3 ms·

>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 so

>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.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      >If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. It is an attempt to start a different conversation. You could argue that it's off-topic, and choose not to follow up, but that doesn't mean it's not potentially constructive. >there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument They didn't claim that you don't have a reasonable argument to make, they just asked you to use different (more precise) terminology to make it.

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.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. It is an attempt to start a different conversation. You could argue that it's off-topic, and choose not to follow up, but that doesn't mean it's not potentially constructive. >there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument They didn't claim that you don't have a reasonable argument to make, they just asked you to use different (more precise) terminology to make it.