This treats arguments like opaque tokens where we know in advance which are good and bad, and need to make sure we have lots of good and few bad. But actually arguments have content and to know whether they are good or bad, we have to engage with them.

I’m going to be perfectly honest, I have no idea what you mean in this context/what you’re saying to me once I get past the first comma.

I'm saying you're not engaging with the substance of his point.

If I were to say, "America had a negative impact in geopolitics when it invaded Iraq," it's like you responded with "I'm sorry, but that just seems anti-American."

Just wanted to say that this was an excellent example to illustrate your case.

I don’t think that’s a particularly fair or accurate assessment of what I said.

You could say similar of any technology, as they all extend and amputate ourselves in some way. I read the Schopenhauer line as a sentiment against technosolutionism; technology like books are fine in moderation, but they are not replacements for the reality of lived experience.

See Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman for better arguments.

Came here to mention those two.

It’s a subtle message. Technology giveth and technology taketh. Use of any technology is a trade off.

I definitely see that interpretation and it’s how I would take it personally, I’m just kind of musing.

To me it reads like anti-consumerism.

If you only consume and don’t create, your mind gradually loses its capacity for creativity [and you will eventually have to reacquire it, the same way a comatose patient needs to relearn walking].

> an anti-education message

But since when is all reading "education"? I see a lot of people reading a lot of trash and could be spending their time reading Dostoevsky, or better yet plotting their own murder + burglaries !

That’s not really what I said nor do I disagree.