Probably the part about how Putin was not in fact totally gung-ho about NATO expansion in the early 2000s, seeing as that’s the sole topic of the article. But I know exactly as much as you do right now, so I don’t see much point in speculating.
I’m puzzled as to what you mean by an “appeal to authority.” The subject of the piece that I posted responded to the post, and I simply updated the thread with that fact, because it’s obviously relevant to anyone who was interested in the original debate. There’s no argument being made here. If and when McFaul expounds in more detail, I will edit the above post to reflect that as well, and for the same reason.
Probably the part about how Putin was not in fact totally gung-ho about NATO expansion in the early 2000s, seeing as that’s the sole topic of the article. But I know exactly as much as you do right now, so I don’t see much point in speculating.
Apparently you do, or else you wouldn't have speculated a favorable interpretation of a non-position and thought it relevant a day later when the thread was already going cold.
I also note you didn't match the favorable section with a section that was not conceded or dismissed as wrong. This would have better demonstrated your awareness of the strengths, and limits, of the arguments being made, which might have helped justify the assumption of what section was being referred to positively.
I’m puzzled as to what you mean by an “appeal to authority.” The subject of the piece that I posted responded to the post, and I simply updated the thread with that fact, because it’s obviously relevant to anyone who was interested in the original debate. There’s no argument being made here. If and when McFaul expounds in more detail, I will edit the above post to reflect that as well, and for the same reason.
Without an argument being made, McFaul is only relevant to be raised or identified in order to appeal to his authority. This authority may be 'as the person this argument is critiquing, my concession of legitimacy bestows weight on the argument's validity,' but (a) this is still appealing to the authority of a target to bestow legitimacy to the critique, and (b) there isn't actually a concession here to carry weight or bestow validity. It's only 'obviously relevant' in so much that it is used to present an assumption of agreement with an inferred argument to buttress on un-made stance because you started this thread without any sort of submission statement or position.
To update, there must be a date to 'up' so to speak, but so far your debate has been primarily in counter-arguments of people critiqueing the linked article. In the motte and bailey metaphor, that may be an attempt at guerrila warfare behind the attacker's line, but it's not clear there's an attacker here in the first place. An article writer made a critique. One of the personal subjects of the critique made a polite but non-committal concession of nothing specific or in particular. This changes, or challenges, none of the arguments involved by any of the players, on either side.
One of the common themes of the comments regarding this article has been it ignores relevant context, ie that it doesn't actually challenge a real position as much as a strawman or a framing. Counter-arguments by you to these charges do not constitute the original debate when the very premise of disagreement is being questioned. It may be an awkward attempt to have a debate, but it's poorly structured as one, not least for the fact that you neither claim the author speaks for you, which would tie you to a position you'd have to defend, nor do you speak for the author, which means your disputes on his intended meaning are as much a matter of opinion and position as anyone else's.
Really this thread is just an awkwardly formatted comment thread for an opinion peace on another website.
Because you explicitly asked me to. Don’t ask me a question and then turn around and cast aspersions on me for answering it. That doesn’t incline me to take on your questions in good faith going forward.
when the thread was already going cold
Then why didn’t you just let it cool, and instead decide to pepper me with elliptical, leading questions which have obviously been motivated by drawing out some perceived fault on my part, rather than just forthrightly saying what you thought I was doing and why you objected to it? That would have saved us both some time.
I also note that you didn’t match the favorable section with a section that was not conceded or dismissed as wrong
McFaul didn’t give any such section. I looked at all his tweets and replies since the piece came out. I can’t do the impossible.
Without an argument being made, McFaul is only relevant to be raised or identified to appeal to his authority.
Or to inform interested parties as to the reaction of the subject of the piece to that piece. Not exactly an alien practice! You seem determined to interpret a one-line comment in the most expansive and least charitable terms possible.
And I simply forgot to write a submission statement. I haven’t been very active here of late, so I’m not fresh on those rules, and if you look at my other link posts you’ll notice that I have a bad habit of forgetting to write them in general. With that said, I agree with Lemoine’s position, so he does speak for me in that sense, as should have been clear from the rest of my comments.
when the very premise of disagreement is being questioned
Sorry, what does this mean? I can’t tell from context.
Because you explicitly asked me to. Don’t ask me a question and then turn around and cast aspersions on me for answering it. That doesn’t incline me to take on your questions in good faith going forward.
