4 ms·

>"Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject" They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/p

by zo1 11y ago

>"Cast the parent commentor as unaware of alternative ways of thinking of this subject" They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/personal/emotional way. I didn't "cast" them into that. >"Imply that the parent is incapable of of viewing this subject in a rational manner because they are too emotionally, morally or ethically invested in a point of view that is influenced by others." Again, the person I responded to had a very clear emotional/irrational reaction to a reasonable alternative to the prevailing thought on the subject.

kbenson 11y ago
> They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/personal/emotional way. What does that have to do with them being exposed to that argument? It's not impossible to have an impassioned response to something you've already been exposed to before. Assuming they are uneducated on the subject purely from their passion towards or against a specific stance makes no sense unless the stance is nonsensical. I would feel more confident in your ability to determine that if you had actually engaged in any way, rather than literally written off the commenter as unworthy. > I didn't "cast" them into that. You cast[1] them as unaware of alternatives. You've dismissed their entire position by assuming the only reason they could hold that position is through ignorance. > Again, the person I responded to had a very clear emotional/irrational reaction to a reasonable alternative to the prevailing thought on the subject. The person had an extreme first sentence, but went on to explain their reasoning on why they thought the proposed reasoning was the wrong decision. You could have attacked the argument presented, which has it's share of problems, such as not really addressing the points it was responding to well. Instead you tailored your response to the person. Even now you still cast the person as having an irrational reaction. If the argument doesn't make sense to you, explain why. If you can't articulate why the argument presented The comment you responded to deserved someone calling them out for arguing too much through emotion, and the the extremely negative first sentence which also was a personal attack. But at least that comment had an actual argument. 1: As Google defines it, as a verb in the fourth meaning "arrange and present in a specified form or style." with the example "he issued statements cast in tones of reason"

by zo1 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

> They were presented with an alternative, and responded in an offended/personal/emotional way. What does that have to do with them being exposed to that argument? It's not impossible to have an impassioned response to something you've already been exposed to before. Assuming they are uneducated on the subject purely from their passion towards or against a specific stance makes no sense unless the stance is nonsensical. I would feel more confident in your ability to determine that if you had actually engaged in any way, rather than literally written off the commenter as unworthy. > I didn't "cast" them into that. You cast[1] them as unaware of alternatives. You've dismissed their entire position by assuming the only reason they could hold that position is through ignorance. > Again, the person I responded to had a very clear emotional/irrational reaction to a reasonable alternative to the prevailing thought on the subject. The person had an extreme first sentence, but went on to explain their reasoning on why they thought the proposed reasoning was the wrong decision. You could have attacked the argument presented, which has it's share of problems, such as not really addressing the points it was responding to well. Instead you tailored your response to the person. Even now you still cast the person as having an irrational reaction. If the argument doesn't make sense to you, explain why. If you can't articulate why the argument presented The comment you responded to deserved someone calling them out for arguing too much through emotion, and the the extremely negative first sentence which also was a personal attack. But at least that comment had an actual argument. 1: As Google defines it, as a verb in the fourth meaning "arrange and present in a specified form or style." with the example "he issued statements cast in tones of reason"