I do not consider the distinction you are drawing important enough to restrict my use of the term “disingenuous”. As far as I am concerned the questions themselves imply ignorance of the answers, and this is the basis on which the term was used. You are free to disapprove (and your disapproval is noted), but I shan’t be drawn into a status battle over this issue.
You are free to disapprove (and your disapproval is noted), but I shan’t be drawn into a status battle over this issue.
Excuse me? While there is an unfortunate and unavoidable status implication in the mere willingness to correct someone rather than being too intimidated by the potential threat they may pose I went to a lot of trouble to ameliorate that in the correction in question. I prefaced with an indication of full support for you in your status battle with brazil then offered a whole stream of applicable substitute negative labels for brazil’s rheotorical ploy to show that I am not trying to subvert the core of the message “brazil should have lowered status because of what he said to kompo”—because the latter would, in fact, seem appropriate.
The above being the case it actually kind of hurts to be portrayed as trying to ‘draw you into a status battle’. The opening salvo in any such battle would be the parent and I obviously wouldn’t draw it out beyond this one reply. I could only stand to lose by such an engagement.
Regarding the calling of people disingenuous there probably isn’t a problem here—I expect you consider the back and forth you’ve had with brazil over the subject to have gone on long enough. Obviously in general I am always likely to object if somewhat is falsely accused of being disingenuous. It would be outright bizarre if I didn’t when I have already done so when the unjustly accused is someone I consider a troll-minus-malicious-intent. In the context of lesswrong disingenuousness is perhaps one of the most dire things you can accuse someone of!
The above being the case it actually kind of hurts to be portrayed as trying to ‘draw you into a status battle’.
As it happens I gave serious consideration to rewording or dropping the last line, but didn’t get to it in time. It was more heavy-handed than I intended, sorry. But, in fairness to myself, I would point out that the future tense was used, and that there was no intended implication of inappropriate aggression on your part in the preceding exchange. I was, in other words, retreating from a danger that I foresaw (for whose existence I am as surely to blame as anyone, being as I am a human).
I had intended only to communicate that I wasn’t terribly interested in arguing about the meaning of “disingenuous” in this particular context at this particular moment, nothing more. (I’ll mention that I had also considered the wording: “drawn into a status battle with an ally...)
I do not consider the distinction you are drawing important enough to restrict my use of the term “disingenuous”. As far as I am concerned the questions themselves imply ignorance of the answers, and this is the basis on which the term was used.
The questions may have been posed as Socratic questions rather than disingenuous or rhetorical questions.
However the Socratic method is a pedagogical device. It’s not meant to be a tactic used to get out of stating what your argument or beliefs really are when trying to arrive at the truth and it does seem to me that it would save time if brazil84just stated whatever evidence they have and what conclusions they draw from it.
The questions may have been posed as Socratic questions...However the Socratic method is a pedagogical device.
Indeed; hence using it amounts to an assertion of higher status like that of teacher over pupil. This would be another ground on which to object to brazil’s questions.
There is feigning of ignorance of the answers (even if the feigning is transparent); and they aren’t rhetorical. On the other qualities we agree.
No, there isn’t. Nothing in that passage in any way implies that brazil is ignorant of the answer to those questions.
I do not consider the distinction you are drawing important enough to restrict my use of the term “disingenuous”. As far as I am concerned the questions themselves imply ignorance of the answers, and this is the basis on which the term was used. You are free to disapprove (and your disapproval is noted), but I shan’t be drawn into a status battle over this issue.
Excuse me? While there is an unfortunate and unavoidable status implication in the mere willingness to correct someone rather than being too intimidated by the potential threat they may pose I went to a lot of trouble to ameliorate that in the correction in question. I prefaced with an indication of full support for you in your status battle with brazil then offered a whole stream of applicable substitute negative labels for brazil’s rheotorical ploy to show that I am not trying to subvert the core of the message “brazil should have lowered status because of what he said to kompo”—because the latter would, in fact, seem appropriate.
The above being the case it actually kind of hurts to be portrayed as trying to ‘draw you into a status battle’. The opening salvo in any such battle would be the parent and I obviously wouldn’t draw it out beyond this one reply. I could only stand to lose by such an engagement.
Regarding the calling of people disingenuous there probably isn’t a problem here—I expect you consider the back and forth you’ve had with brazil over the subject to have gone on long enough. Obviously in general I am always likely to object if somewhat is falsely accused of being disingenuous. It would be outright bizarre if I didn’t when I have already done so when the unjustly accused is someone I consider a troll-minus-malicious-intent. In the context of lesswrong disingenuousness is perhaps one of the most dire things you can accuse someone of!
As it happens I gave serious consideration to rewording or dropping the last line, but didn’t get to it in time. It was more heavy-handed than I intended, sorry. But, in fairness to myself, I would point out that the future tense was used, and that there was no intended implication of inappropriate aggression on your part in the preceding exchange. I was, in other words, retreating from a danger that I foresaw (for whose existence I am as surely to blame as anyone, being as I am a human).
I had intended only to communicate that I wasn’t terribly interested in arguing about the meaning of “disingenuous” in this particular context at this particular moment, nothing more. (I’ll mention that I had also considered the wording: “drawn into a status battle with an ally...)
It’s amazing how much difference those few words make. ;)
The questions may have been posed as Socratic questions rather than disingenuous or rhetorical questions.
However the Socratic method is a pedagogical device. It’s not meant to be a tactic used to get out of stating what your argument or beliefs really are when trying to arrive at the truth and it does seem to me that it would save time if brazil84just stated whatever evidence they have and what conclusions they draw from it.
Indeed; hence using it amounts to an assertion of higher status like that of teacher over pupil. This would be another ground on which to object to brazil’s questions.