Actually, it would have been more productive, since you obviously didn’t understand what I was saying.
No, I rejected your specific argument because it was by very nature fallacious. There are other things you could have said but didn’t and those things I may not have even disagreed with.
The burden of proof lies on you, because you are appealing to me to shift my belief toward yours.
The conversation was initiated by you admonishing others. You have since then danced the dance of re-framing with some skill. I was actually only at the fringes of the conversation.
A direct denunciation of the epistemic rational failure mode of passing the ‘proof’ buck suits my purposes.
but I would appreciate it if you would specify exactly what I’ve said, here or in other comments, that has convinced you so thoroughly that I am unable to hold a rational discussion.
I haven’t said that. Specifics quotations of arguments or reasoning that I reject tend to be included in my comments. Take the above for example. Your reply does not relate rationally to the quote you were replying to. I reject the argument that you were using (which is something I do consistently—I care about bullshit probably even more than you care about supporting your culture hypothesis). Your response was to weasel your way out of your argument, twist your initial claim such that it has the intellectual high ground, label my disagreement with you a personal flaw, misrepresented my claim to be something that I have not made and then attempt to convey that I have not given any explanation for my position. That covers modules 1, 2, 3 and 4 in “Effective Argument Techniques 101”.
I don’t especially mind the slander but it is essentially futile for me to try to engage with the reasoning. I would have to play the kind of games that I come here to avoid.
Was that the Joan of Arc reference? I’ve been studying these sexual related genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormalities recently in a Biology class and her name came up. I found it fascinating and nearly left the comment there just for that. Each to their own. :)
Maybe it was the Joan comment. I can’t find it now.
That Joan comment annoyed me too, though I didn’t say anything at the time. Not your fault, but just let a woman do something remarkable, something almost miraculous, and sure enough, some man 500 years later is going to claim that she must have actually been male, genetically speaking.
I wasn’t feminist at all until I came here to LW. Honest!
That Joan comment annoyed me too, though I didn’t say anything at the time. Not your fault, but just let a woman do something remarkable, something almost miraculous, and sure enough, some man 500 years later is going to claim that she must have actually been male, genetically speaking.
She is a woman, regardless of whether she has a Y chromosome. It is SRY gene that matters genetically. So we can use that observation to free us up to call evidence evidence without committing crimes against womankind.
If I my (most decidedly female) lecturer is to be believed the speculation was based primarily on personal reports from her closest friends. It included things like menstrual patterns (and the lack thereof) and personal habits. I didn’t look into the details to see whether or not the this was an allusion to the typically far shorter vagina becoming relevant. I’m also not sure if the line of reasoning was prompted by some historian trying to work out what on earth was going on while researching her personal life or just biologists liking to feel like their knowledge is relevant to impressive people and events.
If she hadn’t done famous things then we probably wouldn’t have any records whatsoever to go on and nor would anyone care to look.
You’re starting to sound like a troll. I would feel less sure of that if you hadn’t just admitted that you don’t expect to care what you’re arguing about in another comment.
What do you want out of this discussion? Personally, I would like to be better informed about an area that smart people disagree with me on. You’re not helping me attain that goal, since you are providing me with no evidence. Meanwhile, you are continuing to hold a hostile tone and expecting me to support positions I neither hold nor claim to hold.
If you have an actual interest in either the topic of this discussion or working with me to fix whatever it is that has sent up so many red flags with you, I’d appreciate it. I don’t feel like I’m guilty of any of the things you mentioned, but if you feel adamantly that I am, I’m happy to listen to specifics so that I can evaluate and fix that behavior. If instead you feel merely like insulting me, I urge you to make better use of your time.
You’re starting to sound like a troll. I would feel less sure of that if you hadn’t just admitted that you don’t expect to care what you’re arguing about in another comment.
It is my policy to remove comments whenever social aggressors find them to be useful to take out of context and have done so with the subject of your link, assuring Resgui that it was nothing to do with him.
