5 ms·

> Calling somebody a hippie Please stop. You are reading what you want to read and not what was written. Where did I call someone a hippie? I called it "hip

> Calling somebody a hippie Please stop. You are reading what you want to read and not what was written. Where did I call someone a hippie? I called it "hippie logic". This is what I said: > What kind of hippie logic is this? I did not call a person a hippie. And, besides, since when is hippie a pejorative anyway? It's like saying "drunken logic". You are not calling someone a drunk. Geez. Nah, people are just choosing to be offended because that's a thing today and piling-on with a holier-than-thou attitude is easier and if feels good. Funny thing about choosing to be offended --and it is a choice: Nothing happens. Your head does not explode. You can still walk and chew gum at the same time. It's one of those empty things people seem to love doing these days. They also believe they have an inherent right to never be offended by anything. Pretty funny considering the times we live in. It's OK. I get it. Still doesn't change the truth of the argument one bit. It is a great way to not have to argue facts though. Get a dozen people to be offended and very soon we are talking about that and nothing more. Do you know what would have been a far better response? To completely ignore the utterly insignificant "hippie logic" part and actually go after my argument.

scrollaway 10y ago
> Funny thing about choosing to be offended Stop already. I told you it has nothing to do with "being offended", merely keeping the tone friendly on a forum where that's appreciated. Nobody is getting offended. If anyone is, that would be you. > To completely ignore the utterly insignificant "hippie logic" part and actually go after my argument Why do you think I vouched your comment? Yet you chose to ignore that and instead, keep arguing about how "bullshit" it is that you're getting piled on. Take the damn hint.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  Don't know what vouching is. It sounds like I should thank you for it. Thanks. Reflecting upon these various exchanges I had a feeling that there's something odd at play. You see, people such as yourself have consistently misconstrued or misunderstood what I've been saying, both in tone and content. Your last comment is no different. At first I thought it was just people choosing to be offended for a truly silly comment intended more as a joke than anything else. A friendly jab, if you will. Yet, I did not say or mean what you say I said or meant. Not once. And so I wonder if there's a language barrier of some sort at play here. Either that or a simple case of text-based communications being imperfect enough at times that it can lead to people reading something very different from what the author meant to say. I have a feeling it's a bit like this scene, where two people almost come to blows due to a misunderstanding in language and intent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguKaKMMKaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguKaKMMKaM I'll leave it at that.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    Your comment was flagged by users due to the reasons I mentioned. Vouching makes it visible again. I'm fairly certain there is some form of language barrier at play here which is why myself and many others have been trying to engage with you rather than dismissing your messages. You have a lot of people reacting negatively to the tone and language you used in your post; insisting on phrasing such as "hippie logic" and just generally taking a negative stance in the replies. I want to highlight this: nobody here is getting offended at your posts. Likewise, nobody talking to you about tone is calling out the meat of your argument. You replied to a post further down saying "The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger". Yet, that post did not question the validity of your argument. It questioned the language you used, which is entirely dependent on the messenger. MaulingMonkey already tried explaining this to you: this is a super ineffective debate technique. You're getting people to flag your post instead of getting them to read it. HN is not a community that rewards "who speaks the loudest". I also understand you may genuinely think it's "hippie logic" and in your view, you're just "telling it like it is" by calling it so. Let me put it this way: In my view, believing in an all-knowing all-loving deity is crock. But if I'm engaging a theist especially if I'm going to debate with them, I'm going to respect them and their viewpoint even if I don't believe or disagree with it. And here, you may well be engaging with people who believe in that hippie logic; if you want to convince them otherwise, not using that language will go a long way to get your point across. You can email me (it's on my profile) if you want to discuss this more in private.
    - rebootthesystem 10y ago
      I think the difference here is that my "hippie logic" term was taken completely out of context and translated into a negative tone. And, yes, I got defensive because that's not how I meant it at all and nobody seemed to want to discuss the real points being made at all. So it quickly got completely twisted into a version of that scene in the video I linked. If we were talking face to face and I said "man, that's just a silly argument" or "you must be drunk to think that way" you'd know it was offered in a friendly tone not in a negative aggressive one. My mistake: I should have added a happy face. Thanks for your patience. Be well. PS. I've pretty much given up debating theists. Not enough hours in a day (there's a pun there somewhere).

scrollaway 10y ago

> Funny thing about choosing to be offended Stop already. I told you it has nothing to do with "being offended", merely keeping the tone friendly on a forum where that's appreciated. Nobody is getting offended. If anyone is, that would be you. > To completely ignore the utterly insignificant "hippie logic" part and actually go after my argument Why do you think I vouched your comment? Yet you chose to ignore that and instead, keep arguing about how "bullshit" it is that you're getting piled on. Take the damn hint.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
Don't know what vouching is. It sounds like I should thank you for it. Thanks. Reflecting upon these various exchanges I had a feeling that there's something odd at play. You see, people such as yourself have consistently misconstrued or misunderstood what I've been saying, both in tone and content. Your last comment is no different. At first I thought it was just people choosing to be offended for a truly silly comment intended more as a joke than anything else. A friendly jab, if you will. Yet, I did not say or mean what you say I said or meant. Not once. And so I wonder if there's a language barrier of some sort at play here. Either that or a simple case of text-based communications being imperfect enough at times that it can lead to people reading something very different from what the author meant to say. I have a feeling it's a bit like this scene, where two people almost come to blows due to a misunderstanding in language and intent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguKaKMMKaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguKaKMMKaM I'll leave it at that.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Your comment was flagged by users due to the reasons I mentioned. Vouching makes it visible again. I'm fairly certain there is some form of language barrier at play here which is why myself and many others have been trying to engage with you rather than dismissing your messages. You have a lot of people reacting negatively to the tone and language you used in your post; insisting on phrasing such as "hippie logic" and just generally taking a negative stance in the replies. I want to highlight this: nobody here is getting offended at your posts. Likewise, nobody talking to you about tone is calling out the meat of your argument. You replied to a post further down saying "The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger". Yet, that post did not question the validity of your argument. It questioned the language you used, which is entirely dependent on the messenger. MaulingMonkey already tried explaining this to you: this is a super ineffective debate technique. You're getting people to flag your post instead of getting them to read it. HN is not a community that rewards "who speaks the loudest". I also understand you may genuinely think it's "hippie logic" and in your view, you're just "telling it like it is" by calling it so. Let me put it this way: In my view, believing in an all-knowing all-loving deity is crock. But if I'm engaging a theist especially if I'm going to debate with them, I'm going to respect them and their viewpoint even if I don't believe or disagree with it. And here, you may well be engaging with people who believe in that hippie logic; if you want to convince them otherwise, not using that language will go a long way to get your point across. You can email me (it's on my profile) if you want to discuss this more in private.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    I think the difference here is that my "hippie logic" term was taken completely out of context and translated into a negative tone. And, yes, I got defensive because that's not how I meant it at all and nobody seemed to want to discuss the real points being made at all. So it quickly got completely twisted into a version of that scene in the video I linked. If we were talking face to face and I said "man, that's just a silly argument" or "you must be drunk to think that way" you'd know it was offered in a friendly tone not in a negative aggressive one. My mistake: I should have added a happy face. Thanks for your patience. Be well. PS. I've pretty much given up debating theists. Not enough hours in a day (there's a pun there somewhere).