I've heard Bret's argument ad nauseam in my line of research, which is why I'm sick of hearing it. And your criticisms can be applied just as easily to you as to me. But it's my birthday and I'm not going to waste it on a pointless argument on Twitter, so see you later.
-
-
lol, no shit. That is why I began by applying it to myself as well. But I’m not attempting to characterize your intentions, merely pointing out that you’ve imposed the frame of your interpretation upon his intent in a manner that implies your interpretation readily generalizes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @G_S_Bhogal and
And that at least one person, namely me, did not interpret what he said in a manner congruent with your generalization. Following this logic, it’s often constructive to avoid over-generalizing one’s own interpretation beyond the limits of perspectival acknowledgement.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The fact that you accuse me of ascribing intent to Bret when I have made no mention of Bret's intent at all is further evidence that you should take your own advice of "avoid[ing] over-generalizing one’s own interpretation beyond the limits of perspectival acknowledgement."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Read your words again, beginning with “Brett suggested”. How do you know what he was suggesting? You don’t. And that’s where your assumptions concerning his message, which animate the rest of your critiques, becomes clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @G_S_Bhogal and
Assuming you can tell me what he “suggested” is assuming his intent, as suggestions imply an intended interpretation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
No it's not. It's about the implications of his words, which are obvious. If his message is this unclear to you, then so should mine be, in which case you have no grounds to argue with me, because you can't be sure of my intent. (You see how idiotic this line of reasoning is?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The fact that you’re arguing about said implications online with multiple people undermines your point rather severely. And calling people names doesn’t nullify said performative contradiction.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Many people believe Muhammad split the moon in two. Does that undermine science rather severely? And I called your line of reasoning idiotic, not you, because it leads to what you call "performative contradiction".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So let me get this straight: in your analogy your interpretation of Brett’s words is equivalent to knowledge generated by the scientific method? Here I’d return to my point concerning humility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If you're sincere, you'll take your own advice by showing some humility, and refraining from ascribing intentions to me and implications to what I say.
-
-
I haven’t said anything about your intentions, and have no reason to think they’re malicious, which is precisely why I tried to approach this somewhat gently before you began leveling insults about my muddying the waters etc.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.