5 ms·

He's questioned the judgment of the person writing the document based on his position which can introduce the bias similar to what we see in Andreessen. Not usi

He's questioned the judgment of the person writing the document based on his position which can introduce the bias similar to what we see in Andreessen. Not using the ideas described by said document would be the first step when discussing/critiquing it. Otherwise it would circular, no?

xiaoma 11y ago
No. If for example you wanted to discuss The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, the first step would not be to "not use the ideas described within (e.g. genetics and biology research)". Ignoring the topics within and attacking the author for what he later wrote about Atheism or how he behaved in interviews would a mindblowingly terrible way to critique his book about biology. When discussing or critiquing an essay, the first step is to actually address the ideas inside of it. Attacking the character of its author or other things they may have said about unrelated topics is not a rational substitute. In this case, geofft's comment is flawed on multiple levels. Aside from making a purely ad hominem argument against the 2008 essay How to Disagree, its specific attack was the author's twitter usage that occurred more than five years later.
- geofft 11y ago
  Did you read the remainder of my comment past the first sentence, or did you get distracted by the ad hominem? I admit that there is one, but it wasn't actually presented as an argument. The rest of it refutes the central point of the claim at hand, namely geomark's claim that people in this thread are violating DH0. They're not, and in fact I go on to agree with pg's framing of the hierarchy of disagreement in order for me to argue that the thread is at DH6. If you think that anything I say is invalidated because I put ad hominems at the top of my comments, well, uh... I'm not sure how to explain this to you, but.... (Oh, and if you think this is about Twitter usage alone, I'd like to amend my personal attack to remove the words "on Twitter", and then direct your attention at http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm .)
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    I read your comment in its entirety and didn't see any defense of the How to Disagree essay. The only mention I saw you make of it was the first paragraph with the ad hominem attack. To answer your question, no I don't think your usage of ad hominems invalidates everything you say. It does detract from the quality of the discussion and the pleasantness of the site, though. It also detracts from your ability to communicate effectively. I completely agree with geomark's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072755). There are a lot of comments on this article that are little more than name calling, personal attacks or uncharitable assumptions.

xiaoma 11y ago

No. If for example you wanted to discuss The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, the first step would not be to "not use the ideas described within (e.g. genetics and biology research)". Ignoring the topics within and attacking the author for what he later wrote about Atheism or how he behaved in interviews would a mindblowingly terrible way to critique his book about biology. When discussing or critiquing an essay, the first step is to actually address the ideas inside of it. Attacking the character of its author or other things they may have said about unrelated topics is not a rational substitute. In this case, geofft's comment is flawed on multiple levels. Aside from making a purely ad hominem argument against the 2008 essay How to Disagree, its specific attack was the author's twitter usage that occurred more than five years later.

geofft 11y ago
Did you read the remainder of my comment past the first sentence, or did you get distracted by the ad hominem? I admit that there is one, but it wasn't actually presented as an argument. The rest of it refutes the central point of the claim at hand, namely geomark's claim that people in this thread are violating DH0. They're not, and in fact I go on to agree with pg's framing of the hierarchy of disagreement in order for me to argue that the thread is at DH6. If you think that anything I say is invalidated because I put ad hominems at the top of my comments, well, uh... I'm not sure how to explain this to you, but.... (Oh, and if you think this is about Twitter usage alone, I'd like to amend my personal attack to remove the words "on Twitter", and then direct your attention at http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm .)
- xiaoma 11y ago
  I read your comment in its entirety and didn't see any defense of the How to Disagree essay. The only mention I saw you make of it was the first paragraph with the ad hominem attack. To answer your question, no I don't think your usage of ad hominems invalidates everything you say. It does detract from the quality of the discussion and the pleasantness of the site, though. It also detracts from your ability to communicate effectively. I completely agree with geomark's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072755). There are a lot of comments on this article that are little more than name calling, personal attacks or uncharitable assumptions.