I believe the difference here is between categorical and empirical thinking. In each case the person replying is saying, "the principle is violated by this cou

I believe the difference here is between categorical and empirical thinking. In each case the person replying is saying, "the principle is violated by this counter-example, so the principle does not hold". The author of this article should be saying, "this isn't a principle, its a heuristic whose utility depends on context". Ironically the author of this article misunderstands the point these replies are making and straw-mans them as much as he believes he's straw-manned. They're not failing to capture relevance. They're taking a statement phrased categorically as a categorical principle, when it was an heuristic one. This comes down to how people reason -- more mathematically-inclined people are often categorical thinkers; trying to reason in terms of universal principles & iterating on those until they are universal. The goal of the person replying isn't (necessarily) to undermine the OP; but, to helpfully offer a counter-example to evolve the principle until it holds. It is a good strategy to arrive at general criteria for when, eg., GC is useful. In fact, this article is an exercise in that because it replies to these counter-examples.