(How did “malice” ever seem like a good explanation in the first place?)
Why not? Are you saying humans are never systematically glad at another’s misfortune or loss under certain conditions? I would say humans often are. LWers probably come from societies and situations where this kind of behaviour is less prevalent than the human norm.
You’re right, I was imprecise; the bad habit is asking it and halfway-assuming the answer will be ‘yes’ instead of asking it without the presumption of nonsense.
But malice never being a good explanation when malice is basically “desiring another misfortune or loss”. So malice never being a good explanation is completely ridiculous. I wanted to check if you where really saying what I thought you where saying so I rephrased it in my own words to match how I understood your statement.
I wanted to check if you where really saying what I thought you where saying so I rephrased it in my own words to match how I understood your statement.
That part is of course a good habit. I think the confusion happened because I was asking “how did malice ever seem like a good explanation [for this phenomenon] in the first place?”, not “how did malice ever seem like a good explanation [for anything ever in the history of the universe] in the first place?”.
Why not? Are you saying humans are never systematically glad at another’s misfortune or loss under certain conditions? I would say humans often are. LWers probably come from societies and situations where this kind of behaviour is less prevalent than the human norm.
This is a really bad habit. (Specifically the habit of asking or thinking things like “Are you saying completely ridiculous thing #24626772?”.)
The answer is yes fairly often, which gives a lot of info cheaply.
You’re right, I was imprecise; the bad habit is asking it and halfway-assuming the answer will be ‘yes’ instead of asking it without the presumption of nonsense.
Yes, being polite is good, and rhetorical questions can easily go the other away.
Perhaps this is so.
But malice never being a good explanation when malice is basically “desiring another misfortune or loss”. So malice never being a good explanation is completely ridiculous. I wanted to check if you where really saying what I thought you where saying so I rephrased it in my own words to match how I understood your statement.
That part is of course a good habit. I think the confusion happened because I was asking “how did malice ever seem like a good explanation [for this phenomenon] in the first place?”, not “how did malice ever seem like a good explanation [for anything ever in the history of the universe] in the first place?”.