You hope the author will engage the question how? By abjectly apologizing? By disagreeing? If a simple response of “Good point, thanks” would be sufficient, then what was the point of your comment?
Vladimir: I upvoted your comment, because I didn’t think it was that bad. Principle of charity on the OP: maybe they meant: “I don’t think this is enough of a threat that it makes technology a net negative, so it isn’t meant as a knockdown argument of transhumanism?”
I’m not sure what you mean here. I was proposing an alternate interpretation of the OP’s phrasing. I’m not sure what they actually meant. I agree that if they were making a mistake I want to believe they were making a mistake. If technology is bad, I want to believe that too. Can you clarify what you think is the specific problem?
I’m not sure what they actually meant. I agree that if they were making a mistake I want to believe they were making a mistake.
This was my point. There is no power to “principle of charity”, since it ought not shift your level of belief in the author intending correct meaning as incorrect one.
I am the second downvote.
You hope the author will engage the question how? By abjectly apologizing? By disagreeing? If a simple response of “Good point, thanks” would be sufficient, then what was the point of your comment?
It’s a big first step to actually make that “simple response”. It’s even more important to recognize the problem if you are not inclined to agree.
Vladimir: I upvoted your comment, because I didn’t think it was that bad. Principle of charity on the OP: maybe they meant: “I don’t think this is enough of a threat that it makes technology a net negative, so it isn’t meant as a knockdown argument of transhumanism?”
“Principle of charity” conflicts with principle of Tarski.
I’m not sure what you mean here. I was proposing an alternate interpretation of the OP’s phrasing. I’m not sure what they actually meant. I agree that if they were making a mistake I want to believe they were making a mistake. If technology is bad, I want to believe that too. Can you clarify what you think is the specific problem?
This was my point. There is no power to “principle of charity”, since it ought not shift your level of belief in the author intending correct meaning as incorrect one.