4 ms·

Being cognitively unchallenged by music or visual arts could be considered "harm". I know i do but anectada I guess. The fact that you imply his argument is "c

Being cognitively unchallenged by music or visual arts could be considered "harm". I know i do but anectada I guess. The fact that you imply his argument is "cheap" or that you very quickly judge it as "bad comparison" with no more arguments than whatever you think could be interpreted as "his point exactly".

watwut 6y ago
> Being cognitively unchallenged by music or visual arts could be considered "harm". Is being cognitively unchallenged by something being harmed by that something in general? That is extraordinary claim that would require evidence. That is not standard we apply to other daily activities. And listening to music is not even activity, it is just something you put onto environment as you do something else. If I go somewhere without listening to music, arguably getting even less challenging sounds into my ears, am I being harmed even more? > I know i do but anectada I guess. Do you have anecdote of someone being harmed by unchallenging music? Anectada require anecdote that confirms one case of it happening. I see only claim itself, but no anecdote. > The fact that you imply his argument is "cheap" or that you very quickly judge it as "bad comparison" with no more arguments than whatever you think could be interpreted as "his point exactly". Me thinking and saying that is comparison is bad and arguing by no harm is not proving "his point exactly". He did not wrote any arguments for why unchallenging music harms listener. He avoided need to put in such arguments by avoiding direct claim, opting for implication instead. It is common tactic when people want to appeal to emotions and instincts. It is also completely valid to answer it. It is quite literally valid disagreement with quick judgement someone else made. Also, I did not implied his argument is cheap, I said it openly.
- adamsea 6y ago
  I think "lack of development/enrichment" might be a better term than harm. And "challenge" might not have been a great word-choice of mine, either. Depth? Craft? Some value. For example, imagine a programmer/software engineer who never, ever, in their entire career, saw good code written by others? Does that lack of good code (and there's lots of ways for code to be "good") harm their development as software devs?

watwut 6y ago

> Being cognitively unchallenged by music or visual arts could be considered "harm". Is being cognitively unchallenged by something being harmed by that something in general? That is extraordinary claim that would require evidence. That is not standard we apply to other daily activities. And listening to music is not even activity, it is just something you put onto environment as you do something else. If I go somewhere without listening to music, arguably getting even less challenging sounds into my ears, am I being harmed even more? > I know i do but anectada I guess. Do you have anecdote of someone being harmed by unchallenging music? Anectada require anecdote that confirms one case of it happening. I see only claim itself, but no anecdote. > The fact that you imply his argument is "cheap" or that you very quickly judge it as "bad comparison" with no more arguments than whatever you think could be interpreted as "his point exactly". Me thinking and saying that is comparison is bad and arguing by no harm is not proving "his point exactly". He did not wrote any arguments for why unchallenging music harms listener. He avoided need to put in such arguments by avoiding direct claim, opting for implication instead. It is common tactic when people want to appeal to emotions and instincts. It is also completely valid to answer it. It is quite literally valid disagreement with quick judgement someone else made. Also, I did not implied his argument is cheap, I said it openly.

adamsea 6y ago
I think "lack of development/enrichment" might be a better term than harm. And "challenge" might not have been a great word-choice of mine, either. Depth? Craft? Some value. For example, imagine a programmer/software engineer who never, ever, in their entire career, saw good code written by others? Does that lack of good code (and there's lots of ways for code to be "good") harm their development as software devs?