4 ms·

Interesting. your comment uses Milos tactics exactly as you have written them, step by step, but never actually addresses his points but instead casually dismis

Interesting. your comment uses Milos tactics exactly as you have written them, step by step, but never actually addresses his points but instead casually dismisses them with one sentence asserting that he is wrong. You provide no counter point, but instead follow up With a tangential analysis of his technique instead of refuting his ideas or points. > He's wrong about everything, and it's important to understand just how he pulls it off. Why not address his points and his ideas if they are so dangerous and wrong? Why not debate the meat of his argument?

sevensor 9y ago
> Why not address his points and his ideas if they are so dangerous and wrong? Why not debate the meat of his argument? Because I'm not here to have that discussion. I don't think the Internet is the right forum for political debate. I'm here for the other discussion, which is about how universities are failing to teach children to think, ultimately undermining the Enlightenment principles upon which they were founded. Universities should be teaching their students to recognize and understand Milo's rhetorical techniques, how to pick apart his arguments and decide whether they hold water. This is what they ought to be doing instead of teaching that words are violence. Leave that to Depeche Mode. I put my analysis of Milo's technique in my comment so it would be clear that I did, in fact, spend 15 precious minutes of my life listening to his sophistry, and to illustrate the kind of analysis we should be teaching. I'm deeply uninterested in engaging in an internet debate about his ideas.
- ryanx435 9y ago
  > I'm deeply uninterested in engaging in an internet debate about his ideas. And yet here you are, trying to explain a rhetorical framework that you believe should be used to debate his ideas. It is FASCINATING that you seem to be unable or unwilling to address and debate his ideas directly and have instead switched to meta debate tactics that attack his rhetorical style instead. Again I ask you, why not debate the ideas themselves? They are the important part
  - sevensor 9y ago
    The article was about universities and the misperception of words as violence. That's what I came here to talk about. Why are you trying to get me to persuade you to change your opinion? If you've formed a different opinion than me, that's fine. I don't care what you think.
    - woodandsteel 9y ago
      He's trying to change the subject because he knows you are right in what you are saying about what universities should be doing, but doesn't want to admit it.
    - mercutio2 9y ago
      This is the first time I’ve seen sea-lioning in action on HN. Well done on refusing to rise to the bait!

sevensor 9y ago

> Why not address his points and his ideas if they are so dangerous and wrong? Why not debate the meat of his argument? Because I'm not here to have that discussion. I don't think the Internet is the right forum for political debate. I'm here for the other discussion, which is about how universities are failing to teach children to think, ultimately undermining the Enlightenment principles upon which they were founded. Universities should be teaching their students to recognize and understand Milo's rhetorical techniques, how to pick apart his arguments and decide whether they hold water. This is what they ought to be doing instead of teaching that words are violence. Leave that to Depeche Mode. I put my analysis of Milo's technique in my comment so it would be clear that I did, in fact, spend 15 precious minutes of my life listening to his sophistry, and to illustrate the kind of analysis we should be teaching. I'm deeply uninterested in engaging in an internet debate about his ideas.

ryanx435 9y ago
> I'm deeply uninterested in engaging in an internet debate about his ideas. And yet here you are, trying to explain a rhetorical framework that you believe should be used to debate his ideas. It is FASCINATING that you seem to be unable or unwilling to address and debate his ideas directly and have instead switched to meta debate tactics that attack his rhetorical style instead. Again I ask you, why not debate the ideas themselves? They are the important part
- sevensor 9y ago
  The article was about universities and the misperception of words as violence. That's what I came here to talk about. Why are you trying to get me to persuade you to change your opinion? If you've formed a different opinion than me, that's fine. I don't care what you think.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    He's trying to change the subject because he knows you are right in what you are saying about what universities should be doing, but doesn't want to admit it.
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    This is the first time I’ve seen sea-lioning in action on HN. Well done on refusing to rise to the bait!