10 ms·

I strongly recommend you learn to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Helps keep things thoughtful and productive, and not just here either. :)

dredmorbius 11y ago
That's not an ad hom. It is pointed personal commentary.
- fabulist 11y ago
  You're wrong.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    An ad hominem isn't a random insult. It is a dismissing of an argument because of an irrellevant personal trait. E.g., yo're double jointed therefore you know nothing of erlang lathe forming. Relevant personal attributes, especially those which address credibility, are generally in bounds (see also "the asymmetry of bullshit", a/k/a Brandolino's law). And observations of personal character not used as basis for argument aren't ad homs. Full stop. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html If you're going to use logical fallacies, try to use them correctly. And while the initial comment whose tone you disagreed with, and the paragraph above may not be seen as acceptable on HN (I tend to feel they skate within bounds), both point out a category of error, and steps a person might take to correct them. Insufficient abstract interpretation in the first case, incorrect use of specific terminology in this case. Of course, you could simply insist on being wrong. But that's your call. Cheers.
    - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
      Yes, I agree it wasn't ad hominem, but you should really back up your insults. You just threw that out of left field, and provided no evidence that I lacked 'abstract thinking skills' or how they related to the rest of your comment at all. If the 'abstract thinking skills' was about inferring the context of your previous comment, I really hope you never accidentally miss some context in your life. You can prove your point without being a dick, especially when being a dick does nothing to help prove your point. A little politeness goes a long way.

dredmorbius 11y ago

That's not an ad hom. It is pointed personal commentary.

fabulist 11y ago
You're wrong.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  An ad hominem isn't a random insult. It is a dismissing of an argument because of an irrellevant personal trait. E.g., yo're double jointed therefore you know nothing of erlang lathe forming. Relevant personal attributes, especially those which address credibility, are generally in bounds (see also "the asymmetry of bullshit", a/k/a Brandolino's law). And observations of personal character not used as basis for argument aren't ad homs. Full stop. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html If you're going to use logical fallacies, try to use them correctly. And while the initial comment whose tone you disagreed with, and the paragraph above may not be seen as acceptable on HN (I tend to feel they skate within bounds), both point out a category of error, and steps a person might take to correct them. Insufficient abstract interpretation in the first case, incorrect use of specific terminology in this case. Of course, you could simply insist on being wrong. But that's your call. Cheers.
  - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
    Yes, I agree it wasn't ad hominem, but you should really back up your insults. You just threw that out of left field, and provided no evidence that I lacked 'abstract thinking skills' or how they related to the rest of your comment at all. If the 'abstract thinking skills' was about inferring the context of your previous comment, I really hope you never accidentally miss some context in your life. You can prove your point without being a dick, especially when being a dick does nothing to help prove your point. A little politeness goes a long way.