[cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. Safety

[James A. Donald]

Mark Miller wrote:
 > * Insufficient appreciation by some of the
 > participants of how difficult it can be to uncover
 > what the real disagreements are behind apparently
 > opposed positions; and of how important it is to spend
 > this effort. Often, both sides rest on unstated
 > inarticulate assumptions that they can only discover
 > the need to state by wondering: "How could the other
 > side miss my point, which is so obvious to me?"

I am profoundly irritated when some says that I have not
explained X, and urges me to do so, when I have
explained X rather too many times, but evidently not to
his satisfaction.

A more appropriate statement would be the pious "I am
unable to follow your reasoning" - or the blunter "Your
argument makes no sense to me", preferably followed by
some illustrative explanation of why the argument seems
to fail in relevance or internal coherence, which
acknowledges that an attempt at argument has been made,
rather than the transparently false implication that no
argument was ever made.

If one of the parties denies that the other has even
attempted an explanation and argument, this is entirely
unresponsive, and thus makes progress in the discussion
impossible, dead ending the conversation and leading to
an exchange of insults.