← Back to context

Comment by rglullis

6 years ago

If you truly think such a principle can be "misused", then you really haven't understood it.

Really? I could have sworn that there were a whole host of techniques within the field of political rhetoric that could quite easily be relabelled; "Many interesting ways to misuse 'The Principle of Charity'".

The point at which I start to think it might be being misused is when it is not being used to look for a more gentle version of what could be unintentional ambiguity, but rather is being used to change meaning from the literal sense of a sentence to something in favor of a current position in a discussion, as this invites people to try and have their cake and eat it.

  • Yeah, either you really don't understand it or you are full-on bullshit mode to avoid conceding that your only objection to the OP was based on your misinterpretation of an hyperbole...

    • When using 'nobody' as hyperbole, it is generally used to mean 'very few', though some people also use it to mean 'nobody important', with themselves acting as judge of what, or who is important. One reason I feel free to treat the statement somewhat literally is that I am already including the hyperbole. It doesn't change my point if we shift from 'nobody' to 'very few', or 'nobody important'. There is a hell of a lot of stuff that people do that makes pretty much no business sense, or only ends up making some sort of rather inefficient business sense by accident because someone is trying to justify the fact that someone built it. There are wide open fields of this kind of stuff. A surprisingly large amount of it is in business.

      2 replies →