In that discussion Relsqui and I came to an amicable agreement to disagree. He (if he’ll pardon the assumption of gender and chastise me if I have made an incorrect inference) had already made some hints in that direction in the ancestor and acknowledging that I too didn’t think such a trivial matter of word definition was really worth arguing about is a gesture of respect. (Some people find it annoying if the other person leaves them hanging, especially if they had offered to extend the discussion mostly as a gesture of goodwill, which is what I had taken from Relsqui.)
I’ll note that whatever you may think of me personally a distinguishing feature of trolls is that they enjoy provoking an emotional response in others while on the other hand I find it unsavoury. Even though I have actively developed myself in order to have a thicker ‘emotional skin’ (see related concurrent discussion) with when it comes to frustrations this sort of conflict will always be a net psychological drain.
My goal was to support Will’s comment in the face of a reply that I would have found frustrating and was also an error in reasoning. In the future I will reply directly to Will (or whomever), expressing agreement and elaborating on the point with more details. Replying to the undesired comment gave more attention to it rather than less and obscuration would perhaps have been more useful than rebuttal.
a distinguishing feature of trolls is that they enjoy provoking an emotional response in others while on the other hand I find it unsavoury
For what it’s worth, it is very hard to distinguish between someone who is deliberately provoking a negative reaction and someone who is not very practiced at anticipating what choices of language or behavior might cause one. I, like datadataeverywhere, did get the impression that you were at least one of those things; off the top of my head, here are a few specific reasons:
Your initial comment disagreed with my terminology without actually addressing it directly, merely asserting that I was wrong without providing evidence nor argument. This struck me as aggressive and also poorly reasoned.
You persisted in the argument about definition despite, as you later said, not caring about it. I did not continue that thread out of goodwill but out of a desire to resolve the disagreement and return to the original topic—hence stopping and checking in that we were on the same page. That’s why it annoyed me when you said you didn’t care; in that case, I wish we hadn’t wasted the time on it!
Applying the label “social aggressor” in response to someone who is explicitly trying to find out what’s going on in the conversation and steer it somewhere useful. (In fairness, dde suggesting you’re a troll was not necessary either, but the situations are different in that I have not noticed you specifically trying to get the conversation on track.)
Not answering direct questions, especially when they are designed to return the conversation to a productive topic.
I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds by spelling this out; my impression of the LW community is that constructive criticism is encouraged. Therefore, I’m giving you specific suggestions to avoid making a negative impression you seem to not want to make. Conveniently, this will also resolve the ambiguity in my first (non-quoted) sentence in this comment. If you confirm that you want to avoid garnering negative reactions in conversation, it’ll be clear that you are indeed not a troll.
No, I rejected your specific argument because it was by very nature fallacious. There are other things you could have said but didn’t and those things I may not have even disagreed with.
The conversation was initiated by you admonishing others. You have since then danced the dance of re-framing with some skill. I was actually only at the fringes of the conversation.
I haven’t said that. Specifics quotations of arguments or reasoning that I reject tend to be included in my comments. Take the above for example. Your reply does not relate rationally to the quote you were replying to. I reject the argument that you were using (which is something I do consistently—I care about bullshit probably even more than you care about supporting your culture hypothesis). Your response was to weasel your way out of your argument, twist your initial claim such that it has the intellectual high ground, label my disagreement with you a personal flaw, misrepresented my claim to be something that I have not made and then attempt to convey that I have not given any explanation for my position. That covers modules 1, 2, 3 and 4 in “Effective Argument Techniques 101”.
I don’t especially mind the slander but it is essentially futile for me to try to engage with the reasoning. I would have to play the kind of games that I come here to avoid.
Well, I had promised you a compliment when you deleted a post.
So, well done! I’m glad you got rid of that turkey (the great-grandparent).
Was that the Joan of Arc reference? I’ve been studying these sexual related genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormalities recently in a Biology class and her name came up. I found it fascinating and nearly left the comment there just for that. Each to their own. :)
Maybe it was the Joan comment. I can’t find it now.
That Joan comment annoyed me too, though I didn’t say anything at the time. Not your fault, but just let a woman do something remarkable, something almost miraculous, and sure enough, some man 500 years later is going to claim that she must have actually been male, genetically speaking.
I wasn’t feminist at all until I came here to LW. Honest!
