2 ms·
> Sticking to the original claim is "bad faith argument" now? Arguing against a weak interpretation of someone’s argument is arguing in bad faith when a strong
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> Sticking to the original claim is "bad faith argument" now?
Arguing against a weak interpretation of someone’s argument is arguing in bad faith when a stronger interpretation is plausible. It is in the guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- gruez 2y ago1. If you really want to get into rules lawyering, the guideline was arguably broken when "mugging" was substituted for "theft" a few comments up. That most certainly is not "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says". In fact it's the opposite. Therefore calling out "mugging" =/= stealing isn't "bad faith argument". 2. The original claim is "There are universal truths". Substituting that for "There are universal truths in every circumstance" isn't "strongest plausible interpretation", it's changing the argument entirely and attacking a strawman. It's like claiming "a^2 + b^2 = c^2 holds for right angle triangles", someone else objecting "yeah but it doesn't hold for all triangles", and then invoking "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" when he's called out for changing the claim.