I asked you to because you made an insinuation/claim for the public record without making an argument. When challenged, you simultaneously claimed you were not making any assumptions, after providing a favorable assumption, and since claimed you could not make an equivalent assumption on the same amount of information.
This is less a challenge of faith and more a challenge to you to speak clearly, with the intended purpose of letting any late-readers of your thread read your last position with the note that the implied argument was not only contested, but identified.
when the thread was already going cold
Then why didn’t you just let it cool, and instead decide to pepper me with elliptical, leading questions which have obviously been motivated by drawing out some perceived fault on my part, rather than just forthrightly saying what you thought I was doing and why you objected to it? That would have saved us both some time.
Because I was curious how you would respond in hopes of being proven wrong, and how you did was telling (and expected).
Also, as a framing device for future readers, and a tertiary goal of nudging you into being a bit better meta-awareness next time you want to post a thread.
I also note that you didn’t match the favorable section with a section that was not conceded or dismissed as wrong
McFaul didn’t give any such section. I looked at all his tweets and replies since the piece came out. I can’t do the impossible.
You did, however, feel comfortable assuming a section that agreed with you despite the same lack of information. Which was the point- that you would assume a favorable and expansive interpretation when allowed, but then retreat to a more defensible position when challenged.
IE, the archetypical motte-and-bailey fallacy this community is named for.
Though your response were more demonstrative than descriptive, it highlighted in the possible final exchange of the thread your approach to the topic, and how your prior positions on the topic further down (in the default sorting way) will be perceived going forward.
Yes, this is pure meta.
Without an argument being made, McFaul is only relevant to be raised or identified to appeal to his authority.
Or to inform interested parties as to the reaction of the subject of the piece to that piece. Not exactly an alien practice! You seem determined to interpret a one-line comment in the most expansive and least charitable terms possible.
Over-representing a one-line twitter comment in a more expansive and less charitable (to your opposition) way was rather the point of citing him. This is why we are calling out the contrast for meta purposes.
As for lack of charity, this sort of flaw is expected from you, hence why this response focuses on the meta-argumentive structure.
And I simply forgot to write a submission statement. I haven’t been very active here of late, so I’m not fresh on those rules, and if you look at my other link posts you’ll notice that I have a bad habit of forgetting to write them in general. With that said, I agree with Lemoine’s position, so he does speak for me in that sense, as should have been clear from the rest of my comments.
This is, alas, far too late to be particularly relevant to your execution of this debate, which has shifted firmly to the meta of this thread, and will continue to be meta so long as you lack an opening argument. Nor is it about the rules about this website specifically. While they are helpful reminders, it's hardly unique that a link to a source is not an implicit endorsement of the source or its framing, and that assuming so is a fallacious assumption.
If you want to speak clearly, you have to speak. It is not on the other party of a debate to strawman a position you may or may not agree with, nor are they obliged to have the debate you might prefer but didn't set out.
when the very premise of disagreement is being questioned
Sorry, what does this mean? I can’t tell from context.
It means that your argument of providing more information for the original debate is flawed, because the original debate never existed.
The common theme of the top-level reply to your link is that the posters consistently felt that the link-author's argument lacks what they consider extremely relevant information needed to discuss the topic, which challenges the very premise of a debate on the article's subject. It innately turns any debate on the argument itself into a meta-argument not on the original link's line of argument, but on the argument construction and composition. In a thread literally including 'lies of omission' in the threat title, these amount to charges of... omission, a central challenge to the thesis.
Counter-arguing a meta-argument of insufficient evidence never relies on introducing new evidence not previously included. If you are convincing on the grounds of the new evidence provided, it demonstrates the objection's point that the original argument was lacking sufficient data. If you are not convincing on the grounds of new evidence provided, the meta-objection still stands.
The proper way to counter-argue a meta-argument of insufficient evidence is not to bring in new information, but to refute the relevancy of the categories of insufficient information. This is, however, a much harder task in the context of NATO expansion and Russia, as categories of relevancy referred to (contemporary and early post-cold-war Russian history, nuclear deterrence modeling, the relative relevance of sincerity, the presumption of spheres of influence to be respected, etc.) have relatively obvious relevance in an article touching on several of these things, to which you tried to counter by... making new arguments that the author didn't. Which is adding new arguments. Which returns to the previous paragraph on meta-argument by new information.
