I was really just annoyed at the lack of clarity in that statement.
I can see why you would be. That is, after I clicked back through half a dozen comments to explore the context I could see why you would be annoyed. Until I got back here the only problem with nazgulnarsil’s comments was the inexcusably negligent punctuation.
Exploring the intuition behind my objection, purely for the sake of curiosity, your style of questioning is something that often works in debates completely independently of merit. To use your word it presumes a state of judgment from which you can label nazgulnarsil’s position ‘strange’ without really needing to explain directly. The metaphorical equivalent of a contemptuous sneer. Because it is a tactic that is so effective independently of merit in the context I instinctively cry ‘foul’.
The thing is, a bit of contempt is actually warranted in this case. Taken together with his earlier statements the effective position nazgulnarsil was taking was either inconsistent or indicative of utterly bizarre. But as I have learned the hard way more than once you can’t afford to cede the intellectual high and be dismissive unless you first make sure that the whole story is clear to the casual observer within one leap.
I suspect if your comment had included a link to the two comments which taken together make nazgulnarsil’s position strange it would have met my vocal approval.
If we’re just talking about rhetoric here, I prefer “odd” to “stupid” but would prefer “wrong” or “unjustified” (depending on which one you actually mean) to either.
Okay, “stupid” if you prefer :)
Better. :)
I was really just annoyed at the lack of clarity in that statement. I could have just said so, in fewer words (or said nothing).
Your critique was justified, and your less presumptuous “struck me as” made it easier for me to think rather than argue.
I can see why you would be. That is, after I clicked back through half a dozen comments to explore the context I could see why you would be annoyed. Until I got back here the only problem with nazgulnarsil’s comments was the inexcusably negligent punctuation.
Exploring the intuition behind my objection, purely for the sake of curiosity, your style of questioning is something that often works in debates completely independently of merit. To use your word it presumes a state of judgment from which you can label nazgulnarsil’s position ‘strange’ without really needing to explain directly. The metaphorical equivalent of a contemptuous sneer. Because it is a tactic that is so effective independently of merit in the context I instinctively cry ‘foul’.
The thing is, a bit of contempt is actually warranted in this case. Taken together with his earlier statements the effective position nazgulnarsil was taking was either inconsistent or indicative of utterly bizarre. But as I have learned the hard way more than once you can’t afford to cede the intellectual high and be dismissive unless you first make sure that the whole story is clear to the casual observer within one leap.
I suspect if your comment had included a link to the two comments which taken together make nazgulnarsil’s position strange it would have met my vocal approval.
If we’re just talking about rhetoric here, I prefer “odd” to “stupid” but would prefer “wrong” or “unjustified” (depending on which one you actually mean) to either.