My brief response: I think it’s bad form to move the discussion to the meta-level (ie. “your comments are too terse”) instead of directly discussing the object-level issues.
Can this really be your complete response to my direct, fulsome answer of your question, which you have asked several times?
For example, can you explain why my lengthy comment isn’t a direct object level response?
Even much of my second comment is pointing out you omitted that MacAskill expressly answering why he supported funding LEEP, which is another object level response.
To be clear, I accuse you of engaging in bad faith rhetoric in your above comment and your last response, with an evasion that I specifically anticipated (“this allows the presenter pretend that they never made the implication, and then rake the respondent through their lengthy reply”).
Here’s some previous comments of yours that are more direct, and do not use the same patterns you are now using, where your views and attitudes are more clear.
Is this not laughable? How could anyone think that “looking at the 1000+ year effects of an action” is workable?
Strong waterism: dying of thirst is very bad, because it prevents all of the positive contributions you could make in your life. Therefore, the most important feature of our actions today is their impact on the stockpile of potable water.
If you just kept it in this longtermism/neartermism online thing (and drafted on the sentiment from one of the factions there), that’s OK.
This seems bad because I suspect you are entering into unrelated, technical discussions, for example, in economics, using some of the same rhetorical patterns, which I view as pretty bad, especially as it’s sort of flying under the radar.
Can this really be your complete response to my direct, fulsome answer of your question, which you have asked several times?
For example, can you explain why my lengthy comment isn’t a direct object level response?
Even much of my second comment is pointing out you omitted that MacAskill expressly answering why he supported funding LEEP, which is another object level response.
To be clear, I accuse you of engaging in bad faith rhetoric in your above comment and your last response, with an evasion that I specifically anticipated (“this allows the presenter pretend that they never made the implication, and then rake the respondent through their lengthy reply”).
Here’s some previous comments of yours that are more direct, and do not use the same patterns you are now using, where your views and attitudes are more clear.
If you just kept it in this longtermism/neartermism online thing (and drafted on the sentiment from one of the factions there), that’s OK.
This seems bad because I suspect you are entering into unrelated, technical discussions, for example, in economics, using some of the same rhetorical patterns, which I view as pretty bad, especially as it’s sort of flying under the radar.