So, I leave it to any future thread finder to enter the thread, read through this latest exchange as one of their firsts based on the default thread formating, and approach the rest of the thread with the mindset this exchange is intended to give them.
Now is your turn, of course, to have the last reply in a dead and dying thread, to prove that you do not, in fact, have better things to spend your time on than the last word, etc. etc. I'm here for the framing, not the last word, so I'll even let you keep it.
Now, mind you, responding for the last word after describing it as wasting your time, and thus demonstrating you both did not, in fact, have better things to do with your time and were predicted in doing so. A successful prediction would indicate my successful modeling of you, and thus a handling of the meta of the conversation, regardless of what you actually say and do, and whether or not I reply. Whereas you not replying would undercut that specific argument, but would leave the main thesis present, and from a public perception of loss of control of the argument. If you continue, I am validated, if you do not, non-continuation comes off as a retreat.
...is what I would end with if the goal were to patronize you rather than try to improve you.
Yes, it would be a meta trap of sorts... but I bring this in the spirit of concluding meta-arguments, which is that seeking the last word in a public argument (such as the post-thread reference) isn't always an advantage, and if you're arguing for effect, can be actively detrimental. Which is why one should rarely refer to the end of the argument in final terms unless one is willing to leave without the last word. Continuing after you characterize an argument a waste of time is self-defeating, as is being predictable in one's reaching arguments. Rhetorical over-reach is something that can be leveraged against you, which is why identifying fallacies is a regular form of discrediting someone's position.
If you intend to argue for effect- which you clearly intended to by the way you approached this thread and topic in general- this is the sort of meta-dynamics you need to be cognizant of lest you undermine your own side. It is not enough to go 'this person's arguments are my own.' You will be in the position of defending the flaws of the other's argument, and in ways you are not capable of correctly defending against but will become party in discrediting them.
I would leave with asking if you thought this exchange brought about by your after-the-fact addition of a reaching insinuation strengthened or weakened the audience perception of the link-author's position, which you share. I will leave with asking you if you think that replying in any form will do the same. The answer will likely demonstrate the difference between arguing to argue, or arguing to have an impact.
I asked you to because you made an insinuation[sic]/claim for the public record without making an argument.
I made a factual claim that was immediately verified by the link in the comment. No further argument was necessary, that's just how verification works.
When challenged, you simultaneously claimed you were not making any assumptions, after providing a favorable assumption
It's not a "favorable assumption" to observe someone say that an article changed their mind on something and then infer that the thing that it changed their mind on was probably something related to the topic of the article. That's just called having the most rudimentary possible theory of mind.
and since claimed you could not make an equivalent assumption on the same amount of information.
The two statements were not equivalent. I first said I presumed it was something relevant to the topic of the article without saying what that relevant thing would be. Then you asked which specific parts would be relevant, and I kindly speculated about that for you, which speculation was not entailed by what I had said before. Or if it was, then you'll have to give some (presently lacking) proof of that fact, which would confirm that your further question was pointless and thus you were being even more disingenuous than in your initial question. So which is it?
Because I was curious how you would respond in hopes of being proven wrong, and how you did was telling (and expected).
OK, so as I suspected, you were being disingenuous and asking in bad faith. Thanks for confirming. I don't plan to entertain such overtures from you in the future.
You did, however, feel comfortable assuming a section that agreed with you despite the same lack of information.
I don't need to assume that, it's already been demonstrated. I agreed with the whole article, McFaul said he agreed with a part, a fortiori there is some section on which he agrees with me. QED
Over-representing a one-line twitter comment in a more expansive and less charitable (to your opposition) way was rather the point of citing him.
I didn't assert anything that McFaul himself omitted to say, so that's impossible. Quote me anything in the initial comment that wasn't a direct paraphrase of something McFaul said, explain why, and try again.
The proper way to counter-argue a meta-argument of insufficient evidence is not to bring in new information, but to refute the relevancy of the categories of insufficient information.
But I don't care whether the original argument had sufficient evidence or not, I care whether its conclusion is correct, and I'd be happy to evaluate all the outside evidence necessary to decisively establish that either way. And what's being argued over in this thread is the conclusion of the argument, not its construction. (Or, at least, if you read my comments, you'll see that that's what I'm concerned to argue about, and I don't really care if others aren't.) This isn't debate club, there are no technical rules about what evidence you're allowed to invoke here. Most of the rest of your post is otiose in light of this fact. Sorry you wasted your time on it.
