you seem to not defend all of EA, but whatever part of EA that is most easily defendable in the particular paragraph, such as arguing that EA does not require people to always follow its moral implications, only sometimesâwhich some EAers might agree with, but certainly not all.
This criticism suggests that you have not understood the point of the paper. Iâm defending the coreideas behind EA. Itâs just a basic logical point that defending EA principles as such does not require defending the more specific views of particular EAs.
In many instances, it seems that you argue against strawpeople rather than engaging with criticism of EA in good faith, and even worse, the arguments you use to counter the criticism boil down to what EA is advocating for âobviouslyâ being correct
This is far too vague to be helpful (and so comes off as gratuitously insulting). What instances? Which of my specific counterarguments do you find unpersuasive, and why? I do indeed conclude that the core principles of EA are undeniably correct. I never claim that any specific causes EAs âadvocate forâ are even correct at all, let alone obviously so.
I believe that if an argument cannot be made in a convincing way, we should either focus more time on making it properly, or dropping the discussion entirely, rather than just vaguely pointing towards something and hoping for the best
I agree with that methodological claim. (I flag the brevity just to indicate that there is, of course, always more that could be said. But I wouldnât say what I do if I didnât think it was productive and important, even in its brief form.) I believe that I made convincing arguments that go beyond âvaguely pointing⌠and hoping for the best.â Perhaps you could apply this same methodological principle to your own comments.
I understand that my vague criticism was unhelpful; sadly, when posting I did not have enough time to really point out specific instances, and thought it would still be higher value to mention it in general than to just not write anything at all.
I will try to find the time now to write down my criticisms in more detail, and once I am ready will comment then on the question of Dr. David Mathers above, as he also asked for it (and by commenting here and there, you both will be notified. Hooray.)
This criticism suggests that you have not understood the point of the paper. Iâm defending the core ideas behind EA. Itâs just a basic logical point that defending EA principles as such does not require defending the more specific views of particular EAs.
This is far too vague to be helpful (and so comes off as gratuitously insulting). What instances? Which of my specific counterarguments do you find unpersuasive, and why? I do indeed conclude that the core principles of EA are undeniably correct. I never claim that any specific causes EAs âadvocate forâ are even correct at all, let alone obviously so.
I agree with that methodological claim. (I flag the brevity just to indicate that there is, of course, always more that could be said. But I wouldnât say what I do if I didnât think it was productive and important, even in its brief form.) I believe that I made convincing arguments that go beyond âvaguely pointing⌠and hoping for the best.â Perhaps you could apply this same methodological principle to your own comments.
I understand that my vague criticism was unhelpful; sadly, when posting I did not have enough time to really point out specific instances, and thought it would still be higher value to mention it in general than to just not write anything at all.
I will try to find the time now to write down my criticisms in more detail, and once I am ready will comment then on the question of Dr. David Mathers above, as he also asked for it (and by commenting here and there, you both will be notified. Hooray.)