= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on In Defense of Tone Arguments - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
[Edit: I have retracted the strong claim, incidentally.]
"Quiet and scholarly"? It compares a religious upbringing to sexual abuse - and finds sexual abuse too mild to compare.
Public derision should not be your first resort, however. It has a bad tendency to backfire, and depends pretty heavily on a public agreeing with you to begin with.
Your last paragraph is true, but somewhat vacuous in context: no-one's particularly disputing that diplomacy is a useful persuasive tool. Your article comes across as elevating tone considerations above all else when the aim is effectiveness, and I think that you simply haven't substantiated that.
The summary sentence of the article: "The categorical assessment of "Responding to Tone" as either a logical fallacy or a poor argument is incorrect, as it starts from an unfounded assumption that the purpose of a tone response is, in fact, to refute the argument."
Hence "comes across as".
You were, in another comment, talking about insubstantiable claims? I believe in a manner that suggested they were a bad sort of thing to be making?