What would be your goal in "refuting" these arguments? Is it not just another form of taking the bait (albeit making it slightly harder for the other side)?
As the article states:
> Alice, for her part, didn’t bother bringing up that she never accused Beth of being careless, or that Beth had no stake in the matter. She saw no point in pretending that boxing in Beth and the other careful self- diagnosers in with the careless ones wasn’t her strategy all along.
The whole conversation is opened with the thinly-veiled intention of discrediting (all) self-diagnosed autists in an uncharitable bad-faith argument. Do you think you'd be somehow able to steer it away from this very specific intention of the original author?
I will admit that this opens the door for other readers to not be swayed by the original "argument" (at least not to the same degree). But overall the question remains how you avoid fighting a losing battle.
As the article states:
> Alice, for her part, didn’t bother bringing up that she never accused Beth of being careless, or that Beth had no stake in the matter. She saw no point in pretending that boxing in Beth and the other careful self- diagnosers in with the careless ones wasn’t her strategy all along.
The whole conversation is opened with the thinly-veiled intention of discrediting (all) self-diagnosed autists in an uncharitable bad-faith argument. Do you think you'd be somehow able to steer it away from this very specific intention of the original author?
I will admit that this opens the door for other readers to not be swayed by the original "argument" (at least not to the same degree). But overall the question remains how you avoid fighting a losing battle.