this is prima facie evidence that they were in fact behaving oppressively in some way - such as by taking part in a potentially oppressive power structure. If they were completely uninvolved, they would probably dismiss the original complaints as absurd. Sticks and stones will break my bones, and all that.

And once again, Silas's conclusion turns out to be correct. Here we see bogus shortly thereafter drift off into the la-la land of "unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theories".

That's not an "unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theory", it's simple historical and sociological fact. Rules of "proper behavior" when relating to women are hundreds of years old, and their overall character has consistently been paternalistic and mildly depersonalizing. The worst aspects of them have since been corrected, but we still face a lot of cultural inertia.

Comment author: thomblake 23 July 2009 02:50:25AM 0 points [-]

Your position is basically that kitten torture is a good idea because of your religious beliefs. I find that offensive.

Was this a response to me? If so, I'm not sure where you're getting this. For the most part, I don't have "religious beliefs", and I certainly haven't advocated kitten torture. Do you have a citation?

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (57 children)

Comment author: thomblake 23 July 2009 02:59:20AM 0 points [-]

You made a claim that seemed unsubstantiated; you seemed confused about my position, and so I responded by asking for clarification and a citation, as is appropriate for rational discourse. I'm not sure what was supposed to "fall into place". My response does not seem absurd.

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (55 children)

Comment author: thomblake 23 July 2009 03:14:23AM 1 point [-]

I had checked out the links in the first place. I even read those comments in the first place, as they were posted. You responded to bogus as though he could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way he did (explicitly saying that you'd said nothing that gives him a basis for believing what he does).

I pointed out that it's likely that you did say something that gave him a basis for his beliefs.

I think my main issue with your comments here is that you seem to not be interested in being considerate of where the people disagreeing with you are coming from. Rather than asking for or offering clarification, you're rude and dismissive.

I don't think there's much to be gained from attempting to discuss this further.

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (53 children)

Comment author: thomblake 23 July 2009 03:28:29AM * 0 points [-]

N.B. Tu quoque, while perhaps a useful rhetorical technique, is a logical fallacy.

You responded to me as though I could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way I did about your kitten torture (explicitly saying that you'd said nothing that gives me a basis for believing what I do).

What I said was:

Was this a response to me? If so, I'm not sure where you're getting this. For the most part, I don't have "religious beliefs", and I certainly haven't advocated kitten torture. Do you have a citation?

I did not suggest that you didn't have any reason to think that. Rather, I noted that I don't know what your reasons are ("I'm not sure where you're getting this"), I asked where you got that idea ("Do you have a citation"), and I did not explicitly say that I'd said nothing that would give you that idea, or at least those words don't seem to appear in the comment you cited. (or were you using a different meaning of "explicit"?)

I could, just the same, point out that my very post attributing that position to you, was evidence that you said something that gave me that idea.

Yes, you could. Did you think I'd disagree with that? But I'm not sure why anyone would need such evidence - I'd already accepted that you might have a reason to think so and asked precisely what that might have been.

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (51 children)

thomblake comments on Missing the Trees for the Forest - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (159)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (159)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login