She is a woman, regardless of whether she has a Y chromosome. It is SRY gene that matters genetically. So we can use that observation to free us up to call evidence evidence without committing crimes against womankind.
If I my (most decidedly female) lecturer is to be believed the speculation was based primarily on personal reports from her closest friends. It included things like menstrual patterns (and the lack thereof) and personal habits. I didn’t look into the details to see whether or not the this was an allusion to the typically far shorter vagina becoming relevant. I’m also not sure if the line of reasoning was prompted by some historian trying to work out what on earth was going on while researching her personal life or just biologists liking to feel like their knowledge is relevant to impressive people and events.
If she hadn’t done famous things then we probably wouldn’t have any records whatsoever to go on and nor would anyone care to look.
You’re starting to sound like a troll. I would feel less sure of that if you hadn’t just admitted that you don’t expect to care what you’re arguing about in another comment.
What do you want out of this discussion? Personally, I would like to be better informed about an area that smart people disagree with me on. You’re not helping me attain that goal, since you are providing me with no evidence. Meanwhile, you are continuing to hold a hostile tone and expecting me to support positions I neither hold nor claim to hold.
If you have an actual interest in either the topic of this discussion or working with me to fix whatever it is that has sent up so many red flags with you, I’d appreciate it. I don’t feel like I’m guilty of any of the things you mentioned, but if you feel adamantly that I am, I’m happy to listen to specifics so that I can evaluate and fix that behavior. If instead you feel merely like insulting me, I urge you to make better use of your time.
It is my policy to remove comments whenever social aggressors find them to be useful to take out of context and have done so with the subject of your link, assuring Resgui that it was nothing to do with him.
In that discussion Relsqui and I came to an amicable agreement to disagree. He (if he’ll pardon the assumption of gender and chastise me if I have made an incorrect inference) had already made some hints in that direction in the ancestor and acknowledging that I too didn’t think such a trivial matter of word definition was really worth arguing about is a gesture of respect. (Some people find it annoying if the other person leaves them hanging, especially if they had offered to extend the discussion mostly as a gesture of goodwill, which is what I had taken from Relsqui.)
I’ll note that whatever you may think of me personally a distinguishing feature of trolls is that they enjoy provoking an emotional response in others while on the other hand I find it unsavoury. Even though I have actively developed myself in order to have a thicker ‘emotional skin’ (see related concurrent discussion) with when it comes to frustrations this sort of conflict will always be a net psychological drain.
My goal was to support Will’s comment in the face of a reply that I would have found frustrating and was also an error in reasoning. In the future I will reply directly to Will (or whomever), expressing agreement and elaborating on the point with more details. Replying to the undesired comment gave more attention to it rather than less and obscuration would perhaps have been more useful than rebuttal.
For what it’s worth, it is very hard to distinguish between someone who is deliberately provoking a negative reaction and someone who is not very practiced at anticipating what choices of language or behavior might cause one. I, like datadataeverywhere, did get the impression that you were at least one of those things; off the top of my head, here are a few specific reasons:
Your initial comment disagreed with my terminology without actually addressing it directly, merely asserting that I was wrong without providing evidence nor argument. This struck me as aggressive and also poorly reasoned.
You persisted in the argument about definition despite, as you later said, not caring about it. I did not continue that thread out of goodwill but out of a desire to resolve the disagreement and return to the original topic—hence stopping and checking in that we were on the same page. That’s why it annoyed me when you said you didn’t care; in that case, I wish we hadn’t wasted the time on it!
Applying the label “social aggressor” in response to someone who is explicitly trying to find out what’s going on in the conversation and steer it somewhere useful. (In fairness, dde suggesting you’re a troll was not necessary either, but the situations are different in that I have not noticed you specifically trying to get the conversation on track.)
Not answering direct questions, especially when they are designed to return the conversation to a productive topic.
I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds by spelling this out; my impression of the LW community is that constructive criticism is encouraged. Therefore, I’m giving you specific suggestions to avoid making a negative impression you seem to not want to make. Conveniently, this will also resolve the ambiguity in my first (non-quoted) sentence in this comment. If you confirm that you want to avoid garnering negative reactions in conversation, it’ll be clear that you are indeed not a troll.