3 ms·

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 mak

by 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.