4 ms·

I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discus

by grzm 10y ago

I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?

ogrisel 10y ago
"fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers" NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).
geon 10y ago
Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.
- grzm 10y ago
  What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably. If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.
  - geon 10y ago
    I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)". Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.
aninhumer 10y ago
>Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well In principle, yes. I can imagine there are different chemicals used for farming, and that some of them may cause more harm to consumers of the produce than others. But in terms of specifics, no. I have very little idea what distinctions are being made when people refer to "chemical food" or similar, because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.
- grzm 10y ago
  because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics. You're not 'geon, so this may not apply to you, but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. It's not going to encourage reflection (as they're vague and emotive). The goal is civil and substantive discussion. You might sincerely speculate what distinction they're trying to make. Or honestly and civilly ask for clarification. If you don't think they're reasonable, do you think they're likely to be swayed by anything you consider reasonable? I think it's better to refrain from commenting if it's not going to move the discussion forward. On topics like this, the ground is well-worn. It doesn't need to be rehashed if people aren't actually listening to each other. At least not on HN.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. Because the intent of the comment was not to further that particular conversation, but instead to critique your rhetoric. It was not simply a pedantic comment saying "actually you're wrong because water is a chemical" it was a suggestion to use a different term.
    - grzm 10y ago
      It's not a constructive critique. If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. Further comments by 'geon make this clear: there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument, even if it's one you might not agree with. Edit to add: Rapoport's rules are really helpful, particularly when discussing contentious topics. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... This is too far off-topic now, and at best we're talking past each other, so I'll take any answer off the air.

by grzm 10y ago

ogrisel 10y ago

"fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers" NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).

geon 10y ago

Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.

grzm 10y ago
What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably. If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.
- geon 10y ago
  I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)". Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.

aninhumer 10y ago

>Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well In principle, yes. I can imagine there are different chemicals used for farming, and that some of them may cause more harm to consumers of the produce than others. But in terms of specifics, no. I have very little idea what distinctions are being made when people refer to "chemical food" or similar, because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.

grzm 10y ago
because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics. You're not 'geon, so this may not apply to you, but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. It's not going to encourage reflection (as they're vague and emotive). The goal is civil and substantive discussion. You might sincerely speculate what distinction they're trying to make. Or honestly and civilly ask for clarification. If you don't think they're reasonable, do you think they're likely to be swayed by anything you consider reasonable? I think it's better to refrain from commenting if it's not going to move the discussion forward. On topics like this, the ground is well-worn. It doesn't need to be rehashed if people aren't actually listening to each other. At least not on HN.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. Because the intent of the comment was not to further that particular conversation, but instead to critique your rhetoric. It was not simply a pedantic comment saying "actually you're wrong because water is a chemical" it was a suggestion to use a different term.
  - grzm 10y ago
    It's not a constructive critique. If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. Further comments by 'geon make this clear: there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument, even if it's one you might not agree with. Edit to add: Rapoport's rules are really helpful, particularly when discussing contentious topics. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... This is too far off-topic now, and at best we're talking past each other, so I'll take any answer off the air.