I’m kind of responding and thinking outloud here.… thanks for being patient it’s taking me to longer to put my finger on this than I thought it might.
I do believe that attention should be treated as sacred, if anything should be.
I was thinking about this in the shower… with with something like “ Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine” or “Believe X” where X is some demographic group of people or a single person, there’s an aspect of “smuggling priors” that I dislike.
While I don’t drink, “Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine” is a shitty argument for not drinking. There’s an implied prior that personal preference in the behavior of romantic partners should be legislated.
But there are plenty of good arguments for reducing or excluding consumption of alcohol, that’s just not one of them.
With the Woody Allen case it’s a lot of “Believe X.” So long as X is describing a human(s), there’s a prior that one kind of human is inherently infallible (or at least substantially more credible).
But there may still be good reasons to pay attention to the case. It may be like there’s a novel takeaway from it similar to Gideon v. Wainwright.
In both situations I am more just fantasizing about a single word or term people could use to politely say “I’m not saying you’re wrong or that I don’t care, but I find your argument and evidence presented for it lacking in (framing, relevance to me, etc) although I could be be persuaded if your argument improved or you had better evidence for it.”
Just kind of seemed like something someone would have thought of before and coined a phrase for.
Sorry if I’m scattered here, thanks for helping my sort it out.
I’m kind of responding and thinking outloud here.… thanks for being patient it’s taking me to longer to put my finger on this than I thought it might.
I do believe that attention should be treated as sacred, if anything should be.
I was thinking about this in the shower… with with something like “ Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine” or “Believe X” where X is some demographic group of people or a single person, there’s an aspect of “smuggling priors” that I dislike.
While I don’t drink, “Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine” is a shitty argument for not drinking. There’s an implied prior that personal preference in the behavior of romantic partners should be legislated.
But there are plenty of good arguments for reducing or excluding consumption of alcohol, that’s just not one of them.
With the Woody Allen case it’s a lot of “Believe X.” So long as X is describing a human(s), there’s a prior that one kind of human is inherently infallible (or at least substantially more credible).
But there may still be good reasons to pay attention to the case. It may be like there’s a novel takeaway from it similar to Gideon v. Wainwright.
In both situations I am more just fantasizing about a single word or term people could use to politely say “I’m not saying you’re wrong or that I don’t care, but I find your argument and evidence presented for it lacking in (framing, relevance to me, etc) although I could be be persuaded if your argument improved or you had better evidence for it.”
Just kind of seemed like something someone would have thought of before and coined a phrase for.
Sorry if I’m scattered here, thanks for helping my sort it out.
-