I downvoted both of these comments. I very rarely downvote comments.
Okay. Thanks for telling me? I downvote people all the time. It’s not a big deal.
If you don’t want to engage with the post, don’t post.
There is no obligation to respond to every point in a lengthy blog post in order to reply. If someone makes twenty claims, and one of them is false, I can point out that one of their claims is false and say nothing about the remaining nineteen. If I was saying “MacAskill’s blog post is totally wrong because of this one thing he said at the end,” you would have a point. But I didn’t say that.
If you want to point out that you have already engaged with the ideas in this post (which in your case I think is fair), then maybe link to your previous engagement as Peter did.
I figured that was unnecessary, as the person I was replying to was already fully aware of what I had said in the other thread.
“There is no obligation to respond to every point in a lengthy blog post in order to reply. If someone makes twenty claims, and one of them is false, I can point out that one of their claims is false and say nothing about the remaining nineteen.”
Agreed. But you didn’t do that. You made a point which (without reading your supporting argumentation) interacted with none of what Will had said.
“I figured that was unnecessary, as the person I was replying to was already fully aware of what I had said in the other thread.”
Your first comment was actually in reply to Will Macaskill, the OP. I see no reason to assume he, or any third party reading, was fully aware of what you had already said. So you certainly didn’t ‘figure it was unnecessary’ for that reason. I’m not sure what your true reason was.
Agreed. But you didn’t do that. You made a point which (without reading your supporting argumentation) interacted with none of what Will had said.
Sure it did. The OP suggested a body that made decisions based on some set of explicit principles. I objected to the idea of explicit principles.
Your first comment was actually in reply to Will Macaskill, the OP.
Okay, well then let’s just be clear on what comments we’re referring to, so that we don’t confuse each other like this.
Here this what happens. I argue in Thread A that making an EA gatekeeper panel would be a terrible idea. Then Thread B is created where the OP argues for an EA gatekeeper panel which is guided by explicit principles. In Thread B I state that I don’t like the idea of explicit principles.
Apparently you think I can’t say that I don’t like the idea of explicit principles without also adding “oh, by the way, here’s a link to other posts I made about how I don’t like everything else in your blog post.” Yes, I could have done that. I chose not to. Why this matters, I don’t know. In this case, I assumed that Will MacAskill, who is making the official statement on behalf of the CEA after careful evaluation and discussion behind the scenes, knew about the comments in the prior thread before making his post.
Okay. Thanks for telling me? I downvote people all the time. It’s not a big deal.
There is no obligation to respond to every point in a lengthy blog post in order to reply. If someone makes twenty claims, and one of them is false, I can point out that one of their claims is false and say nothing about the remaining nineteen. If I was saying “MacAskill’s blog post is totally wrong because of this one thing he said at the end,” you would have a point. But I didn’t say that.
I figured that was unnecessary, as the person I was replying to was already fully aware of what I had said in the other thread.
“There is no obligation to respond to every point in a lengthy blog post in order to reply. If someone makes twenty claims, and one of them is false, I can point out that one of their claims is false and say nothing about the remaining nineteen.”
Agreed. But you didn’t do that. You made a point which (without reading your supporting argumentation) interacted with none of what Will had said.
“I figured that was unnecessary, as the person I was replying to was already fully aware of what I had said in the other thread.”
Your first comment was actually in reply to Will Macaskill, the OP. I see no reason to assume he, or any third party reading, was fully aware of what you had already said. So you certainly didn’t ‘figure it was unnecessary’ for that reason. I’m not sure what your true reason was.
Sure it did. The OP suggested a body that made decisions based on some set of explicit principles. I objected to the idea of explicit principles.
Okay, well then let’s just be clear on what comments we’re referring to, so that we don’t confuse each other like this.
Here this what happens. I argue in Thread A that making an EA gatekeeper panel would be a terrible idea. Then Thread B is created where the OP argues for an EA gatekeeper panel which is guided by explicit principles. In Thread B I state that I don’t like the idea of explicit principles.
Apparently you think I can’t say that I don’t like the idea of explicit principles without also adding “oh, by the way, here’s a link to other posts I made about how I don’t like everything else in your blog post.” Yes, I could have done that. I chose not to. Why this matters, I don’t know. In this case, I assumed that Will MacAskill, who is making the official statement on behalf of the CEA after careful evaluation and discussion behind the scenes, knew about the comments in the prior thread before making his post.