= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on Strong moral realism, meta-ethics and pseudo-questions. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (172)
re: denying claim without addressing argument IMO, such comments are acceptable when the commenter is of high enough status in the community. Obviously I'd prefer they address the argument, but I consider myself better off just knowing that certain people agree or disagree.
ADDED: Note, I am merely stating my personal preference, not insisting that my personal preference become normatively binding on LW. I also happen to agree with Komponisto's judgment that Unknowns previous comment was unhelpful.
I disagree.
ETA: Note that an implication of what you said is that replying in that manner constitutes an assertion of higher status than the other person; this is exactly why it is irritating.
I think assertions of higher status can sometimes be characterized as justifiable or even desirable. Eliezer does this all the time. The alternative to "stating disagreement while failing to address the details of the argument," is often to ignore the comment altogether. (Also, see edit to my previous comment before replying further.)
Well, if you agree with me about that particular comment, maybe it would have been preferable to wait for an occasion where you actually disagreed with my judgment to make this point?
(This would help cut down on "fake disagreements", i.e. disagreements arising out of misunderstanding.)
Agreed.