Bryn's Criticism

> 1) Ask Yourself's word choices are all confusing. They can only be said to be proprietary usage and some of it is unclear. I will try and explain how he uses these words so that people who understand their words as they are commonly used will be able to follow.
>
>
>

Trait - I don't think that in general people are going to be confused about this term as used, nor the definition supplied. The point of the supplied definition is to avoid commitments to certain metaphysical views, that's all. Trait stack v value pluralism? This is confused. Trait stack is just sort of a slanged way to group the concepts of an array of traits that are supposed to be the explanation. People are generally going to get the idea, without having to get bogged down immediately with the differences between a disjunctive or conjunctive grouping. Absurdity is used in a pretty standard way, a definition is even provided. The reason the scope isn't made is because the scope is irrelevant in a pure sense, it only matters in a psychological sense. Dishonest, sophist, weasel... don't appear in the argument, this is just criticizing Isaac's rhetoric? Who cares.

> 2) The syllogism is badly written, confusing, and any common understanding of English will render it either false or incoherent. I consider this a minor critique, though people have taken it as though I'm making some devastating takedown. The truth of it is that with some minor edits, it's fine and that the general idea behind the syllogism is fine as well. Keep in mind that while I address other criticisms, I will be steel manning the poor writing so that I can address other critiques.
>
>
>

The dialogue flow is pretty common english, the argument is written so as to be concise and formal. This criticism seems confused. No substantiation of falsity or incoherence.

> 3) There are some minor writing problems and some major unsubstantiated claims within the dialogue tree.
>
>
>

WE1 : This correction is pointless, the point just is defined as when the value sufficiently swaps.. just because it is multiply realizable is irrelevant

UC1: This is confused, there's no substantive difference between 1 and 2.The point of P3 just is that if we were going along some well-defined TEP 1 would occur at every spot and as a result 2 is the case. The fact that the average person acts without considering their values is irrelevant.
WE2: Fair enough but who cares

UC2: Again, the scope here of absurdity is sort of irrelevant. But the critique is even more confused. Suggesting that the example given has a reductio is absurd does not imply any kind of necessitation. The thrust of the vegan's case just is that so far no set of traits has been given without a reductio, as you mention yourself. This is sufficient.

> 4) There seem to be some philosophical assumptions taking place in the rhetoric that fails to be reasoned. It seems as though there is a commitment to what a moral conversation is like and how it proceeds in order for Name the Trait to have any value as a rhetorical strategy.
>
>
>

This is largely a confusion about NTT. NTT is not a modus tolens on the normative ethic (although it can be, if eating animals is desired). NTT simply uncovers the consequences of an already established set of *norms*. It's not much more demanding than that. There's no reason the metaethics, normative ethics, theistic views, or any view at all of the person running NTT should come up. Someone can read NTT off of a computer screen and the argument will still stand. The descriptivist objection here is irrelevant. Under a descriptivist account, all NTT seeks to do is uncover our sentiments or reactions to our actions upon analysis. There's no need to assume a concrete normative ethics beforehand. This objection seems more in the line of getting at whether NTT supposes generalism, but there's no reason to think NTT fails there so long as they're willing to grant anything but the most extremes of particularism.

## Response to Criticism

A lot of the criticism starts with "This is confused." I have no idea what Bryn means by that as he doesn't really explain himself all too well. I'll point it out as I go along.

> I don't think that in general people are going to be confused about this term as used, nor the definition supplied. The point of the supplied definition is to avoid commitments to certain metaphysical views, that's all.
>
>

I'd be glad to put it to an empirical test that most people would find "There is a bottle 5 feet to the right of you" not what think of when they think "Trait." Avoiding commitments is fine, maybe find a word combination that fits that. It's not my fault you didn't.

> Trait stack v value pluralism? This is confused. Trait stack is just sort of a slanged way to group the concepts of an array of traits that are supposed to be the explanation. People are generally going to get the idea, without having to get bogged down immediately with the differences between a disjunctive or conjunctive grouping.
>
>

I know what it is. I also know that people can get the concept. I wrote that part so people would, because it's not like anyone has any idea what a "Trait Stack" is without explanation. How is that "confused"?

> Absurdity is used in a pretty standard way, a definition is even provided. The reason the scope isn't made is because the scope is irrelevant in a pure sense, it only matters in a psychological sense
>
>

"Irrelevant in a pure sense, it only matters in a psychological sense." I'd love definitions of what those terms mean. I'm pretty sure that the people being told their view is "absurd" would be interested in knowing the scope of that statement. Just sounds like a way of avoiding having to provide a scope.

