= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - 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 (275)
Charity as to whose statements? Mine or Sipursky's?
Can you please quote or summarize the statement you are interpreting charitably.
TIA.
Tsipursky's article. The article only provides one reason. There no reason to see it as arguing that the reason alone is sufficient.
:shrug: Then you should have made that clear when you responded to my point, i.e. that you would respond to a different version of the article than the one I was responding to.
And you should have also applied the same principle of charity to my point and made it clear that you were changing the subject.
Saying someone is making a "ridiculous statement" is not something that I read charitably.
Actually what I said is this:
So let's see if I have this straight. You use the principle of charity to reinterpret Tsipursky's position so that my statement becomes less reasonable; then you refuse to offer any such charity to my statement based on your general principles. And you don't disclose any of this until pressed onit, instead you just pretend to be responding to my point.
Please stop being so dishonest.
Also, for future reference please tell me what types of statements you refuse to read charitably.