= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Cached Thoughts - 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 (92)
The vocabulary someone uses in an attack on an argument shouldn't be limited by the degree to which the language might offend someone. Or should it?
To be explicit: I am not calling him stupid! Only someone intelligent could write an article like this, that's obvious, and I agree with the rest of it.
And yes, that's a superior phrasing of my argument. I should have been more descriptive in the original post, that's my fault. Do you agree with it?
This is an ongoing controversy, but if you can be inoffensive without sacrificing too many other virtues, it seems best to go for it.
That's good to know. It wasn't at all clear - any of it! - from your original comment.
I would agree with a weak, purely descriptive form of my restatement.