Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2018
- Messages
- 83
660104
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@Oeconomist
a straw-man is a statement of intentional misrepresentation, and statements of intent are well within my right to refute. if you had simply stated that i had either misunderstood or misrepresented your point, i would have admitted my mistake. will you admit yours?
a straw-man is a statement of intentional misrepresentation, and statements of intent are well within my right to refute. if you had simply stated that i had either misunderstood or misrepresented your point, i would have admitted my mistake. will you admit yours?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@furopoi—
If you will quote my actual words, and explain how you could both misunderstand them and then in your next comment not have acknowledged that misunderstanding as such, then I will agree that I confused cognitive failure with a cheap-shot. Otherwise, I'll continue sincerely to believe that your misrepresentation were not merely cognitive failure.
If you will quote my actual words, and explain how you could both misunderstand them and then in your next comment not have acknowledged that misunderstanding as such, then I will agree that I confused cognitive failure with a cheap-shot. Otherwise, I'll continue sincerely to believe that your misrepresentation were not merely cognitive failure.
@Oeconomist
i will, but only if it is not a setup for an accusation of making excuses, i.e. if you promise to hold this conversation in good faith.
on second thought, forcing you to make such a promise itself isn't an act of good faith, so i'll renege on that condition.
here is your original statement, as requested
however, i believe your response to my response is far more relevant to why I, "in [my] next comment [had not] acknowledged [the] misunderstanding as such".
upon seeing that i had been accused of straw-manning, i immediately became far more concerned with your own gross misrepresentation, intentional or not, of my own intent. however, i chose to give you the benefit of the doubt again, and correct what i assumed to be a mere misunderstanding, which we could kindly not describe as "cognitive failure", rather than an intentional escalation of hostility on your part. in my haste to clear up your misunderstanding however, i obviously forgot about my own.
for my part, i would like to understand how you immediately jumped to the accusation of straw-man. if i'm reading the post you just made correctly, it was only my next comment that solidified your belief that i was taking a cheap-shot, yet you responded as such even after my first. would i be correct in assuming you simply made an erroneous choice of words in "straw-men"? of course, the whole point of this discussion is that i misinterpreted your one-liner, and then you misinterpreted mine, so maybe it isn't prudent for me to read too deeply into such a short comment.
on second thought, forcing you to make such a promise itself isn't an act of good faith, so i'll renege on that condition.
here is your original statement, as requested
however, i believe your response to my response is far more relevant to why I, "in [my] next comment [had not] acknowledged [the] misunderstanding as such".
upon seeing that i had been accused of straw-manning, i immediately became far more concerned with your own gross misrepresentation, intentional or not, of my own intent. however, i chose to give you the benefit of the doubt again, and correct what i assumed to be a mere misunderstanding, which we could kindly not describe as "cognitive failure", rather than an intentional escalation of hostility on your part. in my haste to clear up your misunderstanding however, i obviously forgot about my own.
for my part, i would like to understand how you immediately jumped to the accusation of straw-man. if i'm reading the post you just made correctly, it was only my next comment that solidified your belief that i was taking a cheap-shot, yet you responded as such even after my first. would i be correct in assuming you simply made an erroneous choice of words in "straw-men"? of course, the whole point of this discussion is that i misinterpreted your one-liner, and then you misinterpreted mine, so maybe it isn't prudent for me to read too deeply into such a short comment.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@furopoi—
You entered this discussion making an accusation about me that you still have done no more than to acknowledge implicitly to be false. Yet you feel licensed to insinuate that I might be the one to proceed in bad faith.
My challenge is not a set-up for accusations. Rather, it's a way of stating the case that you did not proceed in complete innocence (a different claim from one of your proceeding with conscious disregard for proper argumentation). I couldn't have made such a case in good faith if I expected that the challenge could be met, and the principles of good faith don't somehow obligate me to accept just any response from you as somehow meeting that challenge.
If you imagine that others are reading, and if you can actually meet the challenge, then you should do so even with the expectation that I would deny that you'd met it. On the other hand, if you expect that I'd explode your argument such that others would see it as failed, then you shouldn't offer it.
You entered this discussion making an accusation about me that you still have done no more than to acknowledge implicitly to be false. Yet you feel licensed to insinuate that I might be the one to proceed in bad faith.
My challenge is not a set-up for accusations. Rather, it's a way of stating the case that you did not proceed in complete innocence (a different claim from one of your proceeding with conscious disregard for proper argumentation). I couldn't have made such a case in good faith if I expected that the challenge could be met, and the principles of good faith don't somehow obligate me to accept just any response from you as somehow meeting that challenge.
If you imagine that others are reading, and if you can actually meet the challenge, then you should do so even with the expectation that I would deny that you'd met it. On the other hand, if you expect that I'd explode your argument such that others would see it as failed, then you shouldn't offer it.
