3 ms·
I dunno, man. I write defensively as a default and consequentially nitpick every argument made for a position. On the other hand, I am not adverse to changing
by kiba 11y ago
I dunno, man. I write defensively as a default and consequentially nitpick every argument made for a position.
On the other hand, I am not adverse to changing my mind on a flip of a good argument.
If I get offended or defensive, it means that my beliefs aren't as ironclad as I thought.
There are some areas that I pretty much don't pay attention though.
Anything concerning creationism, global warming denialism, pro-smoking, god, etc.
I won't waste my time entertaining obviously wrong arguments.
- krisdol 11y agoThe article's message is that non-defensive writing traditionally presumed the author's openness to (in your case) changing their mind, and that today we have all become defensive writers because there is now an expectation that someone will use nitpicks about inconsequential points to discredit the entire piece.
- itp 11y ago> today we have all become defensive writers because there is now an expectation that someone will use nitpicks about inconsequential points to discredit the entire piece. Even such inconsequential things as, for example, pointing out the parent's incorrect choice of "adverse" instead of "averse," which has no bearing on the argument. There's almost always a mistake, overgeneralization, or convenient shortcut in anything a person says. Holding people to an impossible standard just adds stress all around.