It is clear that you just don’t want to hear opinion more intelligent without qualifiers that allow you to disregard this opinion immediately, and you are being obtuse.
Trust me, it’s quite easier to disregard an accusation/insult when you do not include an explicit chain of reasoning. It’s harder to not respond to, because it mentally tags you as just ‘enemy’, but for the same reason it’s easier to disregard.
As for “being obtuse”, don’t confuse civility with obtuseness. I knew you for what you are. I knew that the trolling and the flamebaiting is what you attempted to do, So I knew that any attempts to direct you towards a more productive means of discussion wouldn’t be heeded by you, as they were counterproductive to your true goals.
But nonetheless, my suggestion has the benefit of explicitly pinpointing the failure in your postings, to be hopefully heeded by any others that are more honest at seeking to make an actual argument, not just troll people.
It is not accusation or insult. It is the case though that the people in question (Luke, Eliezer) need to assume the possibility that people they are talking to are more intelligent than they are—something that is clearly more probable than not given available evidence—and they seem not to.
I don’t see how that would be relevant to the issue at hand, and thus, why they “need to assume [this] possibility”. Whether they assume the people they talk to can be more intelligent than them or not, so long as they engage them on an even intellectual ground (e.g. trading civil letters of argumentation), is simply irrelevant.
It is clear that you just don’t want to hear opinion more intelligent without qualifiers that allow you to disregard this opinion immediately, and you are being obtuse.
Trust me, it’s quite easier to disregard an accusation/insult when you do not include an explicit chain of reasoning. It’s harder to not respond to, because it mentally tags you as just ‘enemy’, but for the same reason it’s easier to disregard.
As for “being obtuse”, don’t confuse civility with obtuseness. I knew you for what you are. I knew that the trolling and the flamebaiting is what you attempted to do, So I knew that any attempts to direct you towards a more productive means of discussion wouldn’t be heeded by you, as they were counterproductive to your true goals.
But nonetheless, my suggestion has the benefit of explicitly pinpointing the failure in your postings, to be hopefully heeded by any others that are more honest at seeking to make an actual argument, not just troll people.
It is not accusation or insult. It is the case though that the people in question (Luke, Eliezer) need to assume the possibility that people they are talking to are more intelligent than they are—something that is clearly more probable than not given available evidence—and they seem not to.
I don’t see how that would be relevant to the issue at hand, and thus, why they “need to assume [this] possibility”. Whether they assume the people they talk to can be more intelligent than them or not, so long as they engage them on an even intellectual ground (e.g. trading civil letters of argumentation), is simply irrelevant.