3 ms·

I would be putting words in someone's mouth if I wrote, "You said X..." when they did not say X, but rather something that I think (rightly or wrongly) implies

by javert 14y ago

I would be putting words in someone's mouth if I wrote, "You said X..." when they did not say X, but rather something that I think (rightly or wrongly) implies X. What I did is something different, but I agree that it's not obvious how this is conducive to productive and useful conversation. I know, it looks like I'm just trying to "score points." So, let me explain myself. This kind of dialogue actually is productive and useful. People reading my comment who were taken by a logical fallacy (including the person who wrote it) get to see that and learn something. The person who wrote my comment (me) gets to practice writing clearly and concisely, and will get instant feedback if there was a failure or mistake. (Either in exposition or logic - and I readily admit I make logical mistakes all the time.) As further evidence that what I said is useful, I submit that I have a double digit number of upvotes. I wish there had been a way to indicate I wasn't just being snarky/trying to score points, but it's hard to convey that online, short of saying "BTW, I'm not just being snarky here, I actually think this is important." Maybe I should have done that. I'm open to suggestions here.

loumf 14y ago
You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of reply that doesn't actually move the conversation in the way I think you intended. (Edit, adding): Also, when you use "", it's much better if you are actually quoting. If not, you are putting words in their mouth.
- javert 14y ago
  Thanks. This is useful. It got me thinking. If I had just not put the parenthetical, it would make it look like I was "really asking" the question. That would treat the derivation in question as potentially legitimate (it's really not), and also invite serious but non-useful responses. So that leads me to conclude that I just shouldn't have phrased my point as a question in the first place. I could have just stated my point as a statement, not a question.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    That's pretty much what I was trying to say with, "What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?" I guess you were trying for a rhetorical question, but I think that requires either: 1. The answer to be obvious to everybody, both asker and audience. E.g. "Do we really want to destroy all life?" 2. The question to be a lead-in to a discussion or argument. E.g. "Is it better to have more blue cars available for consumers to buy? I think so, and here's why." You didn't do #2, so it looked like #1, but in context that's horribly dismissive.

by javert 14y ago

loumf 14y ago

You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of reply that doesn't actually move the conversation in the way I think you intended. (Edit, adding): Also, when you use "", it's much better if you are actually quoting. If not, you are putting words in their mouth.

javert 14y ago
Thanks. This is useful. It got me thinking. If I had just not put the parenthetical, it would make it look like I was "really asking" the question. That would treat the derivation in question as potentially legitimate (it's really not), and also invite serious but non-useful responses. So that leads me to conclude that I just shouldn't have phrased my point as a question in the first place. I could have just stated my point as a statement, not a question.
- mikeash 14y ago
  That's pretty much what I was trying to say with, "What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?" I guess you were trying for a rhetorical question, but I think that requires either: 1. The answer to be obvious to everybody, both asker and audience. E.g. "Do we really want to destroy all life?" 2. The question to be a lead-in to a discussion or argument. E.g. "Is it better to have more blue cars available for consumers to buy? I think so, and here's why." You didn't do #2, so it looked like #1, but in context that's horribly dismissive.