3 ms·

Ad hominem is not a useful or contentful response. Again, an attempt at ridicule over engaging with the ideas and content itself. I made a perfectly polite but

Ad hominem is not a useful or contentful response. Again, an attempt at ridicule over engaging with the ideas and content itself. I made a perfectly polite but strong objection on style and justification grounds. Your second half warrants response. The content of his response is irrelevant to the important point I raise, which unlike your ad hominem is about ensuring better more rational discussion: I think he's making a poor representation and skewing the average response with underhand rhetoric. 'Uh yeah' starts something less than useful. Using emotion, not reason. HN is about polite reasonable discourse. I have no _strong_ opinion YET (edit for emphasis, I'm thinking about this) on the actual literal content of the arguments at this juncture, though that may change as I read others' justifications, theories, data and references. Edit: My response is important for the content, as rhetorical tricks impact reception and evaluation of content. I object to emotive skews.

striking 10y ago
> jock-ish status games [in reference to 'Uh yeah'] If that's not impolite, (or for that matter, not an "emotive skew"), I don't know what is. > I have no opinion on the actual content of the arguments You directly admit that your comments are off-topic and unhelpful. Well, at least you're honest.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Edit: please cease continuing with ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the method and content. You are pulling this way away from my valid objection, which is Not offtopic: descriptive and the manner of fair debate and good epistemology is crucial in all scientific discussions. (Regretted word jockish edited , even if warranted) We really don't need any flame wars.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - striking 10y ago
    Continuing with ad hominem attacks? Please don't imply I'm attacking your character. I'm attacking your arguments and no more. I'm sure you're a perfectly acceptable person. And I disagree with more than just "jockish"; I quoted it because I thought it was the salient part of your comment. You're making a comment about the poster rather than his arguments. And that bothers me.
    - triplesec 10y ago
      Please stop. I like PG's How To Argue, and this is not worth the time. You are taking too much time to police what isn't needed, cherrypicking of my words to whiteknight these guys. Let them object if they wish. And we'll have a civil discussion. I'm making arguments about substantive matters that impact on the reception of the OP's argument. I say nothing about their character, and concentrate on their arguments. Method matters. But right now I'm more interested in headway on the original topic. Let's do that and go there instead?
      - daveloyall 10y ago
        What the actual f%^&? Either the study considers maturation or it doesn't.
      - striking 10y ago
        Well, no. At this point you're no longer just insulting them, you're also insulting me. I'm cherrypicking? Whiteknighting? Policing? Come on now. I'm replying to your comments in a level-headed fashion, and that's what you have to say to me? Talk about "method." You even restated that you think "jockish" was warranted after editing that comment. (This is my last reply.)

striking 10y ago

> jock-ish status games [in reference to 'Uh yeah'] If that's not impolite, (or for that matter, not an "emotive skew"), I don't know what is. > I have no opinion on the actual content of the arguments You directly admit that your comments are off-topic and unhelpful. Well, at least you're honest.

triplesec 10y ago
Edit: please cease continuing with ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the method and content. You are pulling this way away from my valid objection, which is Not offtopic: descriptive and the manner of fair debate and good epistemology is crucial in all scientific discussions. (Regretted word jockish edited , even if warranted) We really don't need any flame wars.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- striking 10y ago
  Continuing with ad hominem attacks? Please don't imply I'm attacking your character. I'm attacking your arguments and no more. I'm sure you're a perfectly acceptable person. And I disagree with more than just "jockish"; I quoted it because I thought it was the salient part of your comment. You're making a comment about the poster rather than his arguments. And that bothers me.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    Please stop. I like PG's How To Argue, and this is not worth the time. You are taking too much time to police what isn't needed, cherrypicking of my words to whiteknight these guys. Let them object if they wish. And we'll have a civil discussion. I'm making arguments about substantive matters that impact on the reception of the OP's argument. I say nothing about their character, and concentrate on their arguments. Method matters. But right now I'm more interested in headway on the original topic. Let's do that and go there instead?
    - daveloyall 10y ago
      What the actual f%^&? Either the study considers maturation or it doesn't.
    - striking 10y ago
      Well, no. At this point you're no longer just insulting them, you're also insulting me. I'm cherrypicking? Whiteknighting? Policing? Come on now. I'm replying to your comments in a level-headed fashion, and that's what you have to say to me? Talk about "method." You even restated that you think "jockish" was warranted after editing that comment. (This is my last reply.)