āThere 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.ā
Agreed. But you didnāt do that. You made a point which (without reading your supporting argumentation) interacted with none of what Will had said.
āI figured that was unnecessary, as the person I was replying to was already fully aware of what I had said in the other thread.ā
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 didnāt āfigure it was unnecessaryā for that reason. Iām not sure what your true reason was.
Agreed. But you didnāt 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 letās just be clear on what comments weāre referring to, so that we donāt 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 donāt like the idea of explicit principles.
Apparently you think I canāt say that I donāt like the idea of explicit principles without also adding āoh, by the way, hereās a link to other posts I made about how I donāt like everything else in your blog post.ā Yes, I could have done that. I chose not to. Why this matters, I donāt 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.
āThere 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.ā
Agreed. But you didnāt do that. You made a point which (without reading your supporting argumentation) interacted with none of what Will had said.
āI figured that was unnecessary, as the person I was replying to was already fully aware of what I had said in the other thread.ā
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 didnāt āfigure it was unnecessaryā for that reason. Iām 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 letās just be clear on what comments weāre referring to, so that we donāt 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 donāt like the idea of explicit principles.
Apparently you think I canāt say that I donāt like the idea of explicit principles without also adding āoh, by the way, hereās a link to other posts I made about how I donāt like everything else in your blog post.ā Yes, I could have done that. I chose not to. Why this matters, I donāt 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.