So, I leave it to any future thread finder to enter the thread, read through this latest exchange as one of their firsts based on the default thread formating, and approach the rest of the thread with the mindset this exchange is intended to give them.
Well, you come off quite poorly in this exchange, so I hope so.
And if I really cared about the thread formatting, then I could just pin every top-level comment besides the one above to force it to the bottom of the thread. But I don’t, so I’m not going to.
Now, mind you, responding for the last word after describing it as wasting your time, and thus demonstrating you both did not, in fact, have better things to do with your time and were predicted in doing so.
I said that you were wasting my time with your indirect approach to the issue, not that the whole conversation about that issue was a waste of time. In fact, I think it's a fine use of my time (that the all-important future readers may see, of course!) to tell you off for being disingenuous and inform you that you look incredibly silly. And maybe that will help you to do a bit better going forward, so my natural altruism pulls me to give you a hand in that regard as well.
Continuing after you characterize an argument a [sic] waste of time
Good thing I didn't do that then.
I would leave with asking if you thought this exchange brought about by your after-the-fact addition of a [perfectly legitimate factual update] strengthened or weakened the audience perception of the link-author's position, which you share. I will leave with asking you if you think that replying in any form will do the same.
Probably strengthened both, to be honest. You look extremely paranoid here, desperately trying to do damage control against an argument that wasn't even being made, on the basis of Kabbalah-level eisegesis over a single sentence. I think that I come off pretty well by comparison.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Probably the part about how Putin was not in fact totally gung-ho about NATO expansion in the early 2000s, seeing as that’s the sole topic of the article. But I know exactly as much as you do right now, so I don’t see much point in speculating.
I’m puzzled as to what you mean by an “appeal to authority.” The subject of the piece that I posted responded to the post, and I simply updated the thread with that fact, because it’s obviously relevant to anyone who was interested in the original debate. There’s no argument being made here. If and when McFaul expounds in more detail, I will edit the above post to reflect that as well, and for the same reason.
Apparently you do, or else you wouldn't have speculated a favorable interpretation of a non-position and thought it relevant a day later when the thread was already going cold.
I also note you didn't match the favorable section with a section that was not conceded or dismissed as wrong. This would have better demonstrated your awareness of the strengths, and limits, of the arguments being made, which might have helped justify the assumption of what section was being referred to positively.
Without an argument being made, McFaul is only relevant to be raised or identified in order to appeal to his authority. This authority may be 'as the person this argument is critiquing, my concession of legitimacy bestows weight on the argument's validity,' but (a) this is still appealing to the authority of a target to bestow legitimacy to the critique, and (b) there isn't actually a concession here to carry weight or bestow validity. It's only 'obviously relevant' in so much that it is used to present an assumption of agreement with an inferred argument to buttress on un-made stance because you started this thread without any sort of submission statement or position.
To update, there must be a date to 'up' so to speak, but so far your debate has been primarily in counter-arguments of people critiqueing the linked article. In the motte and bailey metaphor, that may be an attempt at guerrila warfare behind the attacker's line, but it's not clear there's an attacker here in the first place. An article writer made a critique. One of the personal subjects of the critique made a polite but non-committal concession of nothing specific or in particular. This changes, or challenges, none of the arguments involved by any of the players, on either side.
One of the common themes of the comments regarding this article has been it ignores relevant context, ie that it doesn't actually challenge a real position as much as a strawman or a framing. Counter-arguments by you to these charges do not constitute the original debate when the very premise of disagreement is being questioned. It may be an awkward attempt to have a debate, but it's poorly structured as one, not least for the fact that you neither claim the author speaks for you, which would tie you to a position you'd have to defend, nor do you speak for the author, which means your disputes on his intended meaning are as much a matter of opinion and position as anyone else's.
Really this thread is just an awkwardly formatted comment thread for an opinion peace on another website.
Because you explicitly asked me to. Don’t ask me a question and then turn around and cast aspersions on me for answering it. That doesn’t incline me to take on your questions in good faith going forward.