> Dishonest, sophist, weasel... don't appear in the argument, this is just criticizing Isaac's rhetoric? Who cares.
>
>

It's almost like at the start of the article I said I'd be talking about the rhetoric! Who cares? The people reading the article who care about rhetoric, that's who. What a pointless comment.

> The dialogue flow is pretty common english, the argument is written so as to be concise and formal. This criticism seems confused. No substantiation of falsity or incoherence.
>
>

I think you are confused about the criticism. Did I say it failed to be concise or formal? And what do you mean no substantiation? The argument for that is written below. I'll assume you wrote this before scrolling down. Also, not every criticism is about falsity or incoherence. Do you think those are the only sorts of criticisms that exist? I hope not.

> WE1 : This correction is pointless, the point just is defined as when the value sufficiently swaps.. just because it is multiply realizable is irrelevant
>
>

Yeah, it's not written like that. It says "THIS point", implying it's talking about a specific point. "A point" would be how you write it for any point. Or just "any point." It's not on me that you don't write it correctly.

> UC1: This is confused, there's no substantive difference between 1 and 2.The point of P3 just is that if we were going along some well-defined TEP 1 would occur at every spot and as a result 2 is the case. The fact that the average person acts without considering their values is irrelevant.
>
>

This particular response seems like you didn't understand what I wrote. Mostly, it sounds like you didn't understand what 1) was saying. Perhaps message me and get that sorted out. Also, the fact that the average person acts without considering their values is relevant to what is written in UC1 on the point of absurdity, depending on the scope of absurdity. Did you not understand that?

> WE2: Fair enough but who cares
>
>

People concerned with their writing being clear. If you're not, carry on with your day.

> UC2: Again, the scope here of absurdity is sort of irrelevant. But the critique is even more confused. Suggesting that the example given has a reductio is absurd does not imply any kind of necessitation.
>
>

It's relevant as the truth of the statement is dependent on the scope. Maybe you find that irrelevant to something else? Who knows. There is no "example given" in a dialogue flow chart that is made to handle all examples. Do you have a different dialogue flow tree for certain types of examples and this one only applies to a subset? No? Then I take it as written: Whatever X is, it's reductio is absurd. And that goes beyond your limits of saying. So what am I confused about, again?

> The thrust of the vegan's case just is that so far no set of traits has been given without a reductio, as you mention yourself. This is sufficient.
>
>

Then write that, as I mentioned myself.

> This is largely a confusion about NTT. NTT is not a modus tolens on the normative ethic (although it can be, if eating animals is desired). NTT simply uncovers the consequences of an already established set of *norms*. It's not much more demanding than that. There's no reason the metaethics, normative ethics, theistic views, or any view at all of the person running NTT should come up. Someone can read NTT off of a computer screen and the argument will still stand. The descriptivist objection here is irrelevant. Under a descriptivist account, all NTT seeks to do is uncover our sentiments or reactions to our actions upon analysis. There's no need to assume a concrete normative ethics beforehand. This objection seems more in the line of getting at whether NTT supposes generalism, but there's no reason to think NTT fails there so long as they're willing to grant anything but the most extremes of particularism.
>
>

I'll assume you didn't scroll down and read the part about rhetoric, since I didn't see you quote any of it and respond to any of it.

But in the event you respond to what I *actually wrote*, and give me the "That's not what NTT is about": I have no expectations that you'll affirm the common rhetoric that surrounds NTT. Anyone can watch the videos with AY, Avi, VG, or other endorsed YouTubers and see whether my writing rings true. If you want to show me footage of NTT being used to "simply uncovering the consequences of an already established norm" with the other statements I say about the rhetoric being false, more so than I can show it is true, I'll consider myself wrong on this front. I'll not be waiting for you to just endorse what I'm saying as true as I have no confidence in your honesty.

## Conclusion

This was unfortunately a very lazy response. Lots of claims of "Confusion" and "Irrelevance" without any substance backing that up. If you want to say I'm confused, write: "You believe it is X, but actually it's Y" or something of that nature. And if something is irrelevant, what is it irrelevant towards? And why should I care about that particular thing it's not relevant to instead of *the thing I'm actually writing about?* Much of what was written seemed to show a failure in reading the whole thing or comprehending what is written.

I'll not respond to another Bryn Criticism if it's not shown to understand that which it is criticizing.