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 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)

Comment author: thomblake 23 July 2009 03:49:10AM * 3 points [-]

Your snarky comments are unappreciated.

Basically, you have a choice here. You can engage in rational discourse where you take the other person's arguments charitably and respond reasonably and as politely as possible. I will continue to attempt this. So far, I haven't encountered anyone making baseless accusations about me all night, and if I did, I'd probably just downvote and ignore. Neither have you, and I'd hope you'd do the same, as a responsible member of this community.

I'd hoped to convince you that being just a little considerate was worth the almost no time it takes, so that the level of discourse on this community would not suffer.

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 July 2009 04:03:30AM 0 points [-]

You can engage in rational discourse where you take the other person's arguments charitably and respond reasonably and as politely as possible. I will continue to do attempt this,

I'm sorry, but I have never seen you do this; I've repeatedly had to correct extremely uncharitable interpretations of my position from you.

So far, I haven't encountered anyone making baseless accusations about me all night,

...Except the time I accused you of kitten torture. Oh right, that wasn't baseless, because the existence of an accusation proves a basis (???)

and if I did, I'd probably just downvote and ignore. Neither have you, and I'd hope you'd do the same, as a responsible member of this community.

Yes, you've shown a general pattern of "Bad commenter! No karma for you!" as an alternative to actual articulation of where others' claims are in error.

(That's not something to be proud of.)

By your own standard, you suggest I should have just downvote comments like bogus's rather than even telling him what my position actually is. This is fruitful for discussion, why?

Sadly, my ethics prevent me from modding comments in exchanges I'm directly involved in. It's probably a vestige of listening to advice like Alicorn's, and it puts me at a disadvantage against people who view the downmod as equivalent to an argument.

Know anyone like that?

Comment author: Bo102010 23 July 2009 04:18:44AM 5 points [-]

Let's give it a rest, please.

Comment author: Z_M_Davis 23 July 2009 05:00:26AM * 2 points [-]

Sadly, my ethics prevent me from modding comments in exchanges I'm directly involved in.

Honestly, this notion never occurred to me. I interpret downvotes (upvotes) as a "I would like to see fewer (more) comments like this," and feel free to vote on exchanges I'm involved in, trying to base my votes on quality of discussion and argument, rather than strictly whether I agree or not. Do you think your standard should be a community norm (even if it can't be enforced)?

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 July 2009 01:44:13PM * -1 points [-]

You're kidding. It never occurred to you that you might not be neutral enough to accurately moderate during an argument you're personally involved in?

What's your "working theory" for why the site prevents upvoting your own comment, "even though" you could just register with a different name and upvote as a sockpuppet?

I ... feel free to vote on exchanges I'm involved in, trying to base my votes on quality of discussion and argument, rather than strictly whether I agree or not.

Great, but why don't you think your involvement compromises your ability to do so neutrally, especially when it's a heated discussion? (Btw, on Slashdot, you're prevented from moderating on any discussion where you've posted anywhere, which is probably where I got that ethic, plus previous EY rationality writings about when one's neutrality is compromised.)

Do you think your standard should be a community norm (even if it can't be enforced)?

Yes. I assumed people already had my level of restraint. But, like with following feminist advice, "no good deed goes unpunished". I have a much lower karma level, and others a higher karma level, because I followed obvious rules about watching one's own bias.

I humbly recommend you cancel any votes for or against me in exchanges you've been involved in.

continue this thread »

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