Then why didn’t you just let it cool, and instead decide to pepper me with elliptical, leading questions which have obviously been motivated by drawing out some perceived fault on my part, rather than just forthrightly saying what you thought I was doing and why you objected to it? That would have saved us both some time.
McFaul didn’t give any such section. I looked at all his tweets and replies since the piece came out. I can’t do the impossible.
Or to inform interested parties as to the reaction of the subject of the piece to that piece. Not exactly an alien practice! You seem determined to interpret a one-line comment in the most expansive and least charitable terms possible.
And I simply forgot to write a submission statement. I haven’t been very active here of late, so I’m not fresh on those rules, and if you look at my other link posts you’ll notice that I have a bad habit of forgetting to write them in general. With that said, I agree with Lemoine’s position, so he does speak for me in that sense, as should have been clear from the rest of my comments.
Sorry, what does this mean? I can’t tell from context.
I asked you to because you made an insinuation/claim for the public record without making an argument. When challenged, you simultaneously claimed you were not making any assumptions, after providing a favorable assumption, and since claimed you could not make an equivalent assumption on the same amount of information.
This is less a challenge of faith and more a challenge to you to speak clearly, with the intended purpose of letting any late-readers of your thread read your last position with the note that the implied argument was not only contested, but identified.
Because I was curious how you would respond in hopes of being proven wrong, and how you did was telling (and expected).
Also, as a framing device for future readers, and a tertiary goal of nudging you into being a bit better meta-awareness next time you want to post a thread.
You did, however, feel comfortable assuming a section that agreed with you despite the same lack of information. Which was the point- that you would assume a favorable and expansive interpretation when allowed, but then retreat to a more defensible position when challenged.
IE, the archetypical motte-and-bailey fallacy this community is named for.
Though your response were more demonstrative than descriptive, it highlighted in the possible final exchange of the thread your approach to the topic, and how your prior positions on the topic further down (in the default sorting way) will be perceived going forward.
Yes, this is pure meta.
Over-representing a one-line twitter comment in a more expansive and less charitable (to your opposition) way was rather the point of citing him. This is why we are calling out the contrast for meta purposes.
As for lack of charity, this sort of flaw is expected from you, hence why this response focuses on the meta-argumentive structure.
This is, alas, far too late to be particularly relevant to your execution of this debate, which has shifted firmly to the meta of this thread, and will continue to be meta so long as you lack an opening argument. Nor is it about the rules about this website specifically. While they are helpful reminders, it's hardly unique that a link to a source is not an implicit endorsement of the source or its framing, and that assuming so is a fallacious assumption.
If you want to speak clearly, you have to speak. It is not on the other party of a debate to strawman a position you may or may not agree with, nor are they obliged to have the debate you might prefer but didn't set out.
It means that your argument of providing more information for the original debate is flawed, because the original debate never existed.
The common theme of the top-level reply to your link is that the posters consistently felt that the link-author's argument lacks what they consider extremely relevant information needed to discuss the topic, which challenges the very premise of a debate on the article's subject. It innately turns any debate on the argument itself into a meta-argument not on the original link's line of argument, but on the argument construction and composition. In a thread literally including 'lies of omission' in the threat title, these amount to charges of... omission, a central challenge to the thesis.
Counter-arguing a meta-argument of insufficient evidence never relies on introducing new evidence not previously included. If you are convincing on the grounds of the new evidence provided, it demonstrates the objection's point that the original argument was lacking sufficient data. If you are not convincing on the grounds of new evidence provided, the meta-objection still stands.
The proper way to counter-argue a meta-argument of insufficient evidence is not to bring in new information, but to refute the relevancy of the categories of insufficient information. This is, however, a much harder task in the context of NATO expansion and Russia, as categories of relevancy referred to (contemporary and early post-cold-war Russian history, nuclear deterrence modeling, the relative relevance of sincerity, the presumption of spheres of influence to be respected, etc.) have relatively obvious relevance in an article touching on several of these things, to which you tried to counter by... making new arguments that the author didn't. Which is adding new arguments. Which returns to the previous paragraph on meta-argument by new information.
So, I leave it to any future thread finder to enter the thread, read through this latest exchange as one of their firsts based on the default thread formating, and approach the rest of the thread with the mindset this exchange is intended to give them.
Now is your turn, of course, to have the last reply in a dead and dying thread, to prove that you do not, in fact, have better things to spend your time on than the last word, etc. etc. I'm here for the framing, not the last word, so I'll even let you keep it.
