4 ms·
>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 co
by 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 agoIt'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.