@Oeconomist
i have yet to make an accusation of bad intent the way you have, and frankly, there is no way for me to prove that your accusations of bad intent are incorrect any more than you can prove that they are correct, which is why i requested that you approach this with good faith from my perspective, because this conversation is totally meaningless without it. i have no concern that others may be reading, as i'm simply having a conversation with you and you alone (in a dead thread for a deleted chapter, i might add). there isn't an "argument" to be exploded because i am not and have not been making an "argument" beyond that contained within my first comment (most of which was ignored), merely explaining to you that all of this hostility you seem to be responding to simply isn't there. if your mind is already made up that i'm simply a bad actor, please just leave me alone rather than continuing to make one-sided remarks that totally ignore everything i've been saying. trying to "argue" whether someone behind a screen is good or bad is totally pointless.
actually, nevermind, it all makes sense now. you've been trying to "argue" this whole time to "prove" the unprovable, i.e. that i'm acting in bad faith, to justify your unnecessary hostility for an assumed audience of "others reading". no wonder it feels like i've been talking to a teleprompter. i'm blocking you lol.
i have yet to make an accusation of bad intent the way you have, and frankly, there is no way for me to prove that your accusations of bad intent are incorrect any more than you can prove that they are correct, which is why i requested that you approach this with good faith from my perspective, because this conversation is totally meaningless without it. i have no concern that others may be reading, as i'm simply having a conversation with you and you alone (in a dead thread for a deleted chapter, i might add). there isn't an "argument" to be exploded because i am not and have not been making an "argument" beyond that contained within my first comment (most of which was ignored), merely explaining to you that all of this hostility you seem to be responding to simply isn't there. if your mind is already made up that i'm simply a bad actor, please just leave me alone rather than continuing to make one-sided remarks that totally ignore everything i've been saying. trying to "argue" whether someone behind a screen is good or bad is totally pointless.
actually, nevermind, it all makes sense now. you've been trying to "argue" this whole time to "prove" the unprovable, i.e. that i'm acting in bad faith, to justify your unnecessary hostility for an assumed audience of "others reading". no wonder it feels like i've been talking to a teleprompter. i'm blocking you lol.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@furopoi—
My previous comment was written in reply to your remarks before you edited them. You should have waited for me to reply to your subsequent edit, instead of making things still more entropic.
You have not explained how you could plausibly have misunderstood my original remarks, so you've failed the core of the challenge.
It is that problem of plausibility that caused me not to see your actions as perfectly innocent even before you failed to avail yourself of the first opportunity assert that you'd misread my earlier comment. Things worsened as you didn't acknowledge the misrepresentation, let alone explain it as a misreading, at that opportunity. And now you've just skipped past the issue of explaining how you could innocently misread my original words. You've made a wreck of your credibility.
(But I have all along been open to the claim that you were not conscious of engaging in misrepresentation. Conscious intention is not conterminous from intention in general.)
What you have been calling “good faith” is not. Rather, you have been mischaracterizing belief in the good faith of one party as good faith on the part of the other. An honest person need not presume that she is dealing with an honest person. And asking me to believe in your good faith in attending to your claims of innocence begs what has become the question.
If you want me to stop responding, then just stop posting remarks directed at me.
My previous comment was written in reply to your remarks before you edited them. You should have waited for me to reply to your subsequent edit, instead of making things still more entropic.
You have not explained how you could plausibly have misunderstood my original remarks, so you've failed the core of the challenge.
It is that problem of plausibility that caused me not to see your actions as perfectly innocent even before you failed to avail yourself of the first opportunity assert that you'd misread my earlier comment. Things worsened as you didn't acknowledge the misrepresentation, let alone explain it as a misreading, at that opportunity. And now you've just skipped past the issue of explaining how you could innocently misread my original words. You've made a wreck of your credibility.
(But I have all along been open to the claim that you were not conscious of engaging in misrepresentation. Conscious intention is not conterminous from intention in general.)
What you have been calling “good faith” is not. Rather, you have been mischaracterizing belief in the good faith of one party as good faith on the part of the other. An honest person need not presume that she is dealing with an honest person. And asking me to believe in your good faith in attending to your claims of innocence begs what has become the question.
If you want me to stop responding, then just stop posting remarks directed at me.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@furopoi—
I see that you've made discussion still more entropic with a substantial edit.
Blocking notwithstanding, you're not the sort to avoid the temptation to see what I said, so I'll respond to your claim about proof and disproof: The question of why you misrepresented me has not been a matter of assertoric logic but instead of the logic of plausibility.
I see that you've made discussion still more entropic with a substantial edit.
Blocking notwithstanding, you're not the sort to avoid the temptation to see what I said, so I'll respond to your claim about proof and disproof: The question of why you misrepresented me has not been a matter of assertoric logic but instead of the logic of plausibility.
Similar threads