Now, mind you, responding for the last word after describing it as wasting your time, and thus demonstrating you both did not, in fact, have better things to do with your time and were predicted in doing so. A successful prediction would indicate my successful modeling of you, and thus a handling of the meta of the conversation, regardless of what you actually say and do, and whether or not I reply. Whereas you not replying would undercut that specific argument, but would leave the main thesis present, and from a public perception of loss of control of the argument. If you continue, I am validated, if you do not, non-continuation comes off as a retreat.
...is what I would end with if the goal were to patronize you rather than try to improve you.
Yes, it would be a meta trap of sorts... but I bring this in the spirit of concluding meta-arguments, which is that seeking the last word in a public argument (such as the post-thread reference) isn't always an advantage, and if you're arguing for effect, can be actively detrimental. Which is why one should rarely refer to the end of the argument in final terms unless one is willing to leave without the last word. Continuing after you characterize an argument a waste of time is self-defeating, as is being predictable in one's reaching arguments. Rhetorical over-reach is something that can be leveraged against you, which is why identifying fallacies is a regular form of discrediting someone's position.
If you intend to argue for effect- which you clearly intended to by the way you approached this thread and topic in general- this is the sort of meta-dynamics you need to be cognizant of lest you undermine your own side. It is not enough to go 'this person's arguments are my own.' You will be in the position of defending the flaws of the other's argument, and in ways you are not capable of correctly defending against but will become party in discrediting them.
I would leave with asking if you thought this exchange brought about by your after-the-fact addition of a reaching insinuation strengthened or weakened the audience perception of the link-author's position, which you share. I will leave with asking you if you think that replying in any form will do the same. The answer will likely demonstrate the difference between arguing to argue, or arguing to have an impact.
[Insert sign off joke here]
I made a factual claim that was immediately verified by the link in the comment. No further argument was necessary, that's just how verification works.
It's not a "favorable assumption" to observe someone say that an article changed their mind on something and then infer that the thing that it changed their mind on was probably something related to the topic of the article. That's just called having the most rudimentary possible theory of mind.
The two statements were not equivalent. I first said I presumed it was something relevant to the topic of the article without saying what that relevant thing would be. Then you asked which specific parts would be relevant, and I kindly speculated about that for you, which speculation was not entailed by what I had said before. Or if it was, then you'll have to give some (presently lacking) proof of that fact, which would confirm that your further question was pointless and thus you were being even more disingenuous than in your initial question. So which is it?
OK, so as I suspected, you were being disingenuous and asking in bad faith. Thanks for confirming. I don't plan to entertain such overtures from you in the future.
I don't need to assume that, it's already been demonstrated. I agreed with the whole article, McFaul said he agreed with a part, a fortiori there is some section on which he agrees with me. QED
I didn't assert anything that McFaul himself omitted to say, so that's impossible. Quote me anything in the initial comment that wasn't a direct paraphrase of something McFaul said, explain why, and try again.
But I don't care whether the original argument had sufficient evidence or not, I care whether its conclusion is correct, and I'd be happy to evaluate all the outside evidence necessary to decisively establish that either way. And what's being argued over in this thread is the conclusion of the argument, not its construction. (Or, at least, if you read my comments, you'll see that that's what I'm concerned to argue about, and I don't really care if others aren't.) This isn't debate club, there are no technical rules about what evidence you're allowed to invoke here. Most of the rest of your post is otiose in light of this fact. Sorry you wasted your time on it.
Well, you come off quite poorly in this exchange, so I hope so.
And if I really cared about the thread formatting, then I could just pin every top-level comment besides the one above to force it to the bottom of the thread. But I don’t, so I’m not going to.
I said that you were wasting my time with your indirect approach to the issue, not that the whole conversation about that issue was a waste of time. In fact, I think it's a fine use of my time (that the all-important future readers may see, of course!) to tell you off for being disingenuous and inform you that you look incredibly silly. And maybe that will help you to do a bit better going forward, so my natural altruism pulls me to give you a hand in that regard as well.
Good thing I didn't do that then.
Probably strengthened both, to be honest. You look extremely paranoid here, desperately trying to do damage control against an argument that wasn't even being made, on the basis of Kabbalah-level eisegesis over a single sentence. I think that I come off pretty